|
|
Go to page 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
If we're talking about pure deception, then ultimately the greatest achievement is to persuade somebody that we're not using the method that we really are actually using.
Agree? Disagree? Or, does this line of thinking not enter your magic at all?
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Jaz Inner circle NJ, U.S. 6111 Posts |
Isn't the idea to conceal all methods and make it look like magic is the method?
Then again, I'm thinking about the 'Spider Grip' which makes it look like one method is used while another actually is. I'll agree. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Sigh - again we have someone working without a frame of reference and running around the idea of "effect" while chanting about method.
STOP! At its most basic, there are three frames of reference required to describe a performance. There is the audience's view, where they experience the show as designed (effect). There is the performer's view, where they do what is needed so the audience can see the show as intended (method). For the sake of technical discussion, there is also the hypothetical disinterested and informed observer's view (add a director or magic coach), where they are watching what the performer actually does and how the audience watches and reacts in real-time. So getting back to the "deception" - it's about keeping an internal awareness of method from spilling over into the intended performance narrative of a flow of events. Complicated that way isn't it. IMHO, much better to stick to "how can we make this story sequence happen reliably for our audiences" or such. Anyway, a clue to when one is having frame violations or problems is "look for convoluted discussions or rationalizations which describe things that are not supposed to exist" - like method in a discussion of effect, etc. *Jaz, the Spider Grip Vanish looks like a perfectly executed French Drop, where after the usual procedure the performer happens to gesture in a way which shows his other hand empty. The clumsy sucker play-up some folks do is, IMHO, just plain creepy.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
"We" also seem to be making the assumption that magic is about deception. It is not, no more than any given play is about deception. If you can go ahead and get that line of thinking right out of your head, then maybe we can have a discussion.
|
|||||||||
Jaz Inner circle NJ, U.S. 6111 Posts |
Jon,
Andrew says, "...the greatest achievement is to persuade somebody that we're not using the method that we really are actually using." That's why I mention the 'Spider Grip' Vanish. It looks like one method but uses another. Drew, I don't think "we" assume magic is about deception. However, artifice is what makes magic different than other performance arts. |
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Hey there, guys. Thanks for the responses. For what it's worth, I'm not talking about magic performance specifically, just the deceptive aspect of it. Presumably, if we're able to perfectly deceive the audience as to the method, then we open things up so that the effect becomes driven by what we say it is.
If I force a card, then I'm not limited by the shortcomings of other methods. If I can convince them that I didn't even force a card, then I'm not really limited by the shortcomings of ANY method. At this point, I can give a purer display of the power claim inherent in the effect, yes? "The only way he could have done that is if he had an extra 4 of Diamonds. But I could have taken any card I wanted...! How could he have known I'd take the 4 of Diamonds...?" Whether that persuasion happens overtly or subtly, it has to happen, nay?
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-27 17:43, Andrew Musgrave wrote:... What specifically would you like others to agree with?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
I just want to know how people feel about the idea of disproving the method we actually use, whether or not it's a good idea, and if so, to what degree should we do it?
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-27 17:58, Andrew Musgrave wrote: Unfortunately, that often requires (unless they are magicians) educating them about both the context and the existence of that method (and its tells?) which seems far from useful, IMHO.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Well, we can still speak in terms of absolute truths, rather than the mechanics of the method. For instance, I claim that I can make a chosen card disappear from the deck and appear underneath a magazine.
They might not think, "Oh, he's going to do a Marlo Convincing Control into a modified left-hand palm, and then load it under cover of...etc., etc." But, they might think... "He's got a card already there under the magazine." Or else, "He's going to do a move to get it under there." Or else, "He's using duplicates." Some methods we don't really have a choice about disproving overtly, because they're "out there". Using the sleeves, forcing a card, smoke and mirrors, fast hands, etc. But others, we can disprove by strong implication. For instance, if the card is signed, we are making a strong case against duplicates and/or forcing. And so on and so forth... But here's the thing: If I can use psychology to eliminate a suspicion, which would otherwise be valid, haven't I really nailed it? If I can convince them I'm not using duplicates when I am using duplicates, doesn't that force them into a bind? After all, their other suspicions will lead them into a labyrinth they can't escape because I'm not bound by the weaknesses of other methods.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
If I understand you correctly, taking a stage trick example, let's say the performer gets a volunteer up from the audience and gets her talking and asks if she has a twin sister. She says, "Yes, and she's here." (wow) So now, the performer has them both onstage. The performer gets one to stand in a box and, with a whisk, she appears on the other side of the stage. (Amazing, right?)
In this case, the performer disproved the use of twins with the introduction. And who would suspect the volunteers were really assistants and they are identical quadruplets? Is that the line of thinking you want to explore?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
No, not exactly, because you haven't eliminated the possibility of using quadruplets. Think in terms of Whit Haydn's Ghost Story.
Watcher: He made somebody disappear from one side and reappear on the other. Skeptic: Maybe that person had a twin. Watcher: No, that's the thing. He DID have a twin, but that person was in the audience. Skeptic: Interesting... Could it have been a triplet? Watcher: I guess so. I don't think in your example the Watcher's been armed with the necessary proof to fight off the Skeptic. Ideally, we want the situation to be that no matter what the Skeptic throws at them, the Watcher is going to be able to turn around and say, "Nope, it wasn't that and here's why."
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Sorry, IMHO, it does not work like that.
If they FEEL they know how it's done - that's IT for them. That's also how the Penn and Teller Cups and Balls routine works - as they may "know", but since they don't care as they are learning it goes right by. Once you engage the rational mind directly - you've lost. Try to vanish a coin in an x-ray machine, or do a card trick where they grab your hands and count the cards - a losing battle. So, what's left is manners. You don't taunt them, and they will be amused by your frivolous tricks. Treating the "deception" going on here as an amusement. How would you know if you are being deceived? How would you know if a deception is pure? What would it matter if the "method" described is actually used? A tissue of easily sneezed through, yes?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Doctor Xombie Regular user FL (formerly Planet X) 109 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-27 01:37, Andrew Musgrave wrote: That sounds logical. If you can make it look like "real magic," then you have done something right. Magic should be simple. You shouldn't look like you are trying everything in your power to deceive someone. It should look natural, yet be unexplainable. |
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Well, most of the time, well-done deception doesn't come across as somebody trying to deceive somebody else. Little is more suspicious than over-eager attempts at persuasion. The persuasion I'm talking about is being able to anticipate a suspicion and showing that the suspicion is invalid, through subtle means if necessary (showing that the other hand doesn't have the coin either) or overt means if necessary (calling your magic trick before you do it).
Let's put it another way. You've got a trick that uses Method X. Somebody in the audience knows about Method X. Are you still able to fool them? If we can fool them in that scenario, wouldn't that be the ultimate in deception?
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
The goal of the strongest magic is to eliminate for the spectator any possible method. It is not enough to prove that it isn't what he thought, we must prove he can't even think of a possible solution.
He should be left with an ironclad argument for no solution at all. Magic is not just about deceiving someone, it is about creating a deception out of which they cannot reason their way. It is not about creating the experience of being wrong, it is the experience of being totally wrong and knowing it. The conclusion magic is no conclusion at all, but an admission of catastrophic error that collapses into absurdity. Drew, one day you are going to hand a feather to some gullible baby elephant, and it is going to break its fool neck. |
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-28 00:39, Whit Haydn wrote: For certain, but is this task not made easier by being able to get them to swear against the possibility of a method that we actually use? After all, that can make eliminating all the other possible solutions easier. For instance, what's more attainable? Eliminating the suspicion of sleight-of-hand by using exquisite sleight-of-hand, or by not using sleight-of-hand to begin with? As such, if I can get them to swear that I didn't use a gimmick because they went into the store and bought the cards themselves, and meanwhile I had my guy plant decks in the store that afternoon, then, all other aspects being equal, isn't the deception pretty complete? "He made my card float out of the deck." "Oh, really? He must have pushed it up somehow." "No pushing. He held the deck between his thumb and index finger, and that's it." "He must have used wires." "I checked his hands for everything. No wires, no magnets, no nothing." "He must have used trick cards." "That's the part I can't figure out. I went and bought the cards MYSELF." ?
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Yes, exactly. But that is not the same as the proposition in the original post:
"...ultimately the greatest achievement is to persuade somebody that we're not using the method that we really are actually using." Deceiving someone as to the method used then is only a step in the procedure, not the "ultimate greatest achievement." The ultimate achievement in magic is to totally convince someone in every possible way that something truly remarkable was accomplished that he knows without doubt couldn't have happened in the real world as he understands it, and also with him fully knowing that the conviction he feels is an illusion, and that whatever it was he witnessed, it was not what it seemed to be. To leave that person's memory of the event unsullied by any possible explanation, and protected against any such future assault, is a high level of art. It is difficult for magicians to understand this, I think, because they have forgotten what it is like to be in the position of the spectators of magic. They can no longer experience the same feeling of amazement because the possibilities of trickery are so much better understood. The technology of deception, once it is understood, can not be used to create the feeling of "magic." Magicians often seem to substitute the "puzzle" of methodology for the experience of magic, and this can infect their work. I have known many great magicians who on occasion had a hard time seeing the "effect" from the spectator's perspective--it caused them to mis-value one trick over another because of the intriguing method rather than the impact on the spectator. |
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Yes. There'd be different criteria if we were talking about what's ultimately the greatest achievement if we were looking at magic as the greater context rather than just pure deception. (Sorry, that's a wordy sentence...) Certainly the principles of deception could remain the same, even if we shifted the claim from the realm of "magic" to mentalism, bar betchas, sleight-of-hand expertise, con artistry, etc.
Also agreed that for good magic, the nature of the claim must be compelling as well. Still, if we are in a position where we can take something that we know is a crowd-pleaser, and we can introduce extra elements of deception to protect the secret without otherwise compromising the presentation, isn't it almost a no-brainer to try to capitalize on that? For instance, take Annemann's Par Optic Vision. A mentalist shuffles the deck, spreads it out and lets the spectator grab three cards and put them straight away into his pocket, and the performer takes the deck and cases it. He then blindfolds himself and has the spectator stand behind him. One-by-one, the performer calls each card as the spectator pulls it out of the pocket. Some mentalists still swear by this effect. Generally not a very complicated method, and yet it should be feasible to introduce additional "touches" (for want of a better term) that would enable what Tamariz called "Stops" for those spectators trying to think of the method, including such touches that could fool those who were looking for the commonly-known method, or even a touch that seems to completely contradict the possibility of the very method it employs. Let's say I do Show-Stopper Effect X that's been exposed in some circles as relying upon the key card principle. Which deception is more powerful? One which capitalizes on the spectator's ignorance, using a method they don't know? Or, one which instead gets the spectator to swear that the method couldn't have used the key card principle, even if it does? Don't know if that makes sense at all.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
The principles of deception are but the technology of the magic art. The same technology is used by actors, film makers, con men, thieves, spies, the military, charlatans, and advertisers and marketers.
It is the purpose that the technology serves that identifies what the "ultimate achievement" of its use would be. If you intend to convince people that mental telepathy is real, and that you can accomplish it, and use trickery to convince them of that, then you are a charlatan. I am not saying it is wrong or right, or good art or bad art, it is just an identification of what it is you are attempting to do. In this case, the greatest achievement would be one in which the most people were convinced of the most outrageous claims. Magic attempts to do something else. It's greatest achievement would be different than that of a charlatan. Different again from that of the theater. Different again from that of the spy. The greatest achievement of a spy would not be cracking a code, but using the cracked code to save many lives. The technology of cypher-breaking is a wonderful and complex thing, but it would be meaningless if the coded messages didn't contain information of critical value. Without the meaning supplied by the user, the technology of deception is simply craft. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » If we're talking about pure deception... (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < |