I am not personally motivated by anything I see on TV -- have never purchased anything from an ad or demonstrated on a show because a fake audience likes it or some sports figure or scrawny singer thinks it great.
There is evidence that this show edits its takes to present what they feel will entertain their audience -- not a true indication of what a general audience might like by way of magic.

But then, I am not trying to make a living from doing magic or entertaining folks. If I were, I might be influenced by such "evidence" of "it fooled me,"

Also, "fool me" has never been a standard of good magic for me either. Astonishment is made of sterner stuff. Goes back to what I was mentored back in the late 50's.

To "fool someone" is a mild form of put down and disrespect, while sharing mystery and "awe and wonder" is elevating. Back then all boys were encouraged to learn some magic tricks and explore puzzles and illusions and weird science.

The objective was to fuel imagination and creativity rather than to "fool someone." A lot of things are different today as far as imagination is concerned and "gotcha" tricks seem popular. Not of much interest for me.

Occasionally I have performed with the Vanishing Wheelchair Project in NC. Kids with disabilities are taught magic and other performing arts as a process of growth and public confidence.
The audiences who come are not looking to be fooled or see good magic or hear good singing, etc. They come to see a greater magic of a kid perform who six months earlier refused to even speak out loud.

I gift away hundreds of magic effects each year and even sell a couple -- none designed with "fool me" in mind.

You pose a good question here, Bigfoot. Each performer should ask themselves why they do what they do.

I have communicated with dozens of performers who regret having to override their love of magic to meet the imagined needs and wants of an audience. Same with music.

My wife is putting together a band whose main players are people she performed with 35 years ago. They will not perform bar gigs as the management often wants to dictate what is played in order to sell more drinks.
Instead, they play for festivals and events where people want to hear good music and can appreciate that each band member plays because of a love of music over making money.
It is enough when a spectator comes up after a performance and says, "Thank you -- I feel better about myself than before I came tonight."

Why shouldn't magic be the same? Why not select effects because they will have the greatest impact on an audience's imagination? Philosophically speaking, of course.

Here is what you asked me to quote. Your words not mine.

Yes, but what you posted was,

"You said it is a choice between entertaining and performing magic and entertaining with magic."

Not an exact quote at all -- and certainly confusing.

Now explain why my opinion is ludicrous, and if you disagree, why?

Even Al Schneider make a distinction bewteen Clown, Theater and Virtual magic -- and caution that the performer must be clear in which they are doing.

many others have pointed out that "confusion," "mystery" and "puzzle" may be entertaining, but not powerful magic.

You may have a valid point -- just not sure what it is. Is being ludicrous good entertainment?

The selection of effects I perform are informed by my own magic sensibility. There has to be at least one moment of solid cleverness.

I don't perform any effect that has fooled me, except two.

The first exception is Out of this World. The funny thing is part of what blew my mind as a youngster, using the entire deck, is missing from the version I do.

The second was a huge moment in my then sleight heavy mentality. The Stop Trick (timing).

Ok the very idea that you think there is a difference in "performing magic" and "entertaining with magic" is fairly ludicrous. The idea that there is a CHOICE that you claim must be made between the two is absolutely LUDICROUS.

That means that you are one or the other and not both. That one can not be entertaining while performing magic.

Oh and the idea of 50,000 performances is quite strange. That is over 2 performances a day every day for 50 years. It is tough to back up.

But to make a distinction between performing magic and entertaining with magic is a problem.

And being ludicrous can be good entertainment. The statement you made sure made me laugh.

The distinction only seems a problem for you -- nor for anyone else, Danny.

I have posted an explanation of the 50,000 several times. All you have to do is research the Café'

All of those were "not for entertainment." I have several hundred more that were for entertainment.

Nothing strange -- just my history. Then there is magic I have done that was not a performance at all.

None were ever done for the purpose of fooling anyone. I guess some might have been.

Maybe tomorrow you will have something positive to say on some post. Would that be magic or entertainment?

The distinction is a problem for ANY professional magician.

Well sorry your delicate sensibilities are offended by a divergent opinion. YOU claim there is a CHOICE between entertainment and performance. THAT is detrimental to a professional entertainer. Sorry if I can't find a nice way to point out how horrible that idea really is.

There is a choice, and it is not between entertaining with magic or performing magic. It is between performing magic or entertaining by performing magic. That just means that you need to be entertaining with your magic, and not just do a boring trick.

How is that a choice?

I could choose to ramble on about what I'm doing as I do a trick, but that isn't entertaining. Instead I find a way to make the magic funny, interesting or some other third thing.

As a professional entertainer that is not a choice. This is what I am saying. Maybe when toy do 50,000 performances where people don't care about being entertained it is. But in life when people pay you as a professional entertainer you entertain. Crazy I know.

Danny offered, "YOU claim there is a CHOICE between entertainment and performance"

Once again, you put your own spin on what I said with no concern over what I actually said. How is that being professional?

and where did I indicate that those I performed with didn't care about being entertained? You apparently did not do your research. "Maybe" you should quit projecting and guessing and attacking what yiou don't understand.

But, your last statement proves my point.

A person trying to make a living from performing magic or any other performing art must give consideration to what the paying audience wants -- are guess at it.

For any given audience you may not be able to perform your favorite effect, or the one that create the greatest astonishment -- a choice between Schneider's Virtual Magic and either Theater or Clown approaches.

You must make many choices about character, dress, lighting and prop maintenance -- all in the name of "entertainment" rather than "best magic effect."

The theme of this thread is whether or not to select an effect based on a personal reaction to an effect as "it fooled me" in the belief it will then fool someone else.

I have suggested that there are more important considerations than either "fool me" or even "most astonishing." You seem to agree.

The decision to perform for pay or to perform for other reasons is also a choice.

The decision on whether to quote or paraphrase is a choice.

Dick Oslund often says, "Magic is not inherently entertaining." His career is one of choosing "what is entertaining" over "what is good magic." He is a professional entertainer.

I don't know if you just don't remember what you write, or if you just don't read it. (Not a bad choice to not read it mostly.)

You try to put WAY too much into theory and confuse issues and make distinctions that do not exist to sound smart. Good for you. But in real life where most people don't do 50,000 performances where nobody cares if they are entertained or not, where people hire you TO be entertained, and where magic is a means to do so this is a LUDICROUS statement.

Magic is not inherently entertaining. MUSIC is not either, nor is poetry and a whole lot of other things. So what? It is not relevant.

Why anyone would want to do a trick that entertains themselves and not those who are watching is a mystery to me. But being narcissistic must obviously help in that en-devour.

"Why anyone would want to do a trick that entertains themselves and not those who are watching is a mystery to me."

Me too -- what does it have to do with anything discussed so far?

I only keep responding so that readers here can be amused by your contortions.

"Nobody cares if they are entertained or not" is certainly lly -- why did you dream it up? Certainly ludicrous and possibly entertaining. The more you project the silly it becomes.

But is it magic? Dick will be glad to learn you think he is not relevant.

I have certainly found that I have used the things that have fooled me in the past. Its easy to say that I learned an effect based on this alone; Especially when I was younger. I suspect that I still do but I do take into account what my audience like as well. I will drop anything that does not work for them though but only after I try to make changes to it to make it work.

You're describing 90 percent of magicians. When standing behind the counter, people would come in and say "Show me something new, impress me" Very few asked for a critique on which zombie ball was the best, depending on the stage they were on.... They usually wanted the newest model.

So Jay do you think that's how you know if that person is a true artist?

That is not my opinion - it is quote from dannydoyle.

I agree with you. Many magicians are interested in facets of magic other than performing for an audience.

Now your trolling. But since you have made such contradictory statements I am letting it go. I would think someone so enlightened as yourself might do the same.

This has no logical answer, only emotional and perspective:
There are people who perform for their own satisfaction and some are considered artists while others are foolish
There are some who only perform effects and routines considered commercial and there too, some are considered artists and some are not.

I believe that one element to being an artist, in any discipline, evolves around between being an inner-outer as opposed to an outer-inner.
What about all the impressionistic painters thought to be crazy but after they died, their work becomes in vogue.... conversly.... The impact of time being negitive is (one example) Vaudeville, various performers were considered genius and very popular but if people did their acts today these same people would not be considered artists.