The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Visual magic (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
Whit Haydn
View Profile
V.I.P.
5449 Posts

Profile of Whit Haydn
Visual magic is where the magic happens "in front of the eyes." Levitation, animation, color-change, etc. Spikes through coin is not visual because the spikes penetrate the coin while it is hidden in a plastic box, Coin in Bottle is visual, because the spectators think they "see" the coin penetrate the bottom of the bottle. Linking Rings is visual, Spikes through arm is not.

The classic non-visual card trick is the 21 card trick. A visual card trick would be like Mental Photography, Phoenix Aces, color-change, etc. People "see" the magic happening, rather than just witnessing the result.
Alan Wheeler
View Profile
Inner circle
Posting since 2002 with
2038 Posts

Profile of Alan Wheeler
Tommy Wonder discussed "covered" and "uncovered" effects near the end of the _Books of Wonder_. I've shipped my books back to the US now, but if I remember correctly, he claims that the more visual the effect, the less mental the impact--and the less visual the effect, the more mental the impact. (I think that was called an "indirect relationship" in science class.)
The views and comments expressed on this post may be mere speculation and are not necessarily the opinions, values, or beliefs of Alan Wheeler.
A BLENDED PATH
Christian Reflections on Tarot
Word Crimes
Technology and Faith........Bad Religion
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
8512 Posts

Profile of funsway
As this be true, Alan, then does the magic designed for younger audiences today have to be diffferent than for older ones? Many magicians cannot "imagine" how an effect will play without seeing it on a video, so how about an audience in which only limited visual glimses of the world by anothers direction serves as 'experience'? Are younger people capable of appraciating non-visual magic (or concepts)?
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst



ShareBooks at www.eversway.com * questions at funsway@eversway.com
Donal Chayce
View Profile
Inner circle
1770 Posts

Profile of Donal Chayce
Quote:
On 2010-05-12 11:44, funsway wrote:
As this be true, Alan, then does the magic designed for younger audiences today have to be diffferent than for older ones?


If by younger audiences you mean children, then in many cases the answer is "yes."
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
8512 Posts

Profile of funsway
Certainly those, but I meant to include those of the "computer native" cohorts whos elearning has been primarily technology assisted rather than direct experience.

I once had a class write on the subject "My first Butterfly" and discovered that 8 out of the 20+ students had never seen a live butterfly. If I used a butterfly silk in an effect everyone might recognize it, but the sense of awe and wonder will be different, methinks.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst



ShareBooks at www.eversway.com * questions at funsway@eversway.com
Lawrence O
View Profile
Inner circle
Greenwich (CT)
6799 Posts

Profile of Lawrence O
Quote:
On 2010-05-11 12:29, Whit Haydn wrote:
Visual magic is where the magic happens "in front of the eyes." Levitation, animation, color-change, etc. Spikes through coin is not visual because the spikes penetrate the coin while it is hidden in a plastic box, Coin in Bottle is visual, because the spectators think they "see" the coin penetrate the bottom of the bottle. Linking Rings is visual, Spikes through arm is not.

The classic non-visual card trick is the 21 card trick. A visual card trick would be like Mental Photography, Phoenix Aces, color-change, etc. People "see" the magic happening, rather than just witnessing the result.


For me Visual Magic is magic where the actual cause for the effect happens at the same time as the alleged cause. As a result, people look for the cause (skill, gaff... and it's no longer magic)
Proper magic is based on a time distance and placing at least one short action between the actual cause and the alleged one. Then the after effect memory rewinding which stops at the alleged cause cannot encompass the actual cause.
Magic is the art of proving impossible things in parallel dimensions that can't be reached
Alan Wheeler
View Profile
Inner circle
Posting since 2002 with
2038 Posts

Profile of Alan Wheeler
Darwin Ortiz mentions the lack of time displacement as a problem of most visual magic. Floating objects might be a classic example.

But some effects that seem instantaneous are not truly visual, for example, Metamorphosis or Copeer-Silver-Brass. And there can be time displacement in truly visual magic as well: a rubber pencil can be rung in early while the warping of it visibly can be delayed. Also in spoon bending (a mental effect!) participants sometimes seem to see and even feel the bending after the fact.

Children do seem to require color and visual stimulation. But teenagers can be stunned by a purely mental effect, even today!
The views and comments expressed on this post may be mere speculation and are not necessarily the opinions, values, or beliefs of Alan Wheeler.
A BLENDED PATH
Christian Reflections on Tarot
Word Crimes
Technology and Faith........Bad Religion
Lawrence O
View Profile
Inner circle
Greenwich (CT)
6799 Posts

Profile of Lawrence O
Alan
Before we define if possibly there is or not time displacement in visual magic we need to define visual magic
Thus we will not confront analysis based on the fact that we use the same name do describe two different things.

I proposed a definition of visual magic in my previous post. Naturally it can be argued and fine tuned or discarded. Now since the defining criterion of visual magic in my proposed definition is precisely the time distance between the actual cause and the virtual one or its lack, consistency prevents claiming that there would be time displacement in visual magic tricks: by essence such tricks would no longer correspond to the definition of visual magic.

In your post you are just using a different criterion but you don't describing such a criterion.

Let's see what your own definition is and we'll, instead of a sterile semantic debate, try and build a definition, which we will be able to use in the future to refer to "visual magic". Then our analytical work (and its practical consequences) will be more progressive and more fruitful
Magic is the art of proving impossible things in parallel dimensions that can't be reached
Alan Wheeler
View Profile
Inner circle
Posting since 2002 with
2038 Posts

Profile of Alan Wheeler
Quote:
On 2010-05-11 12:29, Whit Haydn wrote:
Visual magic is where the magic happens "in front of the eyes." Levitation, animation, color-change, etc. Spikes through coin is not visual because the spikes penetrate the coin while it is hidden in a plastic box, Coin in Bottle is visual, because the spectators think they "see" the coin penetrate the bottom of the bottle. Linking Rings is visual, Spikes through arm is not.

The classic non-visual card trick is the 21 card trick. A visual card trick would be like Mental Photography, Phoenix Aces, color-change, etc. People "see" the magic happening, rather than just witnessing the result.


I was going with this definition.
The views and comments expressed on this post may be mere speculation and are not necessarily the opinions, values, or beliefs of Alan Wheeler.
A BLENDED PATH
Christian Reflections on Tarot
Word Crimes
Technology and Faith........Bad Religion
Lawrence O
View Profile
Inner circle
Greenwich (CT)
6799 Posts

Profile of Lawrence O
It seems to me that under Whit's definition every trick falls under the visual magic category.

Most versions of the 21 card trick have the same visual aspects which meet the criterion proposed by Whit.
Magic is the art of proving impossible things in parallel dimensions that can't be reached
The Burnaby Kid
View Profile
Inner circle
St. John's, Canada
2977 Posts

Profile of The Burnaby Kid
Quote:
On 2010-05-21 19:56, Lawrence O wrote:
It seems to me that under Whit's definition every trick falls under the visual magic category.

Most versions of the 21 card trick have the same visual aspects which meet the criterion proposed by Whit.


He's talking about witnessing the effect itself, not just the result of the effect.
A screed for scams, sorcery, and other shenanigans... Nu Way Magick Blogge

JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15746 Posts

Profile of tommy
? Things happen called causes and what happens as a result are called effects.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Michael Kamen
View Profile
Inner circle
Oakland, CA
1315 Posts

Profile of Michael Kamen
Many of our illusions are never intended to be perceived by the audience. They are illusions of normalcy that occur between the initial condition, and the final condition that we call the effect. The more distant the illusion from the final condition, the less visual the magic.

In the case of what we call visual magic (I submit), significant amount of illusion is used quite close too, or even coincidental with the final condition, i.e., the perceived effect. I think this proximity of illusion to effect is the defining charcteristic of visual magic.
Michael Kamen
Dick Oslund
View Profile
Inner circle
8364 Posts

Profile of Dick Oslund
Apparently, my definition of "visual" is just a wee bit different than most of those posting above! The one exception is Whit Haydn's two posts.

To me, if the effect happens out of sight, in a tube, box, or bag, etc., it's not visual. If the effect happens totally in view, it's visual.

Someone above said that one could not do a show with all visual effects! Well, I did, for 50 years. MOST of my show is/was visual effects.

The TipCee (hydrostatic) Bottle is/was strong enough to close my high school program. I used tricks like the Serpentine Silk, Silk thru Mike Stand, Grant's One Two One Rope, Ovette's Repeat Knots, Percy Abbott's Perpetual Ball, Bill Williston's Ball Penetration Thru Silk, Karrell Fox's Ball 0 Matic, Color Change Silk Thru Hand, Hull's Elusive Silk Vanish, 20th Century Silk, Needle Penetration of Inflated Balloon, Jastrow Area Illusion (the boomerangs) Linking Rings

Other tricks are "semi" visual. E.g.: Misers Dream. (Misers Dream is partly visual, and partly aural.)

I even did a tactile illusion, with no props, and the audience did it themselves.
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
Dick Oslund
View Profile
Inner circle
8364 Posts

Profile of Dick Oslund
P.S.

I forgot to mention the Professor's Nightmare, my YOYO (really a juggling bit, not magic) and, Fresh Fish Sold Here Today. The Lazy Magician, and the Paper Tear to Hat were used to help pad the 45 minute assembly show, for occasional evening 60 minute family shows.

I did the Mardo/Sterling Egg Bag, but, don't consider it a visual, because the egg disappears from inside the bag. I did paper balls over the kid's head, and, a brief sponge ball routine, in high schools, in place of the egg bag.

Oh! the G.W. Hunter shoelace knot, was part of the rope routine!
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2699 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Jul 16, 2007, peppermeat2000 wrote:
So...besides mentalism,are their magical effects that we can classify as not being visual or capable of getting an audiences attention? The performer I was referencing was David Stone. In his DVD he performed over 20 effects which from a laymens perception(as well as a magicians) would all be considered as visual and attention grabbing effects...but isn't that what we want all of our magic to be? Why open with a "bang" and then choose effects to follow that fall into what we would consider "non-opener" material? Wouldnt this be short changing our audience? As far a Kreggs question..does the audience want to see it...how are we to get the information from our audience as far as what it is they want to see? And if we find out what it is that they want to see and discover its not in our performance array,then what???Should I assume that just because the audience last week who I performed for was dazzeled by a coin matrix that this weeks crowd will be delighted by the same routine? I know this may sound like a wise-a^% response but it is becoming difficult for me to undersatnd some of the magicians logic that we encounter at lectures,see in DVD's,and hear at magic club gatherings. Anxious to hear the thoughts of the Café members who have some insight on this topic...


I would imagine, putting something (someone) in a box, closing it, opening it to show a change would NOT be considered "visual."

Before anyone brings up "Metamorphoses," the "visual" nature of that trick is increased by the lack of time the person on top of the box is behind the curtain. Doug Henning made it a much more visible trick by cutting down the time, the Pendragons made it even more so by making it appear there IS no time behind the curtain. (Toss the curtain up, rip the curtain apart in a split second.)
"He was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad." - Rafael Sabatini, Scaramouche
Dick Oslund
View Profile
Inner circle
8364 Posts

Profile of Dick Oslund
I agree, Ed! I met Doug when he was in his late teens. We corresponded. For about five years we would meet at Abbott's Get Together. Denny Loomis, Gene Anderson, Karrell Fox, et al, would stay with Jerry Conklin, and we had "our own little convention".

Doug really understood how to make his presentation, dramatic! TEMPO, TIMING, & TIME! Doug had done the sub trunk for a "few" years, before, he was "discovered"!

Being young and athletic, his TIMING, IMO, too, really made the trick "seem more visible"! ("It aint WHAT ya do, it' HOW ya do it!")

Ditto, the Pendragons!

The EFFECT is what the spectator(s) PERCEIVE! (The spectator's experience, intelligence and, IMAGINATION, are all combined to create his/their PERCEPTION! Therefore, everyone in the audience, perceives a "different" show!

Truly, the "magic" is in the spectator(s) mind(s)!!!
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2699 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Legend is that he got the girl from "The Magic Show" in rehearsal studio with the Sub Trunk and said; "You're going to hate me. We're going to do this so often, you're going to hate it AND me for putting you through it. But it's going to be worth it when you see the effect on the audience!"

I think it's interesting that Houdini and the Pendragons have the magician in the trunk and switch places with the assistant on top. DOUG had the assistant in the trunk and switch places with HIM standing on the trunk.
"He was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad." - Rafael Sabatini, Scaramouche
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
26992 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Dale Soules might have stories to tell: http://t2conline.com/no-longer-a-lion-ta......d-award/

Not sure that item, or the Mismade Woman are as visual as the Sword Suspension. She was the assistant for those items in that show.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Dick Oslund
View Profile
Inner circle
8364 Posts

Profile of Dick Oslund
Quote:
On Mar 21, 2017, Dick Oslund wrote:
Apparently, my definition of "visual" is just a wee bit different than most of those posting above! The one exception is Whit Haydn's two posts.

To me, if the effect happens out of sight, in a tube, box, or bag, etc., it's not visual. If the effect happens totally in view, it's visual.

Someone above said that one could not do a show with all visual effects! Well, I did, for 50 years. MOST of my show is/was visual effects.

The TipCee (hydrostatic) Bottle is/was strong enough to close my high school program. I used tricks like the Serpentine Silk, Silk thru Mike Stand, Grant's One Two One Rope, Ovette's Repeat Knots, Percy Abbott's Perpetual Ball, Bill Williston's Ball Penetration Thru Silk, Karrell Fox's Ball 0 Matic, Color Change Silk Thru Hand, Hull's Elusive Silk Vanish, 20th Century Silk, Needle Penetration of Inflated Balloon, Jastrow Area Illusion (the boomerangs) Linking Rings

Other tricks are "semi" visual. E.g.: Misers Dream. (Misers Dream is partly visual, and partly aural.)

I even did a tactile illusion, with no props, and the audience did it themselves.


So, I would not consider the Stack of Boxes to be VISUAL. --The trick "happens" inside of boxes.

Almost any levitation would need to be VISUAL. (Even ASRAH, could qualify, as the spectators "perceive" what they think is a person, floating. Then that "person" disappears! I suppose that it could be argued that they do not see a person, floating, and, a person disappearing.
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Visual magic (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.22 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL