Is 'magic' a meritocracy?

Now, there's never an easy way to look at things, rose-tinted or black and white, so I guess I'll go right ahead and just spew out my thoughts...

There are 2 main 'levels' for 'magicians'. There's the amateur/hobbyist and the semi/pro/grand illusionist in my opinion:

-the guys who know some tricks, can be extremely good at sleights but who don't perform regularly for a crowd other than friends/family
-the guys who perform regularly and know a fair amount of sleights (not mandatory) and achieve some form of income (main or supplimentary, again: no matter).

"Good" or not, it doesn't matter - there are GREAT amateur magicians, and some real lousy semi/pros (don't ask me for particulars...) - I think they all fall into these categories. Of course, the "Uncle Jim Magic for YOU!" guy I dunno, semi-pro I guess...

Anyway, I'm going to look at things from the former's perspective - to wit, the amateur/hobbyist.

Now whoever is reading this, you all would of started off somewhere I assume (I don't know personally of anyone who entered a magic shop for the first time, ordered some decks and some rings, and got working on his first show the same day...), so you will all be familiar with the following scenario:

-you, the growing 'magician' are honing your skills within a community such as a town, school or college - people know you as a 'magician' and you might have a mini mini reputation
-the other guy: the other 'magician' who is your natural born enemy, you despise each other, you think he sucks, he thinks you suck - but most importantly, you're the hard-working sleights/skills guy and he's the "all-gimmicks" guy! You know what I mean:

Guy sees magic on TV (typically David Blaine in these more recent times). Guy gets excited "Hey *I* could be doing that and hooking all those chicks up!". Guy decides to "investigate". Ie, guy goes into magic store and says "Hey! I wanna be a magician like David whatshisface" - "Yes, Blaine?" - "YEAH! That's him!!" - "Ok, I think we'll start you off with some platinum linking rings, some collector's editions bicycle decks, of course you simply MUST have a signed edition of Mr. Blaine's Collectors Edition DVD, let me see - ah yes, this superb "Gimmicks for YOU!" starter kit too" - "Ok whatever you think I need" - "That'll be $1685 and 48 cents" - "Ok no problem! Here's my [dad's/mom's/friend's] credit card!"

Well I got carried away - but you know the type: all gimmicks, he can shuffle badly, but he's NOTHING to your hard-wrought perfect faro shuffle with a quadruple false cut to finish.

He gets a good reputation in the laymen's eyes - "Hey! He just made a pink sponge rabbit grow right before my eyes!!", and you're struggling to get the same sort of "reputation" through you're daring cover pass in front of their eyes, some brilliant forces etc.etc.

Now this all may seem very particular, but if you stretch your imagination enough, you can generalise the above scenario with your own/other peoples cases...

There is one who is all sleights, works hard, and is pretty good.
The "other" who is all gimmicks, knows no sleights and is pretty lousy in your eyes, but good in other peoples.

Now we come to the question: what kind of meritocracy is this?

The merit is with, in my opinion, he who has worked hard - the sleights guy...
Sure, you could argue that the gimmicks guy has some magical merits too - like, showmanship etc.

I think at a low level of magic, where gimmicks are easily passed of in a performance, there is barely a meritocracy as far as hard work goes. Sure, maybe showmanship is a merit in some ways...

At at higher level I don't think you can really argue about this - I mean, people like Copperfield and all those big names must work hard practising, performing, even if they don't invent every single trick - they have to WORK with it on the stage - it's no easy apple pie for THEM. It's only at the lower levels of magic that this occurs in my opinion.

But then again - is anything a meritocracy? Does it matter? I think in an ideal world it's desirable - nay, mandatory! But sadly, what kind of an ideal world is this? The only thing we can do is to strive to perfect our inner world... Then we can begin to perfect the outer one.

Well, that's what I think, I'd be interested to hear your views (which I'm sure will differ for some of you I said this before - I don't practise magic anymore, I sort of stopped. I don't know why, I don't think it was a "phase" that people go through as I got pretty heavily into it, with some great materials (books and videos) which I still have... But I do wonder a lot of the time...

Thanks,

Amadeus

The problem here is that your premise is misguided. If you're talking about what is good in the eyes of laymen, your top card cover pass will NEVER measure up to an Invisible deck. As long as your focus is on the sleights themselves, you'll never earn a "reputation" with laypeople, simply because (if you do them as well as you claim) they never SEE or know about the sleights you've worked so hard to perfect! You may eventually gain some reputation with magicians, but not with laymen.

If, however, you begin to focus on powerful EFFECTS, and the presentation thereof, those sleights become powerful weapons that can and will assist you at gaining a reputation with laymen. Someday, somewhere, the other guy is going to be caught without all his gimmicks. Someone is going to hand him a regular deck of cards and a few coins and ask to see a show, and he will be unable to do anything. YOU, however, WILL be able to perform, and folks will MUCH more impressed with routines you do with THEIR borrowed deck (just ask Harry Lorayne)!

You need to clarify your goals and your focus--pro or amateur. Why are you in magic? For your own gratification, to impress other magicians, or to bring some joy and amazement into the lives of everyday people (whethere they're paying you or not)? Once those goals and that focus is clarified, you'll find the right path...

Amadeus,

I can see why you would feel the way you do in regard to the sleight vs. gimmick department. (I hope that is not what has affected your practicing)

The "merit" by which one would earn status in the magic industry is a difficult thing to quantify. So many things go into making a great performance, it cannot be judged on one simple field. (i.e. sleight vs. gimmick)

Let's identify some of the many possible categories:

1. Sleights (execution, knowledge of angles, motivation etc.)
2. Prop management
3. Showmanship
4. Presentation
5. Adaptability (handling strange environments, people, problems etc.)
6. Character/Personality
7. Structure of effect/routines
8. Choice of effects

These are all qualities that affect the audience's perceptions and reactions. Hard work in any of them should create improvement. Whether or not you use a gimmick is arbitrary. The true question may be "Do you create a magical experience?"

One of the great benefits of sleight of hand is the ability to work with borrowed/examined objects. This helps to create stronger conviction in the spectators mind. Meaning, they can't dismiss the effect by saying "The (Deck, coin, whatever) was probably fake, and that's how the trick worked."

If you have mastered your sleights, polished your presentations, chosen strong material and "sell" the magic effect, you should not have to worry about the tyro who wants to be like the "guy on T.V."

To paraphrase the words of the wise: You are only in a race with yourself.

Lastly, I believe the strongest magician are those who will use both sleights and gimmicks. This opens the door to creativity. Awareness of the tools available in your art (and the best way to apply them), is a powerful thing.

Best wishes,

Tyler

Is magic a meritocracy? I don't know but it certainly SHOULD be!
And it has nothing to do with sleights vs. gimmicks, though.
Sure, there are dweebs who buy a whole act and think they're Blaine (why they would want to be, I have no idea!)
But a balance between the two can work well (see Scott's post, above).
There are amateurs who are amateurs because they want to be and who can "fry" everyone.
And there are professional who only know a couple of gimmick tricks but can hold a room of thousands spellbound.
And then there are the others!
So it's got nothing to do with sleights or gimmicks, I believe, but with the desire to be the best magician you can be and to never stop learning.

Eugene Burger said "in the house of magic there are many rooms. Some are for the card magician, some for the coin....And there is room for all.."
My magic is a little of many rooms from Kids shows, mainly props, to Bizarre, mainly story telling.
Most magically yours,
WR

Thanks for the replies, it's interesting - yes, I think a meritocracy is what we should aim for, not just in magic, but in society.

I used the images of the sleights/gimmicks as an example - personally I am not affected by this. I don't practice (for different reasons...) but who knows maybe sometime in the future I will get back to it.

You're absolutely right that a MIX is a great thing, up to a point (the point where the gimmicks man gets handed a deck of cards) the gimmicks man will get more of a "reputation".

But that's the point - who do YOU think is the "best" or one of the greatest magicians? Who DID you think was great whenyou were at the level of "the gimmicks vs the sleights"?

Now, for example, if I were to ask someone "Who do you think is the best magician" they're likely to say "Blaine", or perhaps "Copperfield". Now, I don't want to disrespect either of these two people as they do a great job (you don't need ME to tell you that , they work hard etc.etc. But in my own opinion, I CAN think of "better" magicians - better as I believe their knowledge and skill is vast... and no so... "co-ordinated" by the efforts of the media.

Again, the original scale of the question was very very basic. Yes, the "gimmicks vs. sleights" argument becomes nullified as soon as you reach "up" a level into the domain of the "mixed-bag-of-tricks".

Well, then you can ask: what is to be "great"? Richest? Best reputation? Best card-worker? Best stage-worker? Drives the fastest cars?? I agree with WR - "each to his own" sort of thing... but if you apply this issue of meritocracy into a larger scale:

Who do you honestly think "deserves" through their merit (virtue, hard working) - this is true, though rather extreme example:

-the cleaner paid by the government a pitifully low wage who wakes up at 4am to clean public toilets, comes home at 1am after cleaning more public toilets housed with drunken savages, eats and sleeps (this is really not an over-exaggeration)
-a pop star who gets paid $x million per appearance to lip-sync something they didn't even write?

I don't think that "money" based on "talent" is fair - I think money based on virtue, to wit, merit is more just.

Wouldn't we live in a better place if means were distributed over contributive-hard-work?

Well, this could go on forever and ever (what are luxuries to he who has inner enrichment?). And yes, I DID notice this was a MAGIC forum

I guess my point was, on a very basic level - it's not terribly fair to have a un-meritocratous (there's a word I've never seen before world of magic. But then again: who cares? What possible difference will it make to this shallow, debased and immoral society that we live in?

ABSOLUTELY NONE.

ps. I must add, I don't practise, I don't call myself a magician - I prefer my scripts to my cards - true. I'm not utterly devoid of knowledge on the subject, but then again, I'm very VERY far from knowing a lot. But what do we know about anything? We live somewhere where there is so much knowledge available to use through history and literature, scriptures and texts - I feel conceited enough as it is writing about it

Amadeus,

A rock star returned to his family home one time, a farm where his father still tilled the soil.

"So", said the father, "how's it going?"

"Great, dad," said the rock star, "Last year I earned five million dollars."

"Son", said the farmer, "nobody EARNS five million dollars."

Money enters the equation only as it relates to the Market. The Market rewards the pop singer the millions of dollars. The Market rewards the magician that keeps customers happy. This is the only thing that is quantifiable.

If a magician chooses (and it is a choice) to put their performance on display for money they must cater to the Market. Art is a secondary concern--not absent, just secondary!

ALL magicians, pro or amateur, have the option to transform their actions (gimmicked or not) into the transcendant level of "art". This apart from recognition and reward.

Although magic is more of a performing art I like to use an analogy with painting. I think that a painter can justifiably be called "artist" when they demonstrate the NEED to paint and the drive to learn to paint. "I see this drawing in my head, and I have to paint it." They then learn what they have to to execute the painting they see. When completed, an artist can be completely alone in a room with their painting and be satisfied with their efforts. Many artists are very critical of their own work and see the need to "do better" in their eyes. That's when it is time to practice more and learn more.

Notice that all of this is completely separate from level of schooling, whether the work is sold or exhibited or judged. All of those things just mentioned are factors of.....the Market!.

I suspect that for any magician, at any level, a satisfactory outcome to the performance of a trick is directly related to the spectator's reaction. I have to believe that even Uncle Joe will let up with the sloppy card tricks when the kids start drifting away with boredom!

The sponge-bunny magician and the second-dealing-pass-covering magician have to evaluate their own motivations for doing what they do.

I can agree with Amadeus that there are two "levels" of magicians, but NOT as it relates to merit. The levels have to do with growth and satisfaction as an artist.

I second Peter Marucci's statement above that "it's got nothing to do with sleights or gimmicks, I believe, but with the desire to be the best magician you can be and to never stop learning."

Cheers,
bob mills

It's simply suppy and demand. How many people have the ability to clean a toilet vs how many people can write a chart-topping song?

Each person is born with their abilities and talents and should use them as best they can.

Mike

Who decides the merit? And on what basis? In magic, it's the audience, and for them, the effect is more important than the method. If the sleight-of-hand purist fails to entertain while the gimmick "hack" entertains and provides a magical experience, then in the eyes of the audience, the latter is the better performer and thus the better magician. If another magician picks up a sleight faster/more easily than I do and requires less practice time to bring it to performance level, does that make me the better magician because I practice longer and work harder at it? Is it "fair" that I have to put in more effort?

As for the monetary aspect of your comments, magicians like Copperfield can only make what the audience is willing to pay. No one (and rightly so) would pay as much to see me as they would to see Copperfield. Even if I were a better magician than he, I wouldn't automatically deserve to make as much money as he does. He also happens to be a better businessman, promoter, etc. and the people who work with/for him work hard to put him where he is (and they also benefit).

On a local level, with two competing performers, one who offers a gimmick-filled show and the other a sleight-based performance, success will depend on how well they each entertain and how well they market themselves. If I am the most entertaining magician in my area but no one knows that I am available to perform, I will not be the most successful magician (for the record, I am neither!) Then again, is money the only measure of success? Which brings me back to my first question: Who determines the merit, and on what basis? And in what currency is the merit rewarded (dollars, applause, adoration...)? The answers depend both on your personal value system and that of society in general.

Okay, I've rambled long enough and probably haven't made much sense, so I'll leave this to the intellectuals now

------------------------------------------
"You're absolutely right that a MIX is a great thing, up to a point (the point where the gimmicks man gets handed a deck of cards) the gimmicks man will get more of a "reputation".
-------------------------------------------

Does this really ever happen? I have never ever been asked to perform "impromptu". And I've been doing magic for 20 plus years. None of my friends or co-workers ever ask for me to show them a trick. When people find out that I am a magician they have never asked to see something on the spot.
No one has ever handed me a deck of card and said go ahead show me something. I think most people realise that this is a job for me and therefor it would be inpolite to expect me to perform for free.

Hi Payne,
I made thae same point some time back on another topic. I think that the magority of people that are often asked to perform impromtu are asked because they invite an invitation, for example at a party they would start doing coin rolls ar flashy cuts to draw a remark then Jump into a performance at the first opening. (I too have been guilty of this in my early days in magic)But even that is not really impromtu I used to carry A TT and some other stuff.

Only about twice in the last 20 years I had to perform inpromtu for a lay audience (magicians at conventions is another matter).

Back to the main topic I just think that it's a case of Lay people meriting different things than Magicians as someone has already said in almost any art merit does not always go to the person who worked the hardest or who is infact technicaly the best. But, rather to the person who has hit the target market. you can sell them what they want but not always what they need.
I am of the opinion use what ever I feel gets the best reaction for the effect Gimmick /sleight/ both. I see magic as an entertainment art therefore I would personaly give the most merit to the person that ENTERTAINS. How they do this Sleights or gimmicks is unimportant in my view.
Phillip

Professional magic is absolutely a meritocracy. As a free market venture that stands on the very fringes of society, it can be no other way. I know of no political network that can make you successful as a professional magician. Either you have the skills necessary to please your buyers or you fail.

Since the question was asked from the perspective of the amateur, it obviously begs the question of what it really means to be successful. I will state a seemingly rude opinion: I believe that the overwhelming majority of amateurs have no idea what it means to be a good magician. All I hear when I hear the topic is discussed is that 'so and so' is better because he knows more tricks, has invented more tricks, or can do more sleights. Then the guy who is seemingly deficient in these areas gets up and wows the audience because for some reason his personality clicks with the crowd. The amateurs all cry "what's wrong with this picture? The better magician is the one who knows the sleights." Wrong! The better magician is the one who captivates the audience. That is the only bottom line.

Now I'm not discounting the importance of technical mastery, but the fact is that there are so many other important elements to performance, and they can be mixed together in an infinite number of ways. The fact of a performer's success should be cause to study that which made him successful. Harboring the attitude that the successful performer doesn't merit his success only betrays a too limited awareness of the things which are truly important to a performing art.

--Christopher Carter