My question comes from my desire to create unique effects and routines. I want to perform effects that people will remember me doing.

How can I make any effect truly original if it's based on something I read in someones book or saw on a dvd or at a lecture. I can't reinvent the wheel.

Here's an example. I recently bought Paul Gertner's Steel and Silver volume 2 DVD. On it are two very unique tricks. His Cups and Balls with steel ball bearings and ring around the hourglass. These effects are awesome and he shows how they are done on the DVD. But afterwards I thought to myself... what was the point in showing me how they are done... I mean they are so unique that I could never do them without being compared to Paul. Or worse be accused of stealing his effects. Some effects are so uniquely tied to a certain performer that it's impossible to do a similar effect without the comparison. If anyone out there tried to vanish a building or statue etc. they are immediatly compared to David Copperfield.

I guess my question is this? How much of the original effect must be removed in order to render it 'ownerless' but maintain it's impact.

I hope this topic/question makes sense and gets lots of responses.

Thanks
Eric Falconer
Houston TX

RE: "My question comes from my desire to create unique effects and routines. I want to perform effects that people will remember me doing."

I think that the way to begin the search for a truly unique effect is to read, watch, listen, etc., to everything you can possible get your hands on, and do this over a fair amount of time. Build a knowledge base that is vast enough so that you start applying your general knowledge of magic, theory, presentation, and mechanics... as opposed to applying the specific knowledge you get from watching someone's video or DVD, and then trying to disect that person's routine down to a level where you can rebuild it as your own. For example, Slydini's "Paper Napkins" will always be Slydini's, no matter how you strip it down or try to reinvent it.

What made the steel ball bearing routine that you saw unique? Was it the cups or the balls? Or was it something else?

Best,

Mike

The point in showing you how it was done is to show you Paul's thinking process as he solved the problems encountered when creating the effect. When you have a problem when creating an effect, perhaps it will trigger a solution in your mind.

I guess just that it was steel ball bearings and that he used sound as misdirection. You'd have to see the routine to know what I mean. I've seen many different cups and balls routines with countless variations, but he's the only one that uses steel ball bearings (That I've seen anyway). I would love to do the cups and balls with steel ball bearings but I know that no matter how much I changed the routine it would still be pauls by the fact that it uses steel ball bearings....

I guess the question I'm asking is....
When can you claim the effect yours?

eg with Paul Gertner's cups and balls w/SBB.... I could never call it mine because fundamentally it is Pauls. I couldn't change it enough and retain any semblance of the original effect in order to make it mine.

You certainly could! If every move and the very look and essence of the routine were different from Gertner's routine, but you still used ball bearings; then you would have an original routine.

If you did Gertner's routine move for move but changed to marbles or some other ball instead of bearings it would not be original at all.

My point is it is not the ball bearings which make Gertner's routine "his". It is everything else. Once you embace this and discover your own "everything else", then you will be on the road to original performance of magic.

When your purpose for performing is original and genuine to you, then you are the right track.

Cheers,

Tom

I'm learning there's a process:

1) See cool trick
2) Buy cool trick (or book, or video, etc)
3) Learn cool trick
4) Try out cool trick six or seven times in front of forgiving people
5) Discover the words *you* want to say while doing it, as opposed to the words the author sent with the trick
6) Discover new finesses, changes in the routine, hidden moments not mentioned in the instructions
7) Keep doing (5) and (6) for as long as you do the trick in front of people...

and pretty soon the effect *is* yours. While there's only a finite number of props out there, there's millions of ways to use them. And so far, I haven't gotten beaten up by anyone for starting from their instructions and evolving the effect from there (um, right, Mr. Haydn?)

Tobias!

Re: How much of the original effect must be removed in order to render it 'ownerless' but maintain it's impact.

Sorry, it's not a surgical procedure. Creating art is closer to growing something in your garden than replacing parts on your car.

Just find the things that speak to you, and work with them in the ways that seem to work for you.

An effect is yours when no part of it resembles anyone else's. You're right, you can't reinvent the wheel, but your CAN decide, among other things, which direction the wheel rolls.

If you want to do a routine that resembles Gertner's Steel and Silver, and your goal is originality, then get in contact with Paul, show him your routine, and get his approval. This would mark you as a true gentleman of magic.

As far as performing effects that your audience will remember you doing, always remember, it's not what you do, but how you do it. Find a way to make YOU memorable, not your tricks.

-E

In the book, “Our Magic”, Maskelyne and Devant wrote a chapter called “The Three Degrees of Art.” These are False Art, Normal Art, and High Art. Most good performers use Normal Art in most of their presentations.

From “Our Magic”, by Maskelyne and Devant, “The Three Degrees of Art”, page 19.

