|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
marko Inner circle 2109 Posts 
|
Even if you always turn over cards with one hand, it still does not make a one-handed double-lift natural. It is not natural to do with one hand what a logical person would do with two. I want my audience to concentrate on what the card is, not how I turned it over. Doing a sleight as part of a flourish will always be poor construction. A sleight is done casually or with misdirection, a flourish is done openly and with full attention paid. Just my thoughts.
Thought: Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently there must be a beverage.
|
|||||||||
|
jonesc2ii Loyal user Oxford, England 235 Posts
|
Marco, why? Where is the rule book that says a flourish should command full attention? Sometimes if the audience sees something out of the corner of their eye they're not quite sure if they saw it or not. Perform the same flourish again, without the sleight and you already have their full attention. Then they lose interest again and they're primed for the next sleight.
www.ixyl.co.uk/forums - for when you fancy a debate or a quiet chat.
|
|||||||||
|
Cardjinx Loyal user 278 Posts
|
Same Ol' argument, but it's nice to see some different answers. Seems as though people's views are starting to change a bit, and that's a good thing IMO.
Anything you bring in to your magic whether it be flourishes, your patter, props etc.. can effect your overall presentation. Everything must be considered to the tee. Everything should flow and blend to your overall desired presentation and delivery. Not everything will fit, or should. It kills me when I see magicians that are very picky/critical about flourishes and other things, then wear a giant watermellon shirt, and their nose-hair protruding 4 inches. 
Cardjinx 
|
|||||||||
|
mattpuglisi Veteran user New York 321 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-07-08 18:10, marko wrote: I do not see what being a "logical person" has to do with turning over cards with two hands. That is like saying that a logical person would never hold a phone with her shoulder, since she could hold it with her hand.
Lack of invention is the mother of necessity - Robert Nozick
Instagram: @matthewthomas00 |
|||||||||
|
Stephen Long Inner circle 1481 Posts
|
It seems to me that with this (as with most things in magic) it is simply a question of context.
Put the one-handed double lift into some sort of context that "fits", or that can be understood and it will be accepted. If you use it out of context and with no apparent justification then it is likey to be questioned. Perhaps being a skilled card manipulator is justification enough for performing this move. That is up to the individual to decide. Some excellent points here so far. I am reminded of Ortiz's essay on showing or hiding skill at the conclusion of his Scams & Fantasies book. Worth re-reading if you own it.
Hello.
|
|||||||||
|
10cardsdown Special user Out There Somewhere 664 Posts
|
Actually, I think BryanDreyfus is correct. If the spectators see that you have an above average skill level with a deck of cards, and you then "find" their card . . . they are going to think: "Well, I hope he can find my card, look what he can do with the deck".
However, if the performer handles everything naturally, and above board without suspicion, then "finds" their card, there is this wonderful attribute left in the spectator's minds: MYSTERY Roger Klause says it best: "Fool their mind, not their eyes". 
|
|||||||||
|
marko Inner circle 2109 Posts
|
jonesc2ii, it is not a rule, but an opinion honed through experiences and preferences, which vary by the individual. But remember, an audience should not "lose interest" in order for you to do a sleight. They're attention only needs to be misdirected.
Cardjinx, but my mom gave me that shirt!! 
Matt, if your hands were tied up doing something else, it would not be illogical to hold the phone with your head and shoulder. So perhaps if your other hand were momentarily engaged in some other activity, turning over a card with one hand would not seem illogical. I'm not saying magicians have to always appear normal and logical (we know we're far from that), but that when a deception is being performed, it's best your actions fit in with standard behavior. Be aware that most of my opinion is based on the fact that none of us are perfect and are capable of goofing up. If you can do a one-handed DL perfect, everytime, without anyone ever catching you, then go right ahead. I haven't been caught on a DL in over many years, but I still wouldn't risk it.
Thought: Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently there must be a beverage.
|
|||||||||
|
mattpuglisi Veteran user New York 321 Posts
|
Marko,
It appears then that we agree - if an action is well-motivated, it should not matter if it is "flourishy" or not.
Lack of invention is the mother of necessity - Robert Nozick
Instagram: @matthewthomas00 |
|||||||||
|
Ed Oschmann Inner circle Lake Worth FL 1022 Posts
|
I agree with Matt. Please, when you get a chance to see Jimmy Grippo perform (on video)you will get an understanding how his sleights (natural or otherwise)are imbedded within the the framework that he constructed to place those sleights. Every action was so carefully choreographed that there was no chance of the spectator busting him. He never adusted his tie, for example, without a good reason. He conditioned his audience to become comfortable with these seemingly incidental actions. He might have the card palmed and maybe he didn't. The point being, he never performed an unnatural sleight because no matter what he did, it was imbedded in the natural actions that he conditioned his audience to experience.
Regards, Ed |
|||||||||
|
Ricky B Regular user Northern California 172 Posts
|
Fancy handling of the deck is entertainment...in the same way a juggler entertains but it isn't magic.
So when a singer gyrates on the stage with a crew of dancers behind him or her, has lights flashing, and smoke swirling, the singer isn't really singing. Maybe the audience is entertained, but it's not pure singing, and of course, shouldn't be done if you want the audience to consider you a singer. Singing is the evocation of an emotional response in spectators by the use of vocal cords and music. Or so the argument would go if singers were lame enough to discuss on the internet what constitutes singing. The reason for this is that the fancy handling of the cards gives the spectator a possible solution, ie: "I don't know what he did but with the way he handles those cards he did something". The end result is attributable to the skill of the performer, like juggling. A nonsequitur! This bit of wisdom is frequently repeated on the internet, but the evidence is lacking. If you can do a (flawless) one-handed DL, that explains how the card left the deck and went into your pocket even though the specs were burning your every move? I am not convinced. I have more frequently heard from specs (not from magicians talking about what they surmise specs think) "The hand is quicker than the eye." For them, that explains it. They couldn't see it because "The hand is quicker than the eye." It doesn't matter to such a person who elegantly or clumsily you handle the deck, "The hand is quicker than the eye." The risk that the spec will attribute the outcome of the effect to the magician's dexterity is outweighed by the benefit of providing the spec with a show. If it's not entertaining, I don't care how inexplicable the result is, it isn't magic either. Magic has to be unfathomable....you have to leave no idea as to how it could have happend. Marked cards, trick deck, stooge, and (on TV) camera tricks are other frequent explanations of the "impossible." Never mind that those devices often wouldn't work in particular tricks, they are nevertheless voiced by the puzzled spectator who won't admit he can't figure out how it was done (teenage boys being the biggest culprits in this regard IMO). Handling a deck like an average Joe won't solve that problem. We do this by stopping any reverse engineering by doing things unseen and unsuspected....so when the spectatoor tries to go back and figure it out all thought lines end at "No he didn't do that". The end result will be that it must be magic Aha, an unintentional argument for the one-handed DL! When the spectator thinks back and remembers the card being turned over and displayed with one hand, he will dismiss the possibility of DL far quicker than he would with a "natural" DL since he knows he could accidentally turn over two cards the way he does it. To the layman, it seems impossible to turn over two cards that way. Thus, the one-handed DL makes the effect stronger--more magical--than a "natural" DL. --Rick |
|||||||||
|
wsduncan Inner circle Seattle, WA 3619 Posts
|
A well executed flourish LOOKS LIKE MAGIC to many (most?) laymen.
In the context of the ambitious card, for example, the D'Amico one handed double looks like exactly what the effect is... the card magically rises to the top of and actually OFF OF the top of the deck. |
|||||||||
|
Steven Youell V.I.P. 3866 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-07-08 13:31, mattpuglisi wrote: Matt, I did not dismiss your opinion. I disagreed with it. And funny enough, my opinion is also "an informed analysis of Vernon's teachings (based on his and other's writings". Please do not equate disagreement with lack of respect. Steven Youell |
|||||||||
|
marko Inner circle 2109 Posts
|
Quote:
So when a singer gyrates on the stage with a crew of dancers behind him or her, has lights flashing, and smoke swirling, the singer isn't really singing. Maybe the audience is entertained, but it's not pure singing, and of course, shouldn't be done if you want the audience to consider you a singer. Singing is the evocation of an emotional response in spectators by the use of vocal cords and music. That sounds like an argument AGAINST flourishes. Flashing lights and swirling smoke add up to little. The audience has come to see the singer sing. If they don't sing, it's pointless. In that same context, I feel flourishes are great for proving to your audience that you know what you are doing. If you don't actually DO something from there, it seems a pointless exercise in showing off. Quote:
A nonsequitur! This bit of wisdom is frequently repeated on the internet, but the evidence is lacking. If you can do a (flawless) one-handed DL, that explains how the card left the deck and went into your pocket even though the specs were burning your every move? I am not convinced. It does not explain it, it provides a point where the audience is suddenly looking at something they shouldn't be concentrating on if you want it to be deceptive. Like putting glitter on a pimple. It isn't hazardous, but it does not help. The time devoted to practicing it could be used for developing the presentation and strength of the effect, which is what will actually entertain the audience. Quote:
I have more frequently heard from specs (not from magicians talking about what they surmise specs think) "The hand is quicker than the eye." For them, that explains it. They couldn't see it because "The hand is quicker than the eye." It doesn't matter to such a person who elegantly or clumsily you handle the deck, "The hand is quicker than the eye." Then I guess we should all quit magic. Quote:
The risk that the spec will attribute the outcome of the effect to the magician's dexterity is outweighed by the benefit of providing the spec with a show. If it's not entertaining, I don't care how inexplicable the result is, it isn't magic either. And in the same token, if it doesn't FOOL them, it's not magic either. Quote:
Marked cards, trick deck, stooge, and (on TV) camera tricks are other frequent explanations of the "impossible." Never mind that those devices often wouldn't work in particular tricks, they are nevertheless voiced by the puzzled spectator who won't admit he can't figure out how it was done (teenage boys being the biggest culprits in this regard IMO). Handling a deck like an average Joe won't solve that problem. If any of those things you mentioned would seem a reasonable solution to one's effects, I would recommend re-examing those effects. As for the 'average joe' comment, I don't believe that was the point anyone was making. You're trying to make it appear as if those who feel that flourishy sleights are unwise are against all flourishes. Not true. I perform several flourishes in my act (I'm sure those who share my point-of-view probably do too). I just don't like to use them when performing a sleight, (especially one as bold as the double-lift) because I feel it brings heat to the wrong moment. Quote:
Aha, an unintentional argument for the one-handed DL! When the spectator thinks back and remembers the card being turned over and displayed with one hand, he will dismiss the possibility of DL far quicker than he would with a "natural" DL since he knows he could accidentally turn over two cards the way he does it. To the layman, it seems impossible to turn over two cards that way. Thus, the one-handed DL makes the effect stronger--more magical--than a "natural" DL. Sorry, but I found this funny. If you do a good natural DL, the audience will NOT even remember you turning over the card (no more than they will remember you squaring the deck or clearing your throat). It's that unimportant. A one-handed DL provides a vivid and visual reminder of something that was not worth remembering in the first place.
Thought: Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently there must be a beverage.
|
|||||||||
|
Steven Youell V.I.P. 3866 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-07-09 00:02, Ricky B wrote: I've been doing Card Magic for over thirty years-- and double-lifts for 28 years. Not once have I EVER found a spectator even familiar with the concept of a double-lift. "Don't run when no one's chasing you..!" Steven Youell Quote:
On 2003-07-09 02:41, marko wrote: Yes! That's is EXACTLY right! Steven Youell |
|||||||||
|
ASW Inner circle 1879 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-07-08 18:10, marko wrote: Does this ruling apply to Rene Lavand? Quote:
It is not natural to do with one hand what a logical person would do with two. I think a better view would be that it is not natural (but not necesarily 'wrong') to do anything with a pack of cards that is outside the audience's interpretation of your skill level or character. I use the one handed double in one routine. In that routine I am standing up and I ask the spectator to hold their hand out - I demonstrate that I want it palm up, using my right hand. As this happens my left hand flips over the 'top' card of the deck (using Roger Klause's excellent handling). My right hand is the focus (and is also the motivation for doing the move with one hand - to keep things rolling - it's expedient). No one cares that I flip over a card with one hand - in fact I am confident that, after witnessing me do a few effects, they conclude that it is totally natural for me to handle cards in this manner. Quote:
I want my audience to concentrate on what the card is, not how I turned it over. Me too - but the fact is that they notice the turnover because I don't hide it - but they notice it as a subsidiary action to the main focus. They also conclude [in a nanosecond] that the card on top of the deck MUST be the selection. Using this sleight guarantees 100% conviction in a way that a tightly framed, two-handed action usually cannot. Quote:
Doing a sleight as part of a flourish will always be poor construction. Not necessarily - consider the Ladies' Looking Glass. These are my opinions, based in experience. I perform the simple change on a spectator's hand every time I do walkaround and the huge reaction leads me to conclude that they BELIEVE they see me place an x-card on the person's palm. Because of that, I doubt I'll discontinue my use of the one hand double lift in this routine, despite the numerous admonitions from magicians that it's not natural. (I HOPE I've proved that it is natural in this case, LOL). In any case, I also wanted to add that I totally agree with the person who mentioned motivation. You can get away with anything if it is motivated. Also - natural does not mean you have to handle cards like a layman. In fact, most of the guys who claim they adhere to a natural handling fail to recognise that they still handle the cards in a way that will impress some laymen. If you do a crude fan - that's better than most laymen. If you do a riffle shuffle in the hands - that's better than 70% of laymen. Laymen will even be impressed by the economy of motion in a simple action. I had a lady once comment on how amazingly efficient I was in putting a deck of cards back in the box. (I just do it the way 99% of magicians do, quickly, efficiently and without really looking at the box as I do it. But the comment was pretty interesting...) cheers Andrew Quote:
On 2003-07-09 02:48, syouell wrote: Is it? I disagree (see above). Andrew
Whenever I find myself gripping anything too tightly I just ask myself "How would Guy Hollingworth hold this?"
A magician on the Genii Forum "I would respect VIPs if they respect history." Hideo Kato |
|||||||||
|
BryanDreyfus Loyal user 293 Posts
|
ricky b
you lost me with a singer gyrating with smoke and lighting being comparable to a magician. Bryan
Oh sure, I can spell "Antidisestablishmentarianism", but I can't type t-h-e.
|
|||||||||
|
jonesc2ii Loyal user Oxford, England 235 Posts
|
Well, I'm glad I opened up this can of worms!
There appear to be two fundamental ways of thinking. 1) Don't flourish when using a sleight because it draws attention to the sleight. 2) Flourish if you like (and if you can!) because it draws no more attention than doing the sleight without the flourish. Is that right? Bryan, Ricky B's comment about lights and 'smoke' could equally apply to many magicians. I'm pretty sure Seigfried and Roy, David Copperfield and others use such 'extras' to add to their performances. Presumably because they believe it is more entertaining. Would you argue that making a tiger appear in a cage would be better done without the lights and smoke?
www.ixyl.co.uk/forums - for when you fancy a debate or a quiet chat.
|
|||||||||
|
10cardsdown Special user Out There Somewhere 664 Posts
|
EVERYONE seems to have missed my quote from Roger Klause and no one has commented on it.
FOOL THEIR MIND, NOT THEIR EYE. I'll say it once again. FOOL THEIR MIND, NOT THEIR EYE. If you use this thought as a springboard to the construction and performance of an effect, I think you will automatically know where you stand on using flourishes or flourishy sleights. But remember . . . FOOL THEIR MIND, NOT THEIR EYE!
|
|||||||||
|
Steven Youell V.I.P. 3866 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-07-09 08:12, 10cardsdown wrote: Just for future reference, the concept is not Roger's (although he's a master with it). It goes way, way back. In fact John Mulholland wrote: "Magic is designed to fool the brain, not the eyes." Steven Youell Quote:
On 2003-07-09 04:19, George Devol wrote: Andrew, I don't think we disagree on much. But it is possible that I did not make myself clear. When I said "Yes! That's it EXACTLY!" I did not mean to imply that what I was referring to was an absolute-- an absolute with no exceptions. Certainly there will be performers and situation in which a one handed DL would be considered natural. However the vast majority of the time I see such things performed, it draws unnecessary attention to an action that should have no focus whatsoever. Furthermore, the vast majority of times I've seen and spoken with people who use such things, their motivation was NOT to be natural it was to "look cool". Finally, I believe that we might have this backwards. Too many performers and letting the sleights they love determine their character rather than letting their character determine which sleights they'll use. Steven Youell |
|||||||||
|
jonesc2ii Loyal user Oxford, England 235 Posts
|
Steven I find myself agreeing with you some of the time and whole-heartedly disagreeing at others!
Which is fine. 
Surely ANY flourish 'draws unnecessary attention to an action that should have no focus whatsoever'? Why cut the deck with one hand when it's more natural to do it with two? Why flip a card over using two halves of the deck when you could just take it out and place it face up on the table? etc. etc. With reference to your last point, doesn't this presume that we all KNOW our character before we learn any sleights? For those of you who have been performing since before I was in school I imagine your character is pretty well defined. But for many of us who are just starting out we can't make a decision as to which techniques to learn based on the character we are yet to develop! Which is why I asked the question in the first place! Because I was unsure whether it would be worth me spending the necessary time and effort to learn it. Maybe next time I'll spend the time and effort learning the sleight rather than arguing about its merits!
www.ixyl.co.uk/forums - for when you fancy a debate or a quiet chat.
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » One handed double lift (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jul 8, 2003 10:10 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 <
|