It is definitely important, but it is no more important than presentation. If you want good magic you need both, not one or the other. In your hypothetical where you choose one, you would fail either way.

I'm not entirely convinced that they are equal - indeed, my whole argument has been that one is actually more important than the other!

Let me put it this way, which is closer to 'good magic':

A) A bare bones, uncharismatic, silent presentation of a trick so strong that it leaves one questioning the nature of reality, or
B) the most fantastically entertaining presentation of trick so weak it fools no one and can barely be called a trick at all?

My contention is that strong magic with poor oresentation is, at least, still magic, whilst great presentation without a fooling trick is, at best, variety entertainment not magic.

Presentation is more than what makes it entertaining. It encompasses eye contact, body language, etc. A bare bones presentation is still a presentation, and might even be the best presentation for some tricks or some audiences. Bare bones does not equal bad, it equals bare bones. You can't have strong magic with poor presentation. The presentation is part of the magic.

If presentation is being defined as simply the required presence of a person running through the mechanics of the trick then discussion is moot, since I obviously agree that magic has to be done by an actual human. However, I feel that presentation isn't really used in that sense in these sorts of discussions, I think it means something more than simply the person running through the trick!

Given that, then, I stand by my previous post - one can have magic poorly presented, but without a trick that actually fools the best presentation in the world is something other than magic.

You can have memorable magic that has very faulty presentation--bad presentation even. One great powerful effect requires little to no presentation, and a lack of perceived "polish" may even add to the believability.

But keeping an audience around to watch the next and the next for an hour requires a lot of good presentation. You might need to hold the attention of the audience for an hour and then leave them with a powerful effect--that also requires presentation.

Very few of us are hired to do one trick and leave.

As before, I generally agree with your post Pop. .

Thank you, Terrible Wizard. All right-thinking people do...

It is one of the differences between the amateur and the professional. The amateur can concentrate his focus on doing one powerful effect at a time, performing for his friends and family, the guys at the club, the guys at the office or for casual strangers on the street. He doesn't need presentation so much as a very powerful effect. Blaine-type "Street Magic" can be like this--the lack of presentation seems to lend realness and believability.

The professional has to hold the attention for twenty minutes, forty minutes or an hour. He has to keep the spectator's interest through the introduction and setup of one trick after another. Presentation is essential, or the audience will wander.

Both these situations can be done artistically and well, but they require different sorts of approaches. The requirements for the amateur artist and the situations that usually arise for him, and the requirements of the professional artist are much different.

Again, I generally agree.

This reminded me of something the late Tommy Wonder said in the Books of Wonder (if I am remembering right). He said that the amateur could afford the time, and meticulous attention to detail that would be required to do a wonderful but finicky trick like the Orange Tree. A professional could not afford the time, expense and detailed preparation required for that - the pro needed material that was a workhorse, that didn't require excessive preparation, set up, etc. He seemed to be encouraging amateurs to find and perpetuate this more complicated material.

At least that's the way I remember it.

I'd be interested to see the quote in full and in context. From what was given above, it makes some sense to me.

I do not have the books anymore (lost in a flood in my basement). But he may have said something more like, "I don't know why amateurs don't do that."

Lol

Sorry to hear about the flood - that's pretty harsh

Although it's not at all magic, the current trend in Cardistry is a purely technical skill usually with no presentation at all. It is like a purely technical juggler that is practicing on his craft. You can admire their technique but it doesn't connect with you the same way something with a presentation can. The equivalent in juggling was when Michael Davis came along with decent juggling skills but with amazing presentation skills. If we look back, I think it is easy to see how he changed the face of juggling as SO many acts today have copied his bits and routines.

Pop's comment about doing time is very valid as well. Too many people try do do a longer set without the personality or understanding of show structure to pull it off. I like to say that just because you put flour, butter, milk and eggs in a pan, that doesn't mean a cake is going to come out. You have to understand the structure and presentation skills to hold the audiences attention for more that 2 tricks.

Cardistry is a good comparison. I love to watch high level technique cardistry. Sometimes there can be a presentation style that enhances the overall effect, usualy through the judicious use of video editing or music, or very occasionally through dramaturgy (a couple of Fontaine Family videos, and one Claudia Seow video spring to mind). However, many times a ham fisted and clumsy attempt at 'presentation' can hinder or even ruin what would have been better left alone (poor background music choice is a killer here).

In either circumstance, though, the technique has to come first - there had to be the awesome 'trick' or 'move' for the audience to watch and gasp at. Without that it's a teenager holding a deck of playing cards. Great editing, great music, perhaps even a great script, but no cardistry, no skill.

As with Pop above, Ray, I generally agree that something additional to a strong trick is going to be required to keep people watching for more than one or two tricks. Not that this dents my argument, indeed it agrees with it - the essential necessity of the strong trick a more fundamental requirement for good magic than the presentation which affects the duration but not the actual existence of the magic itself.

But, partly to play devil's advocate a little, I can imagine that there can be tricks so strong that no presentation is required to hold an audience's attention. Consider: if you met someone who could do real magic, and who performed something clearly impossible (a true miracle or Harry Potter style sorcery), wouldn't you stop to watch a little longer out of sheer wonder and curiosity?

Or, on a more realistic level, haven't there been times when early in your magical career journey you did a great trick for someone, and with hindsight you know full well your presentation was terrible, and yet that spectator asked, 'Do you know any more?' or 'Show me another one?' or 'Do it again?' Sometimes the magic can be enough.

Absolutely. I remember when I was working at Hollywood Magic, a new Tenyo effect would come in and we could simply doa bare bones demonstration of it and it would fool people. Now, when we applied the psychology and presentation to lead people away from the method and create the false memory of what we had just done, it made the effect more impossible in their minds. It's also true that anyone can do a good piece of magic with no presentation and you'll watch it... but how long will you stay there if there is no emotional engagement? 1 trick? 3? 10?

We would usually not just show someone a single effect but teach them how to routine effects together to create a better act. We would go from one effect seamlessly into a second and sometimes third or fourth. Our goal was not to just sell them a trick but teach them how to perform good magic. You can play a simple melody on the piano but as you become more musically proficient, you learn to add chords and more complex arrangements to create a richer composition. Magic is the same. Can I teach anyone to play the opening few bars to the theme from Jaws? Of course. If the song went on for 30 minutes like that without becoming more advanced and interesting, you might grow bored and weary.

Our goal is just to learn to how tell a better and more memorable story that connects to more people, no matter what their preconceptions or expectations are.

"It's also true that anyone can do a good piece of magic with no presentation and you'll watch it... but how long will you stay there if there is no emotional engagement? 1 trick? 3? 10?"

I guess that entirely depends upon how strong the magic is. Making a card appear? Maybe 2 or 3. Making the statue of liberty disappear? Quite a few!!!

History says "no." When a performance is perceived as "too real" it is feared and rejected. Performance magic works because it is done as "theatrical allegory" without risk.

Consider the Inquisition during which street performers had to prove they were not using demon agency. It was OK to perform using sleight of hand and obvious trickery.
It was even acceptable to admit you didn't know how something apparently impossible happened. W

What was proscribed was any claim os "Special abilities" not coming from God in an approved fashion. The "fear" generated was not of the power of magic,
but of the deviance from approved dogma.

People did not flock to see "powerful magic" -- they ran away.

......

on a functional side, a "demonstration of the impossible" outside of an entertainment venue does not lead to "must be magic" or even a request for more of the same.
Instead, a person is taken to question what they consider to be impossible -- valuable, but rarely a request for more. Inspiring, yes. Appealing, no.

Funsway:
As much as there's been fear and rejection of 'too real' demonstrations of 'magic' there's been an equal and opposite positive embracing of the same. For every persecution of witches there's the millions who flock to pilgrimage sites to be healed; for every sorcerer stoned there is a faith healer or guru drawing huge crowds.

The issue isn't the power, the issue was the 'source' of the power in particular historical, cultural and theological contexts. So I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with that point.

However, as I noted before on another thread (I think - I lose track!), there is a difference between theatrical magic, enveloped in the safety-net of the potential for naturalistic explanation, and 'magik' or demonstrations of divine or psychic or whatever power in non-safe contexts. For the sake of a discussion on performance magic on the Magic Café I am assuming the former.

In a safe, or semi-safe, context, then, I believe my point holds - a trick so strong it makes the audience question reality (however briefly) will likely not require much, if anything, in the way of presentational devices to elicit the desire to see 'another'. Provided the tricks are of sufficient quality and provoke sufficient shock and awe, this could continue for some time.

How many episodes of Blaine, Dynamo, Brown are there?

within the context your intentions here on the Café' I can certainly agree with this -- especially since "makes the audience" lints this to theatrical settings.

I would not that my last sentence above does not fall into either of the two categories you offer. Life is not a multiple choice test.

Yet, I also appreciate that asking an open ended questions (short-essay) question leads to weirdness of a different sort.

I applaud your attempts to divide a huge topic into smaller "bites," but will resist any tendency to limit opinion two two choices when there are many alternatives.

An old school example is when a waitress asks if you would like pie or ice-cream for desert. "Yes," "No" and "i prefer cake" are valid answers -- her question does not limit your choices.

But, I will attempt to limit my future responses to "pretend magic for the purpose of entertainment" for focus, but not a restrictive choice.

I wouldn't limit it so much as to theatrical settings, merely 'safe' or 'semi-safe' ones. But cool