Conjuring? Magicks? Effect? "This next one"? Spells? Illusions? Experiment? "Something cool with a deck of cards"? Mini Miracles? Magical Arts? Twisting Reality?

I've been thinking a lot about magic theory lately. In my mind, this is not necessarily the "how" of magic, but everything else; who, what, when, where, why... One of the things I'm thinking about is something Alex Pandrea said; calling magic tricks "Tricks", and executing them as a "trick", and how that might dilute the effect.

To laypeople, what do you call this illusion of magic that we all practice? And why? Maybe you do call them "tricks" to set up an expectation then smash through those expectations? Maybe you call it conjuring or spellcasting to blur the line between what you are doing and actual physics-breaking wizardry? Maybe you don't call it anything at all? Maybe you have a lengthy anecdote about how you can't produce real miracles but you want to produce the illusion of real miracles in the audience's mind?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO5WC6z27eE

I'll watch your presentation before commenting in depth as I have written dozens on articles on this theme,
but as for a short thought ...

“a magician does things that many in the audience cannot or will not do – place their ego at risk and actually DO something rather than live vicariously. Appreciate that even those forever trapped in their personal cloud of secrets can take away something of value from your performance. It may not be ‘must be magic,’ but can challenge some notion of ‘impossible’ in their mundane life.”
Satchel of Secrets

Smile, genuinely keep your sense of humor and don't perform "tricks"...perform MIRACLES.

It's all in YOUR attitude. "Here's something most people have never seen..."

Julie

Avoid things that look like they came from a magic shop. Maybe even avoid the word magician and use one of the myriad of other terms. Seer. ESP Researcher (aren't we all), etc.

Back when I was a kid and we used to watch TV variety shows, I noticed that most comedians did a string of jokes -- one-liners -- for their entire set. Sure there was usually a theme (was it Alan King who did the "my wife" stuff?), but it was still one joke after another. For a while there I thought all you needed to be a comedian was a book of jokes and (maybe) a sense of timing.

A lot of magic acts over the years have struck me the same way: "For my next trick" is no different than "For my next joke." Which leads into the OP's question of "what do we call these things we do?"

Back then, the comedian was supposedly talking about "real" situations, "real" people, and what happened when the two met. And there was usually that theme to tie it all together. But a lot of magic acts don't even have a theme (except maybe the same deck of cards for half an hour, and, even then, it's one discrete trick after another).

Even when I started out and was doing the usual "beginner talking act," parroting or paraphrasing the patter in the instructions, I never referred to the tricks as anything. I just did them. Calling them tricks, or anything else, would have made me feel (even as a 10-year-old) like the gadget demonstrators at Macy's or the local county fair. I didn't want to come across that way; I wanted to come across as someone who could do the impossible. It took me a few years to figure out how to use themes to tie the act together, and that made it so much easier to "show the impossible" instead of "demonstrating gadgets."

So, IMHO, what should we call these things we do? Nothing.

"I don't do magic. But it happens all around me and sometimes I get blamed." faucon of Sakin'el


I have had success by not even acknowledging that something unusual has occurred, or using the words "magic" or "impossible." Just do it!

I also like what I call "thematic interlude" in which magical things happen other that the scripted presentation - even a secondary effect.

Fro example, at the local magic club I was doing a teach-in on some coin production methods. A little red ball appeared instead of a coin.
I looked vexed and just dropped the ball into a coffee cup. Later on a second ball unexpectedly appeared instead of a coin.
I added that to the cup and a spectator called out, "and now we can expect a chop cup routine." I just continued without comment.
I later said that I had a method that only worked with copper coins and asked if anyone had some English Pennies with them.

No one did, so I poured two of them out of the coffee cup onto the table and continued. No balls, not comment, no acting as if anything unusual had happened.

Point that you do not have to call yourself a magician in order to be considered to be one, or announce a "trick" for the audience to have a memory of magic.

"Tricks" has too much of a negative connotation. "Trick or Treat" for example. I will play a trick on you. A trick typically is something negative you do to someone, deceiving them in some way. When I am doing a show I don't want anyone to think I am playing a trick on them, or tricking them. They are not my intended victim of my "tricks". Instead I want to take them on a magical journey, or experience. We are traveling together on an entertaining path filled with magic and wonder. I am not trying to do anything to them, I am simply inviting them to come along with me. I don't like the term, magical tricks, just too negative.

Since this seems to be a recurring discussion, I have a strong feeling that the correct answer is the intellectually unsatisfying “It depends”.

That being said, I am a big fan of the Spanish school of magic and have seen many performances by Juan Tamariz that start with something like “I have a little trick for you”. He then proceeds to entertain me with his unique presentation style and amaze me with what seem to be impossible miracles.

Yes, Dragon, for today's unknown audience it can be a good plan to start with a simple "trick" - even an optical illusions or puzzle to get a measure
of the audience experience, interest and expectations. Tamariz works had an influence on my OPS Magic eBook discussing the alternative Presentation Modes
of Overture, Prelude and Scaffolding. In this last Mode a trick can even be taught to the observers or gifted away before launching your main Routine.

"When I was a kid I fascinated folks with magic tricks. Later I learned there is special magic within us all that can be released.
If some of you will lend me some of your personal magic energy, then together ..."

Ken,

I fully agree—the common wisdom (as I know it) is to start a show/routine with a strong “opener”, which are often quick, visual tricks. And your work on unknown audiences is fascinating —though I am only partly done reading through it.

Both Tamariz and Aragon also call their next bit a trick further in their performance though, so they don’t limit the word trick to their opener.

“According to Michael Weber, Ricky Jay has a particular aversion to the “magic lumpen”—hoi polloi who congregate in magic clubs and at conventions, where they unabashedly seek to expropriate each other’s secrets, meanwhile failing to grasp the critical distinction between doing tricks and creating a sense of wonder. One guy in a tuxedo producing doves can be magic, ten guys producing doves is a travesty.”

Secrets of the Magus

Ricky Jay does closeup magic that flouts reality

By Mark Singer

April 5, 1993

The New Yorker

And I would not argue with him.

What you call what you're doing is an element of character and your relationship to your audience, like what you wear.

It depends on what context you're going for, context seems to have an equivocal quality to it when it comes to magic.

I'm sure many magicians have had the experience countless times of having someone who has just learned that you do magic say to you, "So your a magician! Can you make my wife disappear?" And if your a restaurant magician, you've undoubtedly had a patron say, "So, you're a magician! Can you make my check disappear?"

These gags get tiresome so quickly that it's easy to ignore them without realizing that, beneath the corny humour, the layperson is telling you something very important. He is saying, "If your really a magician, why don't you do something useful?"

For context, this seems to be a straightforward application of it.

Also many argue that few effects are so unequivocal that as to speak for themselves without patter interpretation by the performer. Suppose you place a red-backed card on the table. Then you have a spectator select a card from a blue-black card deck. When the red-backed card is turned over it proves to be the same as the selected card.

Did you foresee the future or did you control the spectators will to choose the card you wished? Perhaps you were demonstrating extraordinary coincidence, or perhaps you and the spectator were joined in some psychic, sympathetic link that led you both to be attracted to the same card. Which is it? You have to decide. Once you decide how the effect will be interpreted, you must incorporate that interpretation into your patter.

However, there are instances where this line of thinking is thrown out the window, and the best example of that is Bro Hammanns Two card trick where it seems that ambiguity is cultivated in order to let the spectators mind create its own context and by extension the impossibility that is perceived. I'm not sure if this is the exception to the rule or not, but it is worthy of note.

However, I think the context that some look for is of a different kind to what applies to the above examples. Some believe that magic is inherently meaningful. If you do something that is truly impossible even as something trivial as floating a small object, it has tremendous meaning. That's because, while the achievement itself is trivial, the implications are not. If it's truly impossible, it brings into question everything we know about how the universe works.

That's why baffling magic always evokes an emotional response. If you see something that all your instincts tell you is impossible, it has to be meaningful to you. The implication is that from this point on you can't be certain of anything, and maybe that is a context of its own.

For me personally, I try to convey myself as some sort of pragmatic philosopher by using my magical demonstrations as a way of exploring and demystifying the mystery's of the physical and theoretical world.

Magically

Aus

The Trick, now on Netflix, is based on a real-life climate scandal story.

When doing a rain dance, never use the word trick.

This video you link is such a great example of why I don’t attend magic lectures. Self important over thinking disguised as sage advice.

I seriously don’t get the question. Why call it anything? If you have to worry about what you are calling what you are doing look at your scripting.

But whatever you refer to what you are doing is right for you.

In addition to this point, which is a good one, if you MUST call yourself a magician for people to figure out you ARE one maybe that in and of itself IS THE PROBLEM.

I know that in these "theory" discussions people like to pretend they are deep thinking and revolutionary about it and good for you. If that is what drives you then have at it. But the bottom line is how you are perceived by the audience. The audience without whom I hasten to mention magic is nothing but theory should be considered. Who is your audience and why are they there? Are they restaurant patrons, comedy club goers, random folks you stop on the street or train, coworkers, family and friends, theater goers and on and on. Who are they, why are they watching you and what do they expect when they DO watch you? My suggestion is to meet and exceed those expectations.

Keep in mind there is no wrong answer. Everyone is brought to magic for a different, personal reason and one is just as valid as the next. There is no ONE right way or wrong reason for doing performances, or even not performing if you choose. Just keep in mind other reasons are as valid as your own personal one.

The only other thing I would mention is what is your motivation for calling it whatever you choose to call it? This will play a large part in what your final determination is going to be.

My general problem with the performance of magic is that it is mostly a series of disjointed tricks/effects, without reason for them happening. Why are you doing them other than you are a "magician" who bought them or practiced them? What do I learn about you from the performance of this material? What journey am I taken on when you do this performance? If you ask me once questions such as these, plus a lot more, are answered what you call a "trick" will kind of sort itself out all by itself.

Shenanigans and tomfoolery.