|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 | ||||||||||
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts |
Ah, yes, I had almost forgotten. My own view is that if someone enjoys you enough to come back and see your act multiple times, and they are observant and know how to learn from their mistakes, there is little you can do to prevent the deceptions (pure or impure) from becoming evident eventually. If, at their moment of insight, they blurt out the MO and spoil it for others, you can conclude that they either did not really like you after all, or they are probably psychotic. Either way you want to find another corner to busk on.
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Interesting that you should mention that, Michael. A funny thing happened today. A repeater came back, said she wanted to see something impressive. After she saw through something that was sleight-based, I decided to try out the basic tactic being talked about in this thread.
We did something under challenged conditions, a single pick-a-card trick where I got her to agree that I couldn't have used a force, a key card, a glimpse, a prearrangement, or knowledge of the card's location in the deck. We could have kept going on other possible methods, but those five were sufficient for that trick. She had evidence that none of those methods could have been used, and we reached agreement on them. Needless to say, one of those five methods were used, but even if somebody tells her the name of the principle, and she goes and looks it up, she's going to have good evidence that contradicts it. Not perfect evidence, mind you, but it's been good enough to take in a few card guys I know, and that's a threshold I'm pretty happy about. Bring on the Youtube magicians. Showmanship was close to nothing, and there was no pretense of real magic being at work or anything, but when the incorrect card changed into her selection, the trick got a much better reaction from her than any of the other fun stuff I'd done for the larger group earlier. Now, the main weakness of it is that somebody could tell her "He could have used marked cards" or something -- it's a legitimate concern, and I didn't do anything to disprove that. Thankfully, though, if she comes back with a suspicion like that, I can repeat the trick, offering further proofs. I hope she does, actually, because it's a heck of a lot easier to disprove something you don't use than something you do. Not that this helps my coin flurry any, but it seemed a fun anecdote. (Oh, and yes, I know that a sample size of 1 is lousy.)
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-02 14:38, Whit Haydn wrote: True. But for the performer who is in the business of creating the impression of something happening vividly which just isn't so, are there not degrees of conviction? Does great conviction not go hand-in-hand with great deception? In the thread about the "Perfect Trick", you talk about deceptiveness as a variable. Maybe... Alright, let's assume we want to maximize that variable for the benefit of the trick. Not for the performer's aims, but for the benefit of the trick. Quote:
To discuss deception out of context of its purpose is sort of unhelpful. Yeah, I figured I'd better just concede that. Above I provided three contexts (Card Cheat/Mentalist/Magician). Have you had a look at them yet? Or were they still not what you were hoping for?
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts |
Regardless of the tricks you mentioned Andrew, your context appears to be a cat and mouse relationship you are developing with your speccy. Already you have lost the possibility of a magical outcome for them. They are gaming you, and your "prestige" is at that point quite weak. I think you need to fall back on good humor, friendliness, perhaps even the wink of a shared secret -- if you want their respect. This is more about self management and people management than magic craft. You got to ask yourself what you are trying to prove to whom at that point.
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
I have no quarrel with anything Andrew has said, except his first post. He refuses to concede that point, and that is all I have objected to.
I don't agree that the greatest achievement of pure deception is to get people to believe that we aren't using the method that we are using. It seems a greater achievement would be to get people to believe that we weren't using any method. That would be charlatanry. How can anything less be considered the greatest? Apart from everything I have said about the way the argument was formulated, you can't get past this original obvious error. The greater the lie, and the stronger the conviction, the greater the achievement of "pure deception." Perhaps to get someone to believe he has died and is now in heaven, or to convince Othello to kill his wife by cleverly planted evidence that deceives into madness--these are greater achievements in "pure deception" aren't they? |
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-03 01:09, Whit Haydn wrote: Ah... Sorry Whit. I apologize for this. I'm still too close to understanding the spirit of the question I posed, and I feel I'm having a devil of a time communicating that. Although Michael's latest comment suggests there's a flaw potentially even with that spirit?
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Victor Marnier New user 37 Posts |
Well, I always have to think of an example Al Schneider told me. Imagine walking up to a table. You ask someone to place a coin in the middle of the table and you clap your hands. The coin disappears. You offer to repeat it again, as much as they want to. There is no showmanship. It is just as described. Coin is placed, you clap your hand, and coin is gone. Well, this probably will make you world famous.
Deception is inherently entertaining. What about giving them the wrong method. Simple example: the 'electrostatic' matches that make each other jump apart after you rub them on your sleeves. I have seen people actually believing that must be the 'method'.... Derren Brown does that quite often making people think that he suggested a particular choice through subliminal messages. |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Al Schneider is completely right. Magic is greatest when the audience must believe that what they are seeing with their own eyes is clearly impossible based on everything they know about the universe, and for which they have no possible explanation.
I have never accepted or understood the argument presented tirelessly by Drew Heyen that magic is not about fooling people and deceiving them--it is about helping them to believe that anything is possible--a totally useless and ridiculous position to adopt in my opinion. Victor: You are not giving them a method at all. You are claiming a more believable lie. The claim is simply lowered from an impossible to a believable claim. Like a rigged strong man stunt. It is entertaining perhaps, but isn't magic. It is simply a very mild charlatanry--which is what Derren Brown does. "Gee, I didn't know you could make someone do something that stupid just by talking to them." "Gee, look at the way that car runs when the magic additive is added to the gas tank." By lowering the claim, it is easier to get agreement to the conclusion, but to what point? I can tie a cherry stem into a knot with my tongue. |
|||||||||
kosmoshiva Loyal user Canada 255 Posts |
... and then there are the times when you can announce the method that you're using quite openly, and nobody believes you because they are in the frame of your magical effect and you're using a tone of voice that ridicules your own statement ...
Don't forget to breathe.
|
|||||||||
Victor Marnier New user 37 Posts |
I think the Al Schneider example is well chosen because it illustrates a very pure effect. A coin is placed on the table, you clap your hands, and the coin is gone.
The problem with a lot of magic is that it is covered with props, jokes, unnecessary actions, reaching into the pocket for some magic dust... and then the coin is gone. Needless to say, this doesn't give the same as the effect described. The challenge is to 'clean up' magic as much as possible. I agree that an impossibility is better than having them think the matches are charged with electricity. But I am unsure about the Derren Brown examples. How about the following outcome in the spectator's mind: - there is no possible explanation. I have no clue how he did it. versus - he must have read my mind, he influenced me in my choice, he can predict the future, etc. etc. Derren Brown has obtained this level of impact and I think it's pretty cool. But when we are thinking of experiencing magic, this may indeed step away from it. I need to give this more thought. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » If we're talking about pure deception... (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < |