When referring to the type of "proof" we offer our audience, and its effectiveness, I think that it's necessary to look at the magic performance from the perspective of the target audience.

For example, if performing a french drop for a lay audience, the direct proof of showing your hand completely empty at the end is generally sufficient to create a magical experience. However, if you performed a French Drop for a magician, they would require you to at least show BOTH hands completely empty for the effect to be magical to them.

I agree that subtle proof is always preferable, but I don't think direct proof is less effective if used appropriately. The French Drop is a classic sleight that uses direct proof and is still a great effect. However, if you performed this vanish in a short sleeve shirt and then proceeded to provide additional direct "proof" by showing that you have nothing up your little sleeves, the impact of the effect is reduced. This extra proof is inappropriate in that it never even occurred to the audience that you could have used your short sleeves for anything.

You might think showing inside short sleeves is an absurd example, but I've actually seen it done.

I can't argue with either of the two above statements, which if I am understanding correctly, assert that the balance between the two types of proof must relate directly with the scenario at hand.

I'm not sure about the example of the short sleeve coin vanish. Similar examples of absurdity may serve a useful purpose. They draw a line between what might be likely, and what shouldn't be, by subtly asking for agreement to the absurdity of the notion. Once the line is drawn, the side that is now above supicion would be a perfect place to let the covert actions exist. In essence, you ask the audience to define the terms, and then use their definition against them.

~michael

Michael your making my point for me actually.

It is a logical extrapolation. Thanks for clarifying for me. Convincing yourself creates belief.

First, one performs a routine or effect for an audience. One uses methods, of which the French Drop (le Tourniquette) is just one of many false transfers available.

From you example, it seems plausible the effect would be that of making something vanish. Okay, you made something vanish. Was it destroyed? Did you make it travel somewhere by magic? The audience wants to know.

I believe you just convinced me that it is possible for two people to be on opposite sides of a Mobius Strip.

I also like to use subtle proofs that appear accidental. In my 3 card monte I show one non-selected card as wrong and use the other as a pointer to the selected card. In doing so I "accidently" flash the held card as a pointer, showing it also to be wrong. I pretend not to notice. The accident convinces them so strongly, at a point where the money card has been shown to travel anywhere. If I simply showed them both unchosen cards to be wrong I don't think they'd have the same conviction.

In his new DVD Eccentricks 3, Charlie Frye does this with his Jumbo 3 card monte routine as well.

Personally, I like Billy McComb's "accidental" proof during his Half Dyed Hank routine where he talks and gestures with the "dirty" hand, only to open it while telling his story. "It was dressing room four, no Five..." as he holds up that many fingers. My description doesn't do it justice. If you have a chance, you MUST see this. Actually, you can. Whit Haydn has offered a clip from Billy's Magic Castle appearance here

I think that's an interesting point, but I think that how, or even if, you address those possible questions is a matter of presentation style and must take into account the context of the magician's entire routine.

You lost me with the word "but".


Agreed context is important.

Running from non-existent suspicion draws suspicion and when you've got them chasing you... they will catch you. If you wish to be caught, or to encourage audience to catch out other magicians... you have a working strategy.

I like the idea of subtle "evidence" as in anything which tends to persuade one of a relative fact in a subtle way. Each piece of subtle evidence alone does not or may not establish the main fact that we seek to prove but put together it can be stronger than direct evidence.
Obviously subtle evidence can be used to establish a truth we might need to establish as well as a lie. Sometimes we want to establish the truth such as the deck has been really shuffled and it is not a trick deck etc. Doing it in a subtle evidential way seems more artistic to me.

This is an interesting statement. Perhaps by virtue of the fact that subtle handling of the evidence may require more delicacy and finesse, this statement can be true. It is paradoxical that the recipient of the product (the audience) would never be aware of that artistic quality, because of the techniques used and the framework in which they are used. Only those able to appreciate the esoteric side of it could. It's like a really good inside joke!

~michael

Funny thing about proofs of this sort.

It's not a proof that can be made directly.

The goal is to have the audience convince themselves of something.

If a performer insists on "proving" a thing, ... what proof would convince? See example about a strip search etc after a coin vanish earlier in this thread.

I hope we can all agree the type of "proof" that runs something like

"See here I have a normal deck, it is not set up in any way, I would like you to pick a freely selected card, watch no force"

is the OPPOSITE of what we should strive for.

I prefer to use the type of "proof" where I simply handle the deck, they handle the deck and no attention is called to it either way. They "prove" it to themselvs that it is a deck and nothing more. I believe this is where Jonathan is also. No "proof" is necessary. It is just there inherant in the routining and handling and the acting of the magician.

I admire the use of effective subtlties to reach agreements in magic. I think it is where Art in Magic really sits. Predicticably influencing the way a person thinks is not easy to do. It takes real forethought and experience.

Why use a sledgehammer to push in a thumbtack when all you need is your thumb? Both would work, but one may damage the wall.

Which methods work best for you?

Yes. That is what the title of this thread indicates.



I am re-thinking one of my earlier posts. I am now hesitant to agree that subtle proof is better than direct proof. Instead, I am now starting to consider the fact that both have equal merit, and both are as good as they can be bad. The quality of each lies in their usage. Extreme examples, such as given by some here definitely show how they can be bad, but do nothing to prove that they cannot be good. To understand this, each form must be examined , or at least further defined so that the two may be properly compared. The pros and cons of each can then be determined based on the actual use.

Regarding subtle proof, it must be understood that there can really be no guarantees. We as magicians scatter bait around a set trap, with the hopes of catching our quarry. More specifically, we plant various clues and bits of evidence at strategic points along the path that leads to the trap. Then we lead the audience along this path.

The type of evidence used can be done in many ways. For example, it can be used to indirectly call attention to some fact, or perceived fact that indicates the current status, in the normal course of events. This can also be something which will become more important later, but was determined to be better offered at this time. It can be a method by which to draw attention to something to disprove, as much as prove. Without fully exhausting such a list of examples, assume that many other reasons for the use of subtle proof probably exist.

Direct proof is when we call attention to these items during this journey. I think if done correctly, this type of proof has more than earned its place, because it clarifies the actions, the intentions, and the framework within which everything we wish the audience to be aware of, happens. Removing a closed hand from your pocket or a bag, and then opening it to display say, a coin or a ball is a form of direct proof. While not as blatant as saying, "Here I have a coin (or a ball).", it is still far from being subtle.

Subtle proof could be said to be the arranging of a situation in which the evidence should get noticed, assuming we are doing our jobs of leading an interested follower. But how subtle is too subtle, the point at which the evidence is not noticed? Then once decided, how far can we go in the other direction to increase the chances of the evidence being perceived and processed, without it being considered direct? Pausing at strategic points can increase the chances of some evidence getting noticed. Planting an earlier seed can increase the chance of evidence being focused on by the spectators due to recall, and perceived importance.

With this in mind, it may be true that some forms of subtle proof are more blatant than others. If so, it stands to reason that direct proof may also come in various guises. Because of this, the line that separates subtle from direct proof may be more blurred than we are assuming. I perceive this now to be not an issue of two completely differing entities, but rather opposite ends of a sliding scale. Let me offer this collection of scenarios as example. Each one is a separate instance, not to be mixed with the others:

Assume that we are about to do a card trick...

1) We ask the host if we may borrow a deck of cards.

2) We take out a Wal-Mart shopping bag, and from it remove a deck of cards, along with a receipt for its purchase.

3) We take out our own deck and accidentally drop the cards on the table, scattering them face up in the process.

4) We take out a deck of cards and casually run through them face up, as if to look for a particular card, or just to check them in some way.

5) We take out a deck of cards, and without displaying the faces, handle them in a casual fashion (careless shuffles, placing them on the table with no regard to their importance, etc.).

6) We take out a deck of cards and casually spread them face up on the table to actually display them to the audience.

7) We take out a deck of cards and hand it to someone to shuffle them.

8) We take out a deck of cards and ask someone to check them to make sure they are normal.

Assuming that the action was pre-planned, in each instance our goal could be considered the same. We want the audience to get the impression that the cards are normal. This can be said to be true regardless of whether the cards are indeed normal, or not.

It should be noticed that the various methods by which this evidence is presented vary in degrees from quite subtle to very direct.

Of course, this is only one aspect of the routine in which proof is given that leads to the conviction that makes it possible for a magic effect to happen in the spectators' minds.

While this alone may be enough to convince the audience that the impending magic could not have happened, various forms of evidence are typically used, and layered so as to build an illusion as close to perfect as we can push it.

The entire process is contextual, though. The type of effect, the character, the tone of the event, the theme of the act all should be considered when construction such an illusion.

For the most part, this is a highly personal issue, rooted in the individual magician's artistic goal. It should be respected that one man's trash is another's treasure.

An example such as, "See here I have a normal deck, it is not set up in any way, I would like you to pick a freely selected card, watch no force", definitely shows us how ludicrous blatant, direct proof can be. But, this merely scratches the surface of the topic by showing one of the extreme edges of these considerations. As such, is that enough evidence to indicate that direct proof is bad? I don't think so.

Let's look at another example in which direct proof might be used. We'll suppose that we are about to witness a challenge type of effect. Understand that I am not referring to the magician challenging the audience, but rather either challenging himself to perform a particular feat, or attempting to demonstrate a supposed quirk of science, or attempting to beat the odds, or any number of other possibilities.

In these types of effects, direct proof would almost be a requirement, if only to stress the impossible conditions, so as to indicate the enormity of the challenge. Such effects coming to mind would be predictions, impossible odds such as "Bank Night", any number of escapes (including "Metamorphosis", which is not typically presented as an escape), card stabs, poker deals, coin transpositions. The mere act of shuffling cards is a form of direct proof. The list could go on and on.

Please understand that in no way is it being said that direct proof is the only proof necessarily used in the foregoing examples. Without closely examining each detail of such effects, it could be assumed that a combination of evidence ranging from subtle to direct is the likely truth.

~michael

I think the reason "direct proof" as we are calling it is so popular, is to the magician it seems more sure fire. Subtle proof requires (generally speaking now) more attention to detail. More attention to routining and may or may not work depending on the situation. Many are fearfull to hang it out there like that.

I like to use direct proof for some things, more subtle proofs for others.

In my Mongolian Pop-Knot routine, I start with a 14 foot length of rope, which is handed out for examination. I think this is essential for the routine.

By allowing the spectators to examine the rope, the spectators are assured that the rope doesn't stretch, is not tricked out with magnets or glue or anything, and that it is one long solid piece of rope.

Without that foreknowledge, the impact of the ropes being cut into two pieces, restored, cut in three pieces, shrunk and stretched, and finally restored again would be lessened.

What they see happening is happening to a rope that they have thoroughly examined.

This is very powerful, and will be remembered.

If someone later says, "Maybe it was a trick rope, with extra rope inside or something..."; then someone else will say, "No, it couldn't be. Remember? Joe yanked it and examined it with a fine tooth comb..."

I can afford the luxury of this direct proof, because the rope is actually clean.

On the other hand, at the end of the routine, the restored "one long piece of rope" is actually two pieces held together with a knot.

I can not do a direct proof. What I do is finish the trick, toss the restored rope that I have just "displayed" completely to the audience into my table, and go into my next trick, the linking rings.

When I pull out the rings, a 14' piece of rope is tangled in them.

This is apparently the rope I had just earlier tossed in the table. Actually, it is a duplicate.

I embarrassedly undo the rope from the rings, and toss it downstage right and off the stage.

No one expects me to intentionally make myself look clumsy or awkward.

After the show, someone usually brings me the rope, after having satisfied themselves that the rope is "okay."

This person, and everyone around them, becomes a new defender of the trick. Later, when someone else in the audience suggests a possible method, these people will say, "No, I checked it out after the show. Frank picked it up off the floor and we looked at it, and it was just a piece of rope."

Had I offered the rope for examination, they would have "smelled" a switch.

Together, both methods create a powerful proof for something impossible.

:lol:



I totally agree. Your thoughts concerning our subtle evidence not being noticed are particularly interesting. As we often rely on the average person's poor observation skills in creating our illusions, ensuring that they actually notice our subtle proof without being too blatantly obvious about it is where I think some of the greatest artistic and challenging aspects to our craft lie.

This is a very cool discussion.

Arthur

This is starting to sound like "direct proof" works BEFORE THE MAGIC and sets the stage for the magic, while more suble proof works during the performance of the magic to reinforce the context.

Sometimes it works after the performance. Like Whit's "Mongolian Pop Knot" example. Another subtle proof is if you're working the Shell Game at something like a trade show and the props are left on the table. (after you switch out the pea with a non-working one, of course)

I think a subtle proof works even better when the spectator discovers it for themselves with no prompting from us.