I'll retype the final two paragraphs of my reply to Ed Rhodes' post above.

The EFFECT is what the spectator(s) perceive.

The spectator(s) experience, intelligence, and imagination, are all combined to create his/her/their perception.


Therefore, everyone in the audience perceives a different show.

I would agree with Dick and Pop on the definition of visual magic: The magic seems to occur in plain sight, in full view of the audience, without cover. The change seems to be instantaneous and visible. However, there are degrees of "visualness" of the magic. Some effects are almost always considered visual, such as the linking rings, even though there is considerable variation in how apparently "in plain sight" the penetrations are. Sometimes the spectators are aware that the magician's hands block their view of what is happening. At other times, the linking and unlinking (or penetrations) appears to be visible in plain view without cover - examples of linking and unlinking "in plain sight" include Capehart's Impossible Link, the Blocked Link, the Ninja link, Vernon's and Miller's Pull Through, the Triple Unlink featured by Ross, McBride, Capehart and Levent, the Laurant crash link, various forms of toss linking, and the classic crash link of Vernon and Miller. Because the magic is seen to happen before their eyes, these elements are especially powerful and convincing magic, which tends to explode the viewers hypotheses about how it is done.

They also claim that all magic happens in the mind and so then when visual magic appears to be visible in plain view without cover, is it happening in an open mind as opposed to a closed mind?

Thanks! Doc Svengali!

I would like to re-stress the point that everyone in the audience perceives, according to their own imagination, intelligence, and, experience. Therefore, everyone's perception will vary.

Two witnesses in a court room will describe the "incident" from different view points, although they were standing side by side, when the event happened.