That being said, Maskelyne and Devant (more likely Maskylene I expect) define what it means to be original in the context of using ideas that already exist, i.e. Normal Art:

From “Our Magic”, by Maskelyne and Devant, “The Three Degrees of Art”, page 17.

Nice to quote M&D... when most folks don't get as far as 'Normal Art' ie taking what is for the most part standard means and some routining to accomplish a novel story or effect. I hold the combination of known means to accomplish a known effect... craftsmanship... not so much art.

Striving for 'Normal' art is laudable. I support that effort and such is why I post here. Those who want to go for 'High Art' tend to take their discussions offline.

Tom Cutts writes: "If every move and the very look and essence of the routine were different from Gertner's routine, but you still used ball bearings; then you would have an original routine."

Well, not really.

As long as it's based on an idea of Gertner's then it's not original.

For example, if I do the Zombie using a fish instead of a ball, I haven't created a new effect. Joe Karsen is still the inventor of Zombie and all I have done is change his original idea.

And Eric Falconer writes, in the original post: "Some effects are so uniquely tied to a certain performer that it's impossible to do a similar effect without the comparison."

That sort of insightful thinking will eventually lead you to what you want.

Most performers will simply make a couple of superficial changes and honestly think that it is a new effect.

You look beyond that and into the very heart of the mystery. That's not only rare among performers, it's also very good!

I am working on a routine for myself right now. The concept is not new and the type of routine has been done before. It has also been inspired by another performer's routine. When all is said and done though, the routine I am working on is mine. The method is unique, from what I have been told, and the routine script is my creation/evolution. This and this alone makes it mine. But it is also what sets it apart from what is out there already.

Samuel

Your work will always be your work. As to how original it is... who knows? As to its artistic merit... first the thing has to work, and then one would need some detail and expertise to make that assessment.

I have to agree with JT. But we do have to remain aware of some aspects of intellectual property law. The music industry is good at protecting the rights to use their product. So with film, TV, and stage.

The creators of complete effects certainly have rights in their work that deserve respect. However, as I see it, what they own is the script, "look and feel", design (mechanical and esthetic) of the props, blocking and/or choreography, and so forth as a complete package.

If I am inspired to create a similar kind of effect, I don't see myself as in ethical trouble. Inspiration has to come from somewhere.

However, if I seek to pass off my effect as "the same" either through deceptive marketing or by just performing the same words, movements, props, etc., then that would be unethical.

How different is enough? Enough so its different.

................QUOTE................... You're right, you can't reinvent the wheel, but you can decide, among other things, which way the wheel rolls.


If you can't reinvent the wheel, why not create your own? HEHEHEHE

I believe once you have YOUR OWN WHEEL, this is when the creativity/individuality will increase exponentially.

Peter

I have on a couple occasions came up with a trick I never saw and then was told by another magician it was already done-- What if I marketed a trick and found out later it was done already?

I think the posters who mention , at least as far as your stated intent in the original post, that your performance is the key, are spot on!
I do recall as a child seeing Carl Ballantine do the "Disappearing Radio"
Now I am not quite the magic historian I would like to be, but I do know that the trick was done by others before him. It was however, HIS version- granted a comedy version, but still his style, version that I remember! Even when the updated disappearing Boom Box came out years ago, I STILL thought about that show with Carl and the "radio"!
go through the steps that mplegare has listed, and maybe more than once! As to the steel and silver, what made it different? are the moves new or variations of the old. Think about the original versions of cups and balls, whose do you remember? Galli Galli? Mark Wilson? The kid next door? Why do you remember it? The presentation, style, and look all together. If you have not read the essay in the beginning area of the food for thought about the expose' article, then I humbly suggest you consider it, you might find it helpful for the philosophy presented.
I do think that too often people get to doing magic for the technical reasons, and overlook the deeper meaning of what it is really all about.
You want technical magic, try to explain how a television works! Do you remember the name of the person who invented it? The first person to be televised? The names of all the actors in (insert favorite show here)? Why or why not! What is the appeal, the focus, the reason?
Well, I am not sure if I made sense, or helped, but then again it is a bit early here still!
Best of luck
Kay

If I come up with a idea that I have never seen before or read about etc,,,, then I can say it is mine,
however if use and effect that was shown to me or I read about, it is and never will be mine,,
even if I change the routine around to fit my style . THe trick will never be origional..
Another thought is if I create an effect that is origional but would never have been possible with lets say an elmsaley count. I must credit the inventor of the count when explaining the effect IMO.
vinny

Was that an argument for deliberate ignorance of our legacy and the good works of others?

I may never OWN the Ramsay tricks. I can make what Galloway offered us a part of my work, and present some of the tricks or parts of those tricks in a way I find sensible. I may not have created my shoes, though they are mine, and personal.