[ Register ]  [ F.A.Q. ] [ Magic Café Donations ] Username: Password:        [ Lost Password ]   [ Forgot Username ]

The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The February 2003 entrée: Curtis Kam » » Inspiration... » » TOPIC IS LOCKED Spydur Special user PDX, now San Diego...back to PDX 966 Posts Posted: Feb 18, 2003 6:57pm       Hello Curtis, I hope all is going well. I was wondering where you tend to get most of your inspiration. As I have said in the past I get mine from music or movies or really weird dreams. Where do you find that most of your inspiration comes from? Thank you. Have a great day, Corey B. Portland Magician Seattle Magician Curtis Kam V.I.P. same as you, plus 3 and enough to make 3430 Posts Posted: Feb 18, 2003 7:44pm       Funny, it's not music for me, and movies only seldom. It is life, however, and sometimes other magicians. Some of the older books have ideas that are relevant today. I have found Sach's Sleight-of-Hand to be surprisingly entertaining as well as inspirational. Recently, of course, the focus on the Ramsay material has led me to reconsider some of his effects. The Shifter also forced me to think about the classic routines, since it was interesting to see what effect the Shifter had on familiar themes. The "choose your own adventure" effects came about by doing something I almost never do. I watched a friend's video (John George's) and did an effect I liked almost verbatim. The success I had with that routine lead me to develop the idea of spectator-driven coin magic. Is THAT a PALMS OF STEEL 5 Banner I see? YARRRRGH! Please visit The Magic Bakery Schaden Inner circle Purgatory 1254 Posts Posted: Feb 18, 2003 7:47pm       Spectator-driven magic like they choose how the effect is going to go? What happens next or more geared to spectator interaction? Lee Curtis Kam V.I.P. same as you, plus 3 and enough to make 3430 Posts Posted: Feb 18, 2003 10:17pm       The spectator chooses what's going to happen, to a greater or lesser extent, or at least thinks he does. Sort of a "Coin trick that cannot be explained". i.e.: Five different coins are poured out of a small purse. Spectator chooses one, the other four are placed in the purse as they are eliminated. Speccy takes the selected coin and waves it over the purse, all coins inside change to match the selection. Four different coins placed in the left hand travel to the right, IN THE ORDER REQUESTED by the spectator. The trick is to get as far ahead as possible so that it is clear you are not simply stealing whichever one they name. This is a classic, I haven't got much on it. Magician draws a quick sketch of the room. Spectator draws an X anywhere. Coin is wrapped in the little map, and the paper torn up and destroyed. Coin reappears wherever in the room the spectator chose. Get the idea? Is THAT a PALMS OF STEEL 5 Banner I see? YARRRRGH! Please visit The Magic Bakery Geoff Latta Regular user New York 158 Posts Posted: Feb 19, 2003 12:54am       Hi Curtis, In another venue, you talked about "card tricks that were coin tricks in drag", i.e., cards appearing, disappearing, changing -- all visibly, the way coins do in classic coin tricks. Do you feel that the effects you're describing in this thread are coin tricks that are card tricks in drag? Aspects like selecting one of a group, coin in an impossible location determined by the spectator, or "Four different coins placed in the left hand travel to the right, IN THE ORDER REQUESTED by the spectator" sounds like a lot of ace assemblies I know. Or, at least a lot that Krenzel knows. I'm really curious to know just what you think about this. Are there only two approaches (just watch, and flip out) or (be really, deeply involved in procedure, and flip out anyway) or is there another approach we haven't got to yet? The primary focus of coin magic has always been kinetic, of card magic, procedural. A number of guys (myself included) have tried to make card magic more kinetic, more visual, and have succeeded to some extent. Can coin magic be expanded (to good effect) by placing an increased emphasis on the procedural aspects? If we do kinetic magic with cards and procedural magic with coins, does it matter which prop we are using? And are we losing something there, or gaining something? Or, by reverting to the procedural, are we going back to all of those coin tricks in old books that "have a coin marked by a spectator, and wrap the coin in the second page of the Herald, as noted in figs XVVII--XVVIII, pages 34 - 36. Steal an egg from your waistcoat....." Not trying to be flip, I'm tired, but there's a real question in here somewhere. Thanks for your time, Best, Geoff "There is a thin line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line." --Oscar Levant Seth Special user 566 Posts Posted: Feb 19, 2003 6:29am       Curtis Kam V.I.P. same as you, plus 3 and enough to make 3430 Posts Posted: Feb 19, 2003 4:36pm       Geoff, There's much more in your post than I can address here, but I'll try to touch on everything. I can see your distinction between "procedural" and "kinetic" magic, although I must admit, I've never articulated it this way before. (And what does it say about Fulves entire book of "Self-Working Coin Tricks"?) Certainly card magic can be both, as you've proven yourself. I see no reason why coin magic cannot also feature both elements. If giving the spectator an active role, (or to use the jargon of the day, to make the experience "interactive") blurs the boundries we have imposed between card magic and coin magic, then perhaps those were false boundries. And even if we lose a valid distinction, if the approach is artistically successful, then so be it. Things change. I'm sure you have noticed that adding the element of a spectator's "free will' into a card effect can vastly enhance the impact. Consider a standard spelling trick. If you spell the name of the card, and the card turns up, the spectator is mildly impressed. If you have the spectator decide what word to spell, and his card turns up, he's very impressed. If you tell the spectator that his card will turn up if he spells the name of a deceased relative who has always provided comfort and guidance, the spectator will make donations to your church. Is there anything inherent in cards that would cause us to believe that this principle could not apply when coins are involved? I don't think so. But as I understand it, your concern is not whether it can be done, but whether it should be done. Will coin magic suffer for it? I don't think so. The imaginary example above indicates otherwise, as does real experience with the effects I have described. The idea that the experience will be enhanced if the spectator becomes a participant rather than a passive observer makes sense in all contexts. Further, there are lessons from the past that suggest that this approach is successful with coins. Consider, for example, T. Nelson Downs' sequence in the Miser's Dream wherein he would produce at his fingertips any number of coins called for. Wish fulfillment is a magical thing. It matters not whether the wishes involve cards or coins, if the magical things we do seem to be at the whim of the spectator, then they cannot help but appear more magical. And if I can add this element to my coin magic, what does it matter that the same thing might be done with cards? I submit that there are real differences between cards and coins, but they are mainly physical and cultural. Coins have substance and sound, they are generally interchangeable, and they are essentially the same on both sides. Cards have individual identities, and are otherwise silent and insubstantial. It is more impressive to produce or vanish a silver dollar than a card, which is practically invisible when turned on edge. These sorts of things strike me as the real differences between cards and coins. The spectator can become actively involved in proceedings concerning either. Mistakes in application can occur in either. However, I do not think that the applications I have described are mistakes. It seems to me that, at least in these cases, the coin magic is enhanced through the inclusion of the spectator. While this element may be borrowed from card tricks, doing so does not atuomatically make the effect one better done with cards. More later, as I ponder..... Is THAT a PALMS OF STEEL 5 Banner I see? YARRRRGH! Please visit The Magic Bakery Geoff Latta Regular user New York 158 Posts Posted: Feb 19, 2003 11:31pm       Curtis, I think I understand your point better now, and I like where you're going with this, particularly with the examples you've given and the way the interaction is characterized, i.e., "wishing", which is a powerful thing. It seems that it's a question of degree, (how much procedure, how involved) as well as an emotional hook to justify it (the "wishing" referred to above). I should mention that I wasn't trying to be critical of the idea, but wanted more detail to understand it better. To see whether the interaction had emotional content, or, at the other end would it devolve into some kind of horrible "21 Coin Trick". Knowing your reputation, I had no worries about you doing that, but magicians sometimes miss the point, as I'm proving right now. ;-) I have to confess that I have never looked at Fulves' "Self-Working Coin Tricks" as when it came out, I thought either it was a gag, or should be. Anything interesting in there? I think the boundaries you talk about between coin and card magic are artificial (I used to do split fans and a Miser's Dream a long time ago, and defy anyone to tell me they are not essentially the same trick.) but that has to do with a lot of factors including human nature and is too much to go into here. At any rate, thanks for the thoughtful response; you've given me something new to think about, and I appreciate it. Best, Geoff "There is a thin line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line." --Oscar Levant Curtis Kam V.I.P. same as you, plus 3 and enough to make 3430 Posts Posted: Feb 20, 2003 3:27am       Geoff, Thank you for your thoughts, I've had a bit to consider, as well. I invite you to be as critical as you will. If I'm wrong, I'd rather know now. Besides, in law school they taught us that criticism is god's way of telling us that at least someone is listening. In the spirit of robust discussion, I will take you up on your challenge. I, too, have done split fans that were indistinguishable from coin productions. All I had in mind was that I was standing there pulling stuff from the air. It didn't matter what it was. Without the investment of imagination, all productions are the same. That is not to say that card and coin productions cannot be different. They can and should be. One need look no further for an example than Jeff McBride, who does both to the highest level of expertise. Done the way Jeff does them, the card productions become a demonstration of power, but the coin production is a short story about a young boy from the audience becoming, just for a moment, a wizard. Jeff teaches his apprentice to fulfil a wish, to pull a shiny silver dollar from the air. The fact that the boy naturally wants to produce money, and that Jeff gives it to him, is important. Talk about wish fulfilment. I doubt it would work nearly as well with a card. That's part of my point. Cards and coins are theatrically different. Pull a ton of cards from the air, and all the audience can think is "He must be skillful." Pull a dozen coins from the air, and they could think "He must be rich". It occurred to me today that the "interactive" element I'm talking about may just be another way of approaching something Ammar called his "law of the impromptu miracle", or something like that. Remember his attempts to get the audience to suggest that he turn the dollar into a hundred. If it seemed like their idea, it implied that he could have turned it into anything. Is THAT a PALMS OF STEEL 5 Banner I see? YARRRRGH! Please visit The Magic Bakery The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The February 2003 entrée: Curtis Kam » » Inspiration... » » TOPIC IS LOCKED <<< Previous Topic   Next Topic >>>

[ Top of Page ]

All content & postings Copyright © 2001- 2013 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 1.135678 seconds, requiring 9 database queries.

The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.

Privacy Statement