|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
Yes, thank you. Maybe we are using the idea of proof differently, because you did clearly "prove" that you used magic, you just did it in an unobtrusive manner, with motivation throughout the routine. I liked the motivation you used, because it makes sense, and not in the usual way we often try to motivate an effect. Too often, at least for me, when I look for "motivation" I am just adding some words to my patter that I "claim" are motivations. Yours makes sense in the context of the magic. In other words, your actions represent what might happen if you really could cause something to travel invisibly from hand to hand, without coming off as silly or corny.
But I still think you have proved something. In this case it means you convinced them that you did magic. Many things I see magicians do (including myself) mistake flash for magic. Just because we do something that is different than what other entertainers do does not make it magical. I also think that when we talk about a topic like this, it is helpful to someone like me, someone fairly new to magic, but someone who at least tries to think about these issues, that we use specific examples whenever possible. It helps in clarifying our terms. Thank you Jonathan for doing this here.
Chris
|
|||||||||
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-08-09 15:53, KyletheGreat wrote: It's not illogical to present a coin vanish, in my opinion. The logic is: I'm going to show you an entertaining illusion, or, I'm going to show you something magical. Is it logical to do a trapeze act? Yes, because it's a form of entertainment that people will enjoy, not to mention pay to see. Most of us love to be entertained, and to see something we haven't seen before, even (especially) if it's strange or ridiculous or outlandish. Why restore a torn newspaper? Because if it's done well (and the audience hasn't seen it done a million times), it's impressive, it's neat, it's entertaining. And people like to believe that real magic is possible. On another note, there are some effects that are very contrived (meaning there are moves that are only there to make the trick work) yet totally effective to most audiences. People believe a lot of weird stuff; I don't think the average person is completely rational and logical in their thinking. Many people believe in Tarot readings. How logical is it that a pack of cards could foretell the future, or reveal things about the sitter? |
|||||||||
KyletheGreat Special user Georgia 560 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-08-10 14:16, jimtron wrote: I am talking about the psychological side of the situation...It would not be LOGICAL to make MONEY disappear...especially since people have a craving for money...Greed. It would not be logical for a person to do a trapeze act either, but we gain some type of "Rush" from watching the mysterious and the dangerous....and that is one reason it is entertaining and enjoyed. |
|||||||||
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts |
Kyle: I guess we can agree to disagree...I still think it's logical to make money disappear in the context of presenting an entertaining feat; just like a trapeze act. It may not be logical for me to drop coins down the gutter while no ones looking, but it is logical to make a coin vanish in front of a spectator who wants to see a magic trick. I do agree that there is a certain amount of illogic to it though...
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-08-10 16:12, KyletheGreat wrote: As I said above: "Why he is trying to prove he has these powers, why he wants to demonstrate them, and why the audience should care are all different issues of character and motivation." It is perfectly logical to make a coin disappear if you want to prove that you have the ability to make something small and solid disappear. "Why" you would be willing to lose a quarter just to prove such an ability is a separate question. It is certainly as logical as dropping an atomic bomb on a city if you want to prove to someone that you can destroy a city. I think that Jon is "proving" certain things in his illustration, but he is not asking for "agreement" to each of his premises in an obvious way. If you do not intend to prove that magic is actually happening in front of the spectator's eyes, but only want to show a "simulation" of what it would look like if it did, then you are much better off working in literature or film or theater than in this separate field with decidedly unique aims and purposes. It is the purpose of magic illustrated in film, theater, and literature to get people to suspend disbelief and 'imagine' what it would be like if magic was real. The purpose of magic is to get them to believe that they actually witnessed something extraordinary themselves. They should be convinced that the magic they saw is real against their own better judgment and in spite of their knowledge that it isn't. The degree to which this conflict or dilemma is heightened on both sides has a lot to do with the "success" of the magic. People should not be "swayed" into believing in magic--that is charlatanry. Neither should they be let off the hook--there is no other explanation than magic. The stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas in the head at the same time is called "cognitive dissonance." It is the need to relieve this stress that provokes the two types of "wonder" that magic is meant to inspire. |
|||||||||
saxmangeoff Veteran user Moscow, ID, USA 353 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-08-10 16:46, Whit Haydn wrote: If I understand these things correctly, the proving doesn't necessarily need to be overt, just plainly seen. No? Geoff
"You must practice your material until it becomes boring, then practice it until it becomes beautiful." -- Bill Palmer
|
|||||||||
KyletheGreat Special user Georgia 560 Posts |
Whit Haydn
You still should have no need to prove anything unless that is what your character does...I have yet to see a magician say "I can make a coin disappear and I am going to prove it to you right now" before doing the trick...Even if he did, there would be no fun in watching because He just told you what he was going to do. It should be spontaneous and the spectators should never know what to expect next...usually people would just go straight into a coin routine without saying a word about making the coin disappear... Same for the T & R newspaper...nobody says " I can tear a newspaper and make it come back together" It must be done with patter the correlates to the movements you are using or else the audience knows what you are doing and is on even more of a look out for secret moves...as oppose to not knowing what is going on...they should be thinking (Why is he tearing that paper up?) then BAM!!! It restores spectator should then think (Wow...) the tricks should impact hard and hit the spectators by surprise. |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Your thinking is all wrong on this, Kyle.
Imagine I just met you. I tell you I am a magician, but that unlike you I can do real magic. I then take a coin and put it in your face up hand and say, "Watch, I can make that coin disappear." You look at your hand and the coin seems to lose weight as it becomes more and more transparent and finally disappears into thin air. You wouldn't find this experience interesting? Would it be ruined for you because I told you what I was going to do? My newspaper tear has ended my act for thirty years. The patter begins, "You have all seen, at one time or another, a magician take a newspaper, tear it up, and put it back together again. I am going to do the same thing." Magic impact is more often built on anticipation than surprise. Surprise always leaves them with a way out. When the giant coin appears at the end of a matrix routine, they can say, "I wasn't expecting that," or "I wasn't ready for that." But the conviction of magic when the spectators are ready and expecting and are still fooled badly is much stronger: "You hold my wrist. If I show you the knife, and you don't let go of my wrist, and you don't look away from my hand, and I close my hand and when I open my hand again that knife is gone...that would not be sleight of hand, would it? That would be real magic, wouldn't it?" |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
A logical argument in a magical effect may or may not be explicitly stated, but it should be there. Most magic does not explicitly state that there will be a proof, but sometimes there is. But, anyway, saying specifically that you will prove that you will now do real magic does not guarantee that you will actually prove to the spectators that you did magic. You will prove your magic if and only if you are successful at convincing the audience that what they have witnessed is magic, or at least that it is the only explanation for what you have done.
But how do you convince them that you did magic? For example, if I come out and do a classic tear and restore newspaper routine (insert here the best performance you can think of) but I do it with a paper sack to the side. During the routine, I first tear the paper and I stick it into the sack (without showing the sack empty) and then say the magic words and pull a restored paper out of the sack, I have not done magic (unless I have it signed or something—which is part of the proof.) It is irrelevant if I do this in a well-choreographed routine, or if it is done with fantastic patter or even a great story. It only becomes magic when they are convinced that the paper that I restore is the same as the one I tore, and if I really tore the newspaper. That is the proof. Everything else makes the magic more enjoyable, but does nothing to make the magic more real. This is true even if I never say that I am doing a proof, and if no one specifically thinks about the method.
Chris
|
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
My handful of routines that I do on the street all have parts where I explicitly tell the spectator what will happen. Not always at every part and for every effect, but at some point in every routine--I will cut and restore this rope. I will make this card go to my pocket, I will make this ball disappear.
It is interesting to read you Whit, since you so elegantly shatter those myths we all pick up when we are new: Never repeat a trick, never tell them what the surprise is, etc. From Our Magic. Quote: (14) Unless good reason can be shown, never explain, UPON THE STAGE,
Chris
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Always good to check and see what "Our Magic" says. Maskelyne and Devant knew what they were talking about.
|
|||||||||
Curtis Kam V.I.P. same as you, plus 3 and enough to make 3498 Posts |
I agree with Whit on this, and in fact, have used almost exactly the same "vanishing coin" illustration elsewhere on the Café. An inexplicable phenomenon, unadorned with theatrical trappings or presentation of any kind, can be a memorable, emotional, and transformative experience. Sure, drama and comedy can help bring the experience into focus, but they don't create the magic.
Here's where the theoretical rubber hits the road: when the lady's floating in the air, do you pass the hoop?
