Today I was presented with a particular perspective that shocked me somewhat. I was told that you are not seen as a real magician unless you can do masterful and complicated sleight of hand. Having practiced magic seriously for the last three years I have learned the essential sleights of the trade (Double lift, palm, controls) and several of their variations. After learning this and a lot more moves like flourishes and better versions of these moves I find that I still like sleight free magic.

A magician told me that if you were to take a bunch of sleight free tricks and entertain the pants off of a crowd with them that you are just a regular old joe and not a serious magician. My deal is that I love to perform the simple stuff and the stuff that gets reactions. When I go to the magic club I have nothing to show off
because I don't get into all of the complicated sleight of hand to fool magicians.

I'd like to know your thoughts on this. Do you have to do complicated feats of sleight of hand to be a magician? My answer is no!

I find that it is not the trick that makes the magician but rather it is their ability to entertain. If you can walk out and entertain with a whole bunch of self working props then yes you are a magician. My definition of a magician is one who entertains a crowd by demonstrating the impossible wheater it is by sleight of hand or not.

I have much more to say but I fear you wouldnt read the whole thing... SO there is something to chew on. I appreciate your responses. Have a nice day!

Anyone can do card tricks--it takes a REAL Magician to entertain! (The method is NOT important.)

Self-working tricks are only a problem if the audience knows or senses they're self-working. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't give their audiences enough credit for being able to tell when a trick is "just a math trick."

Ah, but one can entertain without doing any magic.

The true test of a magician is if he can be magical with a self working trick.

An underground Magician is someone who knows 435 ways to do the Pass but not one method for entertaining an audience.

Could we please retire that line?

There seems to be a fiction that the vast bulk of magicians who aren't interested in knuckle-busting sleights spend the time they save working on their presentational skills. 20 minutes at most magic clubs should be enough to disprove this theory.

MOST magicians don't know one method for entertaining an audience because most don't have a lot of performing experience. It doesn't matter if they bore their audiences by using 435 different passes or 435 self-working tricks.

The real difference between the guy who can do 435 passes and the guy who only does self-working tricks is that the pass-meister has a larger number of effects to draw from. Whether he or the self-working-effect guy will put the time into making the routines within their range of abilities entertaining is a separate question.

A effect is produced by method together with presentation, so the method is important.

Hideo Kato

One of the first steps toward becoming a magician is to consider the source of such statements. The mechanics behind the magic you offer your audience is impertinant to their experience. Was the speaker some sort of imbecile?

Maybe you're a real magician if you earn your living doing it?

But I certainly agree with Paul above, and Tom. And Mark, I cannot disagree with you either. I use very little in the way of sleights if any in my stand up work and think that might be more the norm. Working close up seems the exact opposite for me. Although I actually close one of my close up sets at the moment with what is a self working trick (which doesn't include any dealing or counting).The effect is more effective placed at the end the routine, it would have far less impact elsewhere. It works as part of the whole..

It depends where you aim to work. I think it would be more or less impossible for anyone to be a professional close up worker using nothing but self working tricks. But I appreciate, being a magician is not just about being a skilled close up worker.

Paul.
p.s. And who couldn't agree with Jonathan's insight?

I let my audiences, not other magicians, decide whether I'm a magician.

Anyone that tells you that you are not a real magician because you don't do the tough stuff is missing the train. And your audiences are the most qualified to tell you if you are a real magician...or not.

Question:
Are you striving to just entertain your audience? (He asked, raising one eyebrow.)

Just do magic for real people and stay away from strange people who presume to discuss such absurdities. Magic is not the method. Those who confuse the issues are not even close to being magicians. They are at best fans and wannabees.

A professional (insert your personal definition) will first determine the destination and only then decide upon the most direct route.

Here we may disagree. I hold that the perceived effect and the magic are internal to the audience and that the mechanics ( details of presentation and method ) should not in the frame of reference of the audience. If we are discussing a routine as technician/performers, we can take the intended effect for granted and discuss the behind the scenes details of method and presentation.

I hold that these are two distinct frames of reference, and that we are not well served by language which attempts to cross between these frames.

You are either a magician or not, the significant factor is approach.

You may entertain a room of people for an hour and just only do two tricks, This is a magician.
or
You may bore a room of people silly with good tricks and lots of them.

The difference between these two examples is that in the first you used other skills as a background to the magic. You were an interesting person first and a magician second.
The second example, you show great skill and amaze the crowd at first. Then due to the obvious chain of tricks the crowd start to view your magic as just a skill.

This is continuing to be a very supportive thread. I like this. Now to add a twist.... My act contains routines that could easily be learned and performed (not necessarily well) by a new magician within a month or so of practice. Or at least that is my viewpiont. I often am very picky about people who want to learn our art and often discourage them from wanting to learn the stuff that I do. I tell them to go and learn the basics of card magic or such things. I then tell them if they are further interested in ENTERTAINING then they should learn these simple feats. I don't like the idea of a new magician butchering what I have spent time perfecting my presentation of such a simple effect.

In order to not feel threatened by new magicians wanting to learn the art, must one excel in a # of ways (sleight of hand or presentation)?

I realise that I should not feel this way twords others interested in our art but I cannot help it. I feel I know what I need to know as far as sleight of hand goes and I am very entertaining in presentation. Yet I still feel threatened. Our art is a simple one that looks very complex. I think that intent is the key. HOw about you?

Are you a real magician?

Yes I Am!

Tell your friends that magic is an art of communication and amusement.
The sleights should be invisible. So, keep on doing what you are doing and let the audience to decide if you succeed to amuse, entertain, and take them on a journey from start to finish.

What I learned long ago:

If you want to entertain club magicians, show them an hour of card and coin sleights.

You want to bore them? Do mentalism or escapes.

Do you want to entertain and amaze lay people?

Do mentalism or escapes.

Want to bore them? Show them an hour of card and coin sleights.

Harry Blackstone Sr.'s widow once said that a lay audience would reather see you produce a feather flower bouquet than do 20 minutes of coin sleights in front of a black backdrop.

Steve

I'm getting a very clear union of both Kato-san's and Mr. Townsend's presentations. This union appears in my mind as two sides of the same "coin", separated by a fine line. One side of said coin is the magician's perception, and the other side is the audience's perception. However, I believe these two sides do share a commonality when and if any given method becomes important enough to influence the spectator's perception.

Does method really matter? Yes...and...No. Sounds weird? You bet...and then, well, maybe not.

On one side, when WE strive for simplification in our methods, we do so because we want our effects to be clear, direct, less contrived, and more REAL. By doing this, we are actually inviting our audiences to enjoy what could possibly be perceived as REAL magic. Yes, REAL MAGIC. We want them to feel the same magic that our ancestors felt a thousand years ago. That's our real purpose in this world...to evoke the emotional response of mind numbing, blissful AWE. Ask yourself if you merely want to entertain an audience, or do you want to leave them utterly speechless? Could this be the postulate commonly shared by those that activate real magic? Is the effect on the audience the most important goal?

On the other side, if we do OVERsimplify our methods, we could easily make the critical mistake of thinking our audience are the buffoons we may secretly wish them to be. This easily opens the door to underminding the audience's active and passive intelligence. We can't readily believe that our easiest, simplest, and quickest methods are always the best. This is a big, big, BIG mistake. Audiences are NOT as dopey nor as simple as we'd wish them to be. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite! Their sole purpose in this nutso world is to figure out what is REALLY happening! Their sole responsiblity in this gonzo world is to figure out if we actually are for REAL! That's their job! Is the method we choose the most important goal?

And that may well describe the dynamics of this fine line between the two faces of our coin; their perception versus ours. And the methods we choose to display what can be perceived by our audiences as real magic may actually define our understanding of these infinite dynamics of where this fine line may be at any given moment in time.

Paris is a no-go this year. Perhaps next.