All tricks easy to figure out?

[wert]

That's certainly not how I usually present my show, but in this context, in this forum, I don't mind. It's just a bit of fun.

When I do my show I'm really not concerned very much about fooling my audience - Even if no one is fooled by anything it wouldn't matter as long as they are being entertained.

Ah, but the deceptive part of magic is very important to having a properly magical experience I would think.


If I merely wanted to "entertain", I could merely drop my pants or take a pie in the face.

People would be entertained, but it certainly wouldn't leave any impression of wonder or astonishment.

Having your magic be deceptive is certainly not something I would downplay.

By this "logic", Copperfield could distribute flyers before each of his shows explaining his methodologies in detail.

People would still appreciate his subsequent show (using those methodologies) just as much correct?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ah, but the deceptive part of magic is very important to having a properly magical experience I would think.

If I merely wanted to "entertain", I could merely drop my pants or take a pie in the face.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

People would be entertained, but it certainly wouldn't leave any impression of wonder or astonishment.

Having your magic be deceptive is certainly not something I would downplay.

It's certainly part of the fun.

By this "logic", Copperfield could distribute flyers before each of his shows explaining his methodologies in detail.

People would still appreciate his subsequent show (using those methodologies) just as much correct?

I can't speak for other people. For me it would depend on the trick and the presentation.

Some tricks have no element of skill at all. They aren't much fun once you know the secret. Other tricks are still just as amazing when you know the method.

Have you seen the scene in The Sting where Scarne (hand modelling for Paul Newman) displays a wonderful series of card tricks? I know how almost every effect was produced, but he does it so smoothly I simply cannot see him do it. I could watch that scene all day.

 

[Cain]

Christ, I thought for a second Wert only launched into his holier-than-thou nonsense when replying to me. It's sort of comforting to learn that this is his general attitude.

Edited to remove sig, which violates Forum language rules. -- Pyrrho

 

[wert]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Ah, but it's not magic now is it?

I can't speak for other people. For me it would depend on the trick and the presentation.

Some tricks have no element of skill at all. They aren't much fun once you know the secret. Other tricks are still just as amazing when you know the method.

Ah, but you dither and change the topic. It makes not a whit of difference whether a trick requires skill or not. Take away the secret and it's not magic. At best it becomes an exercise in cleverness and/or manual dexterity skills.

Would or would not the majority of folks (in your opinion) have the same enjoyment, the same sense of wonder and astonishment, if someone like Copperfield (prior to the show)handed out a flyer with the methodologies to the effects presented.

I doubt it.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who see magic in an artistic sense, not just as a puzzle to be solved. Take away the mystery, and it's not magic anymore now is it? It's more roughly akin to juggling. (which is quite nice, but it's not magic)

Some folks allow themselves that moment of astonishment, something that "puzzlers" don't seem to attach too much importance to. I feel quite sorry for those who can't watch an artistic magic performance without feeling the need to deconstruct the whole thing. The feeling of wonder and astonishment is a much greater gift for me than merely "knowing how it's done".

Magic isn't just secrets or manual dexterity.

To reduce it to such is to not understand what it's really about.

 

[Garrette]

wert,

you "feel sorry" for those who "deconstruct" tricks? On what basis? This is equivalent to the lame response that evangelical christians use when they pity those of us who do not experience the wonder of god and religion. It is a needless pity, and theirs is a false wonder.

It seems you are defining "astonishment" in a manner that suits you, and if others do not agree, then they must be wrong.

In a broad sense, Paul Harris and Derren Brown, and some others would agree with you that astonishment is the goal and that magic is an art. I lean in that direction myself. But it is not the performer's role, and certainly not your role, to force a pre-determined astonishment on the audience but rather to gauge the audience and mold the performance to suit. That which astonishes me is not the same as that which astonishes my children or my friends or, I venture to say, you.

When I perform (only as an amateur, and usually poorly), I sometimes come away astonished, and I already know all the secrets. I am astonished at how well a performance was received or at how viscerally an observer responded.

It is akin to the pride felt after a strong theatrical performance. In that case, both the actor (which I have been--again strictly as an amateur) and the audience know "how it's done." The actor knows ahead of time what will happen. But if the performance is strong and suits the audience and the atmosphere, the astonishment comes.

When I lived in Colorado Springs, I frequented the magic shop there (called Zeezo's, for those interested). Once while there, the shop manager demonstrated an effect for a mother and her son. I knew the effect (as I happened to perform it myself on occasion) and watched his style. He did something differently than I did. He increased the already considerable impact of this particular effect by changing the handling midstream. It actually made the handling technically easier but added to the difficulty level of the misdirection he had to apply. In short, he put the key to the effect right there in front of the observers on the counter--and I do mean right there in front of them but his misdirection was so strong that they never looked at it; by the time they looked at the counter again, he had removed the secret. He knew I could see what he was doing, but as a fellow magician, he gambled correctly that I would not blow it for him.

It was astonishing. I knew exactly what he had done. I knew how he had done it. It floored me. Afterwards when I discussed it with him, he smiled and said simply "Sometimes you have to be bold.

If you don't want to know secrets, don't learn them. Do not, however, presume that your preferences are the same as those around you.

That way lies intellectual tyranny.

 

[wert]

wert,

you "feel sorry" for those who "reconstruct" tricks? On what basis? This is equivalent to the lame response that evangelical christians use when they pity those of us who do not experience the wonder of god and religion. It is a needless pity, and theirs is a false wonder.

Ah, comparing religion and a form of entertainment. The last time I checked, Copperfield wasn't demanding tithes or using his act to determine the fate of someone's soul.

Apples and oranges. Next piece of bad logic please.

It seems you are defining "astonishment" in a manner that suits you, and if others do not agree, then they must be wrong.

Nope, magic is designed to create wonder and astonishment. If performed merely as a puzzle, it's no different then simply buying a book of brain teasers. It becomes magic no longer. I understand that there are those unwilling (or unable) to enjoy magic without reconstructing it to it's mundane parts and I wonder why those folks watch magic in the first place at all? Surely there are other puzzles out there more fascinating than the relatively few principals that encompass the most common magic seen. (stage magic) It's no great intellectual feat to figure out the stuff you see Lance Burton or David Copperfield do if you put your mind to it. The point is, why bother? Is it not possible to enjoy something on a purely visceral level without the need to prove ones intellectual mettle by "knowing how it's done"?

When I perform (only as an amateur, and usually poorly), I sometimes come away astonished, and I already know all the secrets. I am astonished at how well a performance was received or at how viscerally an observer responded.

How much astonishment would your spectators feel if you preceded your performance with an in depth thesis on the methods you intend to use? Try showing something really astonishing to someone that has a simple method. Then tell them the simple method and watch their face fall as they say something akin to "oh that's it"? You've effectively destroyed the entertainment value of the effect to them by marginalizing it. Magic depends on a bit of an air of mystery to be effective. Take away the mystery and you have something that might be entertaining, but it surely isn't magic.

It is akin to the pride felt after a strong theatrical performance. In that case, both the actor (which I have been--again strictly as an amateur) and the audience know "how it's done."

Ah, but the point of an effective magical performance is predicated by the belief that the audience will not necessarily "know how it's done". Sure, no one (except some woo woos perhaps) believe it's actually magic occurring, but many will be willing to suspend their disbelief (and not treat magic as a puzzle) in order to enjoy the pleasurable feeling of wonder and astonishment.

The actor knows ahead of time what will happen. But if the performance is strong and suits the audience and the atmosphere, the astonishment comes.

Astonishment in magic comes from deceptiveness (wonder, astonishment), and presentation. Take away one part and you diminish the effectiveness of the magic being performed. You're not going to convince me that the level of astonishment and wonder remains the same when all methodologies are known.

It was astonishing. I knew exactly what he had done. I knew how he had done it. It floored me. Afterwords when I discussed it with him, he smiled and said simply "Sometimes you have to be bold.

Yep, but the spectators didn't know what he was doing. And if he had used another less bold method they would have likely have been just as astonished. Being bold is often part of presenting strong magic. No surprises there. (Well for a tyro perhaps)

If you had told those spectators before or after the effect of the methodologies being used, do you honestly think they would have had the same appreciation you had?

Once again, I doubt it.

If you don't want to know secrets, don't learn them. Do not, however, presume that your preferences are the same as those around you.

I merely state that magic isn't purely a puzzle or manual dexterity.

That way lies intellectual tyranny.

Oh please. Spare us the drama. The last time I checked, expressing an opinion doesn't relegate one to being a "tyrant"

 

[Garrette]

Posted by wert:

Nope, magic is designed to create wonder and astonishment. If performed merely as a puzzle, it's no different then simply buying a book of brain teasers. It becomes magic no longer.

To you. That's the point. To you it will be magic no longer. To others it might be. You're defining for everyone how they can be astonished.

Ah, comparing religion and a form of entertainment. The last time I checked, Copperfield wasn't demanding tithes or using his act to determine the fate of someone's soul.

You are observant enough, if you choose to be, to understand that I was comparing methods, not the institutions. Deliberate misunderstanding does nothing to raise your credibility. I stand by my analogy.

How much astonishment would your spectators feel if you preceded your performance with an in depth thesis on the methods you intend to use? Try showing something really astonishing to someone that has a simple method. Then tell them the simple method and watch their face fall as they say something akin to "oh that's it"?

I would not choose to reveal it to them. If someone chooses instead to deconstruct the effect and figure it out, then that person may well not only retain but increase his sense of wonder. I know it worked that way for me.

Ah, but the point of an effective magical performance is predicated by the belief that the audience will not necessarily "know how it's done".

For the most part, but not exclusively. Astonishment is an emotion, not a reasoned position. As such, it can have many catalysts. Your way is one. Artful manipulation of the senses is another. Discovery of unknown (to the individual) methods can be another. Perhaps not for all, or even many, but for some.

Astonishment in magic comes from deceptiveness (wonder) and performance. Take away one part and you hurt the whole thing.

Ditto.

You can't treat all audiences the same.

Yep, but the spectators didn't know what he was doing. And if he had used another less bold method they would have likely have been just as astonished. Being bold is often part of showing strong magic. No surprises there. (Well for a tyro perhaps)

The point is that I was part of the audience, too. He knew it. He simultaneously showed them one thing that kept them in the dark and astonished, and me another thing that enlightened me but astonished me just as much.

Would or would not the majority of folks (in your opinion) have the same enjoyment, the same sense of wonder and astonishment, if someone like Copperfield (prior to the show)handed out a flyer with the methodologies to the effects presented.

I agree with you. The majority would less the wonder, enjoyment and astonishment. Majority is not all.

I merely state that magic isn't purely a puzzle or manual dexterity.

Magic The Art certainly is not just a puzzle or dexterity; we agree. We disagree, however, on the implications.

You seem to suggest that all will respond identically and we must protect them from a potential loss of wonder. I take issue with that.

Oh please. Spare us the drama. The last time I checked, expressing an opinion doesn't relegate one to being a "tyrant"

But I like drama; I'm a thespian.

First, I said "that way lies" not "you are".

Second, I stand by it. Your opinion is of the sort that characterizes all magic audiences as identical and those who see wonder and astonishment differently than you as wrong.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ah, but it's not magic now is it?

It could be more entertaining, though.

Ah, but you dither and change the topic. It makes not a whit of difference whether a trick requires skill or not. Take away the secret and it's not magic. At best it becomes an exercise in cleverness and/or manual dexterity skills.

That's an interesting "argument by definition". If you define magic as not being magic any more when the audience knows the secret, well, yes, giving away the secret stops it being magic.

If you tend to think that magic is a genre of performance, and that it's still magic whoever it watching, then it doesn't matter in the same way.

Would or would not the majority of folks (in your opinion) have the same enjoyment, the same sense of wonder and astonishment, if someone like Copperfield (prior to the show)handed out a flyer with the methodologies to the effects presented.

I doubt it.

Would the audience be forced to read the flyers at gunpoint, or would they have the choice not to read them?

Some folks allow themselves that moment of astonishment, something that "puzzlers" don't seem to attach too much importance to. I feel quite sorry for those who can't watch an artistic magic performance without feeling the need to deconstruct the whole thing.

Doesn't a significant part of the misdirection involved in magic rely on the audience trying to understand what is going on?

You get them to stare suspiciously at one object or activity, thinking that it's where the secret is hidden, and then you get up to mischief elsewhere.

To take the opposite to a ridiculous extreme, unless the audience is trying at least a little to spot the trick you could do any old rubbish and call it magic.

Kevin: "Observe this empty matchbox! I go behind the curtain for several seconds, and I make rustling sounds. Now I emerge and hey presto! The matchbox is full of matches".

Audience: "Wow. I don't care how he did that, it's magic".

The sense of wonder, for me at least, comes from trying and failing to figure out how I just got fooled. Not from never trying in the first place.

 

[Peter S.]

A know a magician who can do astonishing, almost inhuman things with a deck of cards. His skill is amazing, but the one thing he doesn't know how to do is be entertaining. When he isn't performing for magicians his performance falls flat.

There is a magician, (and I've been racking my brain for the last couple of days trying to remember his name), who has a special on TV a few years ago. With many of the effects he did the modus of the effects was obvious, but it didn't matter; the point was that they looked cool and were entertaining.

Of course, I would like to be entertaining and fool my audiences at the same time; that's what I strive for, but given the choice, I'll take entertaing over amazing every time.

 

[Gerri]

Peter,
I remember that the other magician's name was David Copperfield and he does those kinds of tricks,I think

 

[UndercoverElephant]

They are nearly all easy to figure out. Last week I watched a program about the "100 greatest magic tricks". Number 1 was David Copperfields "Death Saw", which is a rather typical example of how damned easy it is to figure out the answer if you are willing to think about it properly :

Am I supposed not to give away secrets?

Not me, no.

Well, since I am not a magician, just a critical thinker, so I know no secrets to give away. But I know a pair of mechanical legs when I see them! And I don't think you have to be Albert Einstein to work out where Davids real legs are. Is this so difficult?

Another one in the top ten was the trick where the woman walks into a box, two metal plates are slid in, one just below her diaphram, the other at the top of her legs. Then the middle section is slid out. Again - nobody has to explain to me how this trick is done. It's blinking obvious! Just like the Copperfield example - there's only so many places the womans legs can be, stomachs in seperated boxes aren't real stomachs, and the legs sticking out the bottom are surely also attached to a woman, just not neccesarily the same one that's looking out the top!

Am I a bad boy for giving these "secrets" away?

EVERYTHING has an explanation, you just have to be smart enough to figure it out. Quite often, you don't even have to be that smart. Usually the obvious answer seems to be rejected.

 

[Garrette]

JustGeoff,

You are under no obligation to respect the secrecy of magic tricks. Personally, I merely ask that you are discreet in deciding in which forum to reveal secrets. Is here okay? Maybe, except that the board (and it is a private board, I think) has asked that no secrets be revealed.

Likewise, if I were performing a show and you began yelling out secrets during the performance it would be beyond the pale. I think even handing out flyers just prior to or just after the show would be, while not perhaps morally reprehensible, at least indicative of a lack of respect or consideration.

Regarding the 100 tricks you could figure out, I don't doubt you could. Nor do I doubt you could figure out many others. I believe, however, that it is more difficult to figure out a magical trick as opposed to an illusion which you were describing. (I admit up front that I do not have a ready definition to discriminate between the two; it's like obscenity--I know it when I see it).

There are card and coin tricks that when performed by experts and observed by non-magicians cannot be figured out, or are, to be precise, nearly impossible to figure out. Simply saying "Well, he didn't put the coin where we thought he did" is not equivalent to figuring it out.

Conversely, there are tricks where even if you know how it's done, you can't catch the magician doing it. The one I can think of is Three Card Monte (referring to the street-corner sucker bet). I know how it's done. I can even do it moderately well; actually, I USED to do it moderately well; it's been a long time. But there's no way I would ever bet somebody that I could "find the ace." You know how it's done, but you still can't detect it being done.

---

Figuring out some magic tricks, if you're not an expert already yourself, is like deconstructing a Kasparov chess match. You know when he moved the knight and when he castled, but you don't know why he did it when he did, and if you played the same opponent and were allowed to use notes, you still couldn't beat him like Kasparov did.

 

[T'ai Chi]

When I tell friends and relatives how tricks are done, they really like it, and seem to get more pleasure out of it then being in a state of 'amazed ignorance'.

If I told them how the trick worked before I did the trick, that would be stooopid, because it would ruin the surprise for them of course, so I don't. After I do the trick, or someone else does a trick, and if they ask, and when I make sure they really want to know and this might ruin the 'magic' but they say it is OK, then I tell them. -They like to do the trick on others.

Most of them are about 95% there already with their possible explanations. I find that magicians telling the public that the public thinks everything is done with mirrors and invisible strings is insulting. If my friend asks if he can look at the deck, and this card trick involves an unexaminable deck, and I basically evade his request with patter or obviosuly swap decks, gee, I think he is almost there to figuring out the trick.

Same thing with an in half lady, finger choppers, levitations, a big thing disappearing, and so on, the more obvious tricks, and especially any gigantic stage illusions where the viewer obviosuly knows all the 'magic' takes place with the big apparatus that is on stage.

In the case of tricks due to skill, I usually show them the basics. Double lift, false shuffle, false cut, palm, etc., theory of various decks, mental effects, and then say that I or the magician is using 'some combination' of these to do the effect. I usually don't show them specifically because I don't have the skill to actually be more than a theoretician here. Moreover, they usually 'get it' without a start-to-finish demonstration.

In fact, there are many tricks involving skill that can be seen when viewed in slow motion.

There will never be a magic secret that can remain hidden after a thorough investigation.

 

[Rick Maue]

Greetings,

I find this thread rather interesting to say the least. I have been a magician for over 35 years. In fact, the routine that was discussed at the start of the thread (TERASABOS) is my creation. It appears in my release, The Book Of HauntedMagick.

The main reason this topic interests me is because those of us that approach magic as an art form (and not merely as puzzles to be figured out) benefit from hearing the views from all types of individuals.

Over the years, I have learned that some people simply appreciate the art, some are challenged by it, some are intimidated by it, and some simply could not care less.

As a creator/performer, it is always valuable to hear what others think of not only your own work, but also your art form as well.

I look forward to talking with some of you at TAM2. I am scheduled to give a talk late Thursday night on theatrical seances. I hope to see some of you there.


Rick Maue
Deceptions Unlimited

 

[Garrette]

Hello, Rick.

I got TERASABOS from Haunted Magick which I bought strictly for that effect after the dealer demonstrated it. I enjoyed the other effects, too, but that is the clincher.

I have yet to perform it publicly.

 

[Tesserat]

Most of them are about 95% there already with their possible explanations. I find that magicians telling the public that the public thinks everything is done with mirrors and invisible strings is insulting. If my friend asks if he can look at the deck, and this card trick involves an unexaminable deck, and I basically evade his request with patter or obviosuly swap decks, gee, I think he is almost there to figuring out the trick.

Same thing with an in half lady, finger choppers, levitations, a big thing disappearing, and so on, the more obvious tricks, and especially any gigantic stage illusions where the viewer obviosuly knows all the 'magic' takes place with the big apparatus that is on stage.

In the case of tricks due to skill, I usually show them the basics. Double lift, false shuffle, false cut, palm, etc., theory of various decks, mental effects, and then say that I or the magician is using 'some combination' of these to do the effect. I usually don't show them specifically because I don't have the skill to actually be more than a theoretician here. Moreover, they usually 'get it' without a start-to-finish demonstration.

To explain a magic trick by saying "he's using a double lift", is the equivalent of explaining how to play the piano by saying "you just have to hit the right keys at the right time"

I usually don't show them specifically because I don't have the skill to actually be more than a theoretician here.

Then you shouldn't tell people specifically then either. I think that if you actually took the time to be able to perform (and perform well) all the tricks that you're so happy to explain, you might have a different opinion.

In fact, there are many tricks involving skill that can be seen when viewed in slow motion.

And there's many that can't. So what? Some magic is designed to be perfromed live, and depends on the speed of perception, and on how many things a person can pay attention to at one time.

There will never be a magic secret that can remain hidden after a thorough investigation.

well, duh. A "thorough investigation" could include:

Buying the trick and learning the technique.
Going backstage and inspecting the props
Becoming a magician, and learning the craft.

Was that supposed to be a significant comment?

If you're sitting in an audience at a stage show, watch an illusion and think "the magician must be hidden in that box", and somehow think that means that you've "found the secret", then you're just displaying how little you know of performance. If magic was just about technique, then it'd be a sport, instead of an performance art. Or maybe you're a genius. I suggest putting your incredible powers of the mind to solving the unified field theory next.