Is THAT a PALMS OF STEEL 5 Banner I see? YARRRRGH! Please visit The Magic Bakery
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-08-13 22:53, Curtis Kam wrote:...Here's where the theoretical rubber hits the road: when the lady's floating in the air, do you pass the hoop? Great question Curtis, what motivates the hoop? If the levitation were truly magical, there would be no interest in proving the means were not ordinary. Instead any concerns would be directed toward the person floating and any ritual artifacts used to bring about the magical result. Checking the salt circle and the candles if you will.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Andrei Veteran user Romania 353 Posts |
Regarding the hoop, one possible explanation could be the following:
The levitation is truly magical, but the magician is no dummy, but a person like everyone else. He, too, has seen this same effect apparently duplicated numerous times using different tricks, such as strings and whatnot. It is only conceivable to assume that some skeptics in the audience will also have doubts about the magical nature of the experiment in progress. Going back to motivation, if the premise of the floating woman was "I can make a lady float, I'll show you!" then it's natural to want to convince the audience that you're doing just that. In these conditions, not going that extra mile would not make sense. There are two more things I would like to point out. Firstly, if you're performing for friends or for people you've known independently from your affiliation with the occult science, then you're not going to do more than present them with a puzzle. I don't see how you can pass it off as magic, in this particular scenario. Also, since it's only a trick, you can have fun with it and not worry about the rules of overtly proving. Of course, in the end, they'll want to know how it's done.. This is why Mr. Haydn (who should upload more performance videos!!) aptly introduced the premise "Say I just met you". As he is a professional magician, that is the case, for him. Not all of us are professional magicians, and this is why we should be very confident in being able to repeat the experiment. Seriously, if you try to pass it off as magic TO FRIENDS, you will be asked to repeat it. After all, if it's magic, why not? Unless the method is truly clever, or changed, find a smart out. Secondly, more variables need to be taken into account, as I believe a general discussion about the nature of audience perception is only possible considering inherent cultural differences. If one performs the exact same effect (floating lady) for a Wall Street broker crowd and for a crowd of Bhutanese (spelling is off,) I sincerely believe the former will regard you as a trickster, if a very clever one at that, while the latter might regard you as a person with true magical powers. A more down-to-Earth example would be French vs. American audiences. I've been told by a reliable source, who's performed for both, that the Americans are mainly interested in having fun at the show, while the French are a lot more interested in catching you. To conclude, what's been said here is extremely well thought-out, however it might only have relevance to certain situations. Andrei |
|||||||||
Curtis Kam V.I.P. same as you, plus 3 and enough to make 3498 Posts |
Andei,
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that there's no way to motivate the hoop within the context of a theatrical premise. I'm saying that if you a) feel it's necessary to pass the hoop in the first place, so that you b) have to create a motivation for it, then you're agreeing with Whit's premise that our job as magicians is not simply to create the illusion of magic, but to create the illusion of Inexplicable magic. By definition, this must occur in spite of the audience's unsuspended disbelief. If they know they're just pretending, that's an explanation.
Is THAT a PALMS OF STEEL 5 Banner I see? YARRRRGH! Please visit The Magic Bakery
|
|||||||||
Andrei Veteran user Romania 353 Posts |
Indeed, I am mainly in agreement with Mr. Haydn.
However, as a layman, I never felt as though what I was witnessing was magic. I felt as though I was witnessing very clever manipulation (not necessarily the dexterous kind,) the nature of which was beyond me. Maybe it's just my skeptical nature, but I tend to generalize. How did you (the plural you) think about magic when you were a layman? Did you see it as magic or trickery? Andrei |
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3042 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-08-14 04:54, Andrei wrote: Great question, but I think we're all too close to the forest to see anything but the trees and the branches. I propose that we ask lay people how they view magic. Having said that, we know that cops, lawyers, and reporters have a way of asking a question in such a way that they get something close to the answer they want, i.e., "leading questions." If we do this little survey, we need to come up with a way to introduce the question without leading the witness. I'm going to think about this for a bit and come back with a couple of suggestions. In the meantime, the coffeepot downstairs awaits me.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
Andrei Veteran user Romania 353 Posts |
How about, after both you and the target layperson observe a third magician performing, you turn to the aforementioned layperson with an inquisitive look and blurt out an honest: "What did this fellow just do?"
That sounds quite fair. Andrei |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-08-14 04:54, Andrei wrote:...How did you (the plural you) think about magic when you were a layman? ... Let's see... In theatrical context, where the magic is part of the story, no problem. When peter pan flies, unless the wires wobble or there is swinging etc it's part of the story about a character who happens to fly. In what amounts to "standard magician context" it come across as pointless, juvenile and smug demonstrations of trickery by those who wish to receive "oh you are so clever I had no idea how you did that" in return for their efforts. That was while I was a layman. Now as a more aware technician and also with better language to express my thoughts, I can more quickly forgive technical issues in a performance and also keep a better eye open for the moments and items that communicate more than just the aforementioned smugness. For example, I saw someone do an act with self lighting cigarettes and candles. For a few moments I felt that sense of wonderment, and hold on to that memory as something dear and also a goal in my own work. On the other side of the issue, with some background in our history and methods, when I see a performance, I tend to divide my awareness. More than before the part of me that just wants to attend a performance will open up to what is presented. If the performance is integral, IE the character and their props etc are congruent to the premise of the act, I enjoy it more. However, these refined critical facilities also bring awkward choices to my attention. For example, unmotivated action and non-functional or out of place props catch my attention. A third option came from the education in magic, that of appreciating a choice or a novel routine. Generally I try to keep my focus on the first option (theatrical) and when dragged into the mire of awkward choices, I look for good choices and novelties to compliment.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Andrei Veteran user Romania 353 Posts |
I might be very much mistaken, but as I see it, in proper theatrical context, the story happens to be about a character who possesses the ability to fly. The actor playing the part, obviously, has no such natural ability, even in the minds of the spectators. Thus, to produce the effect of flight, the spectators must see the characters instead of the actors, which sort of makes sense.
Please correct whatever it is which I've got wrong regarding your former perception of magic, because this inevitably leads to that old saying (I forgot whose,) "There are no magicians, there are only actors pretending playing the part of magicians." Andrei |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Illogicalities in Your magic- They are ever present (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |