|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
J.CADEAC New user Paris, France 67 Posts |
Ascanio...René Lavand...and I think of other performers style, like Michael skinner.
What bother me in your post, Andrew, is mainly the "have their head examined" part. As Eric Mead wrote in his excellent book "Tangled web", magic, when it's expertly done, is the world of "make believe", of pseudo-miracles. And definitely not a puzzle to be solved. And sorry, but anyone who desires to enter this world during a few minutes is not mentally ill.
"You must either modify your dreams or magnify your skills".
|
|||||||||
Andrew Zuber Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 3014 Posts |
Ouch...let me clarify since clearly I seem to have offended the masses.
Do you not want to be viewed as a "skilled" magician? I certainly do. It doesn't mean you need to do flourishes and all kinds of fancy moves, but don't you want to demonstrate SOME level of skill, even if that skill is invisible to the audience? I think some of the miracles we create come from skill, and I would hope that my audiences, whom I DO respect for the record, would understand that I am skilled at what I do. It's about more than just the tricks, it's about being a good entertainer. That alone is a skill, and I would hope it would be recognized. And honestly, I understand the alternative point of views, but on this one I'm not going to retract my head examination statement Perhaps it's not the nicest way of saying it, but are you claiming that your audiences believe that a card literally, magically, under its own power, moves from the middle of the deck to the top? Yes, it may LOOK impossible and they may not be able to figure out how it's done, but if they come to the conclusion that it was literally magical and defied the laws of physics, then yes, something is wrong there. I'm not trying to take the romance and the passion out of what we do, and I certainly want my audiences to walk away dumbfounded and saying, "how did he do that?" But do you know why that's what they ALWAYS say when they can't figure it out? Because they know that I must have done SOMETHING. Think about the wording of that statement: "How did you do that?" In other words, what did you, the performer, do to accomplish that? I love the gasps of amazement and the wide eyes of audience members when they have no clue how something has happened, and that's what I strive for. That was me when I first saw Kent Gunn's Fun Shop routine. I had studied the cups and balls for years, owned the books, watched the DVDs, owned and worked with the gaffs...I thought I knew all there was to know about the cups and balls. Then I watched that routine and I had no clue. I was completely baffled...despite all my knowledge of the trick, I had no clue. Did I think it was ACTUALLY magic? No. There's bewilderment, being absolutely floored and amazed by something, and then there's delusional, where someone thinks you're actually sprinkling fairy dust onto the cards and that's truly what's making the magic happen. I respect my audience because I know that they're smart enough to understand the difference between real magic and a very skilled performer. Are you guys telling me that your audiences actually think these miracles are the real deal? Again, I LOVE performing and strive to make everything I do seem as impossible and entertaining as I can, so I'm not trying to take the fun out of it, I'm simply trying to be realistic.
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
|
|||||||||
greymagick New user Spain 53 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-05-10 23:50, Andrew Zuber wrote: Obviously not; that doesn't even follow from the assumptions. The negation of a extreme is not the opposite extreme. They are quite sure that the magician has manipulated the cards somehow and they have not seen it; hence the skill is implied, inferred as a conclusion after the fact, instead of explicitly showcased as an obvious means. I don't care so much for explicit shows of skill than for subtlety in the delivery. Cannot that also be regarded as a sign of respect for the audience? I believe so. And I also think it all comes down to a matter of style. No harm in that; diversity is good, enlightening even. Imagine if all of us performed exactly the same way... which in most respects we do, at least in the eyes of the layman.
- Grey
|
|||||||||
J.CADEAC New user Paris, France 67 Posts |
You have offended nobody...
But I think we enter a war of words I don't want to appear as a skilled magician. I want to appear as a magician. At least, if I'm supposed to be skilled, I don't want to make it obvious. You know what I mean ? Moreover...sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, and without an atom of pretentiousness, I rarely hear "how did you do that ?" during or after my show. Of course, you can use you sense of humor and retort that I'm from Sarkoland, and that French people can believe everything they see or hear, but the reactions I have are rather 'Waooh...(same word in french), or "unbelievable (incroyable !). If someone say to me "How did you do that ?", it means I missed something. And...you often write about the ambitious card, but there are some effects with playing cards that "skill", even for the most cartesian of your viewers, can't explain. and I don't talk about floating objects. Again, expertly done. Jérôme
"You must either modify your dreams or magnify your skills".
|
|||||||||
Chappo Special user Bris Vegas 754 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-05-11 05:44, greymagick wrote: Beat me to it. Exactly how I would have responded. Well posted. In short, you have provided no middle ground. No, the spectators aren't reduced to idiots who think that it's real magic. No, the don't have a dozen flourishes rammed down their throat. The skill within a presentation should be IMPLICIT. And Andrew, no need to apologise mate.
The rules of a sleight of hand artist, Are three, and all others are vain,
The 1st & the 2nd are practice... And the 3rd one is practice again - 'Magic of the Hands', Edward Victor (1940) |
|||||||||
Chappo Special user Bris Vegas 754 Posts |
*EDIT
Excuse my poor attempts at spelling. The following line should read : Quote: No, THEY don't have a dozen flourishes rammed down their throat.
The rules of a sleight of hand artist, Are three, and all others are vain,
The 1st & the 2nd are practice... And the 3rd one is practice again - 'Magic of the Hands', Edward Victor (1940) |
|||||||||
Gavorge New user 2 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-04-22 21:19, Chappo wrote: This is a little confusing to me because whether or not you do a flashy cut you will turn over the top card and show it to be the selection. So if you think a flashy cut makes the audience think you can control a card to any place in the deck then how does actually controlling a card to the top(regardless of flashiness) not communicate the same thing? Magic is a performance art and as much as we'd like to believe that the gasps we get during a performance are moments of magic for people they still understand that real sci-fi/fantasy magic is not real...so creating a moment for people doesn't always have to include absolute economy of action. Yes, we are always in search of "clean" handlings but an artistic and aesthetically pleasing display adds to the moment for me (my opinion of course). This is not to say all cuts must be 47 part sybils. I do love a good honest squaring of the deck and spectator shuffle as much as the next guy but sometimes in our heads I think believe that spectators care as much about cleanliness as we do (often from my observation that just simply isn't the case). Also, I think people are a little high and mighty about the appearance of a selected card on the top of a deck. Just watch the video and take notice in your next ACR routine. The first time it comes to the top people are surprised but not jumping up and down. So the cut isn't really taking away from that. In fact his card control doesn't seem to be the sybil but some straightforward cuts right at the start. The flashy cut does more to convince them that cards are mixed than a straight undercut would (at least that is my own experience doing ACR with and without flashy stuff). The real moment of magic in the video is when the first revealed card is shown to have swapped places with the other selection (with decidedly "old school" methods) in their hands. The performer (imo) balances cardistry with a nice transposition very well. I agree with the sentiment that XCM/cardistry is becoming quite popular in such a way that people performing flashy cuts and "simple" tricks are considered magicians now adays. But honestly the backlash against young magicians performing advanced cuts in routines really comes off as grumpy "young whipersnapper" lamentations. I know I'm generalizing quite a bit but a quick perusal via the search feature of sybil/flashy cut/xcm etc... shows there's a not a real rosy view of it around here. For me, it falls under the category of "a larger action covers a smaller action" and if a flashy cut is fun for the audience to watch and doesn't take way from an effect by overshadowing the moments then I'm all for it. As examples, look at all the Sam the bellhop variants...they're giant exercises in overt displays of manipulation but what dominates is the story and people go along for the ride. Greg Wilson has already been mentioned and I think with the right effects these flashy moves only enhance the experience. Certain effects that have "surprise endings" do well with this. No matter how suspicious people are of a cut if there's a kicker it doesn't matter. Look at the Kannibal Kards routine from Kenner's Totally Out of Control (can't remember the actual name). No matter what moves you use during the "eating" of the two cards by the four Kings the kicker ending just floors people. In fact Kenner points out in his book that he deliberately tries to convince people he's up to something. Anyway, long rant short...give flashy cut a chance...everyone here praises creative and outside the box thinking so it just surprises me that any video of a crazy cut gets the machine churning out "this isn't real magic" posts. |
|||||||||
mattmagic149 Loyal user Austria 215 Posts |
What Chappo and some others wanted to say was that flourishes as a control would be the last thing to do. And I am the same opinion, because cutting the deck after returning a selection is a very obvious way to control a card (as well as a double undercut). And if you do a control that is invisible to a spectator, there is no way he can even think that the card is already controlled. That was the point.
Using flashy cuts etc. in routines like Greg Wilson is completely different, he doesn't control a selected card with a flourish (also he has a special performing style and he has other aims then most of the other magicians). The same thing is with Sam the Bellhop, cause as you said the story is more important and the audience don't care that much about the "magic", they just enjoy the story. So all in all the things that were said, were just that using a flourishes to control a card gives the impression to the spectator that something happened and if you do that flashy things it is simply a great cut for the spectator.(excuse me for saying that, cause I don't want to denigrate flourishes)
Practicing is like a bank, if you don't put anything in, you won't get anything out!
|
|||||||||
lynnef Inner circle 1407 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-05-08 07:44, ropeadope wrote: Speaking of Daryl, while he's doing nothing, he's exhibiting some masterful control ... and he's no slouch in the fluorish department. He's my favorite for convincing the lay audience that the card is 'lost in the deck'. If you add too many moves, I think it lessens this conviction. In the featured video example, you almost forget what the chosen cards were! However as mentioned above, there are effects where wild and crazy moves enhance the magic ('sam the bellhop' is an excellent example). But I must add, fluorishes (and juggling) are part of magic too, as well as many other non-card topics in the magic Café. |
|||||||||
Chappo Special user Bris Vegas 754 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-05-13 18:40, lynnef wrote: Hmmmm.... That's a can of worms. A BIIIIIIIIIG can of worms which I hope gets opened elsewhere on the Café. The majority of the community will disagree with you. In fact, I'd imagine they'd hotly dispute it. The statement you have made is similar to the one I've provided below: Blondin the famous tight rope walker was just as much a magician as Darwin Ortiz is. If we are defining magic by 'witnessing what would be perceived by any rational mind as impossible', you may be able to get away with a statement like that. But that's as far as you can take it! For that matter, we could define an architect or an engineer as a magician because HE/SHE performs what we perceive is impossible. That 23 story building? I couldn't do that. Man, that's impossible! Simply put... Go to a lay person. Point out some individual juggling some burning torches and ask them what they think the juggler's occupation is. If they reply with "He's a magician, of course" I will give away every magical item I own for free. Whilst 'jugglers' may inhabit the same performance venue or perform for the same audience a magician does, the artforms in question here are inherently different. They are NOT the same and they are CERTAINLY not of the same ilk. The former deals in the domain physical stunts. WE deal in the domain of routined prestidigitation. Quote:
On 2011-05-13 11:14, Gavorge wrote: Never said that it didn't communicate the same thing. I did say that there could plausibly be more magic in the moment, which there is. An audience will be invariably left with the same thought: "He can control my card to anywhere he wants'. But it is overtness of THE METHOD which is linearly related to the potential amount of wonder generated. In a nutshell; The less overt the method, the more powerful the moment of wonder is. It leaves the audience with no contigency plan! "There was no moment in which that magician could have... etc..." On that note... I agree that magicians on the whole rave off on pseudo-metaphysical tangents about how laypeople perceive magic. I am of the same school of thought as yourself. SO let me redefine my own definition for the purpose of this argument: "A moment of wonderment, wherin the spectator witnesses something which they perceive as impossible rendered possible by the performer through utilisation of his skill-base or props. I'll probably get burned for this, but it feels good to lay it out there in bold type. Yes wonderment. Not power over the elements. That's a given. I never try to convince my audience that I hold this kind of power as I view it as condescending, detrimental and dishonest on a supremely higher level. I know dishonesty is par for the course in this prefession. After all, we wouldn't get far without it! But there is something to be said for the violation of a spectator's sense of 'private and intelligent self' when some individual turns up with the old Chan Canasta approach: "I have the power to make people/things do my will." I sense a can of worms being opened... Onward! Quote:
On 2011-05-13 11:14, Gavorge wrote: As I have already outlined my own opinion on this, I think we are destined to disagree on principle. Quote:
On 2011-05-13 11:14, Gavorge wrote: That principle is a tried, tested and correct one. However, where do we draw the line? I have this image in my head in which I am in the middle of a tabled gambling demonstration and I have a one handed palm to execute. At the moment of execution, I pull out a .45 and let loose a few rounds into the ceiling. Hey, extreme example. But the large action covered the smaller one right? Thanks for all your additions to this thread lads. This is a great discussion and it's really helping to synthesise our understanding of magic! Regards, Chappo
The rules of a sleight of hand artist, Are three, and all others are vain,
The 1st & the 2nd are practice... And the 3rd one is practice again - 'Magic of the Hands', Edward Victor (1940) |
|||||||||
Andrew Zuber Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 3014 Posts |
Quote:
Yes wonderment. Not power over the elements. That's a given. I never try to convince my audience that I hold this kind of power as I view it as condescending, detrimental and dishonest on a supremely higher level. I know dishonesty is par for the course in this prefession. After all, we wouldn't get far without it! But there is something to be said for the violation of a spectator's sense of 'private and intelligent self' when some individual turns up with the old Chan Canasta approach: "I have the power to make people/things do my will." I sense a can of worms being opened... Onward! Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe this is what I said as well...though I added the bit about my spectators being crazy if they believed I actually possessed magical powers, which is perhaps why some didn't take too kindly to it. Yes, we create moments of wonderment, and in that moment we're taking our audience on a journey, but on some level they have to know they're on a ride and eventually they're gonna get off and go outside into the real world again. It's like seeing a sad movie and crying when the main character dies. If the movie is effective, it moves you emotionally, but in reality you're upset over the story - you know the person isn't actually dead, and you know and you know the guy holding the wand doesn't have magical powers. I too would say that juggling isn't magic. It's impressive, but I think anyone with two working eyeballs knows how it's done.
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
|
|||||||||
Chappo Special user Bris Vegas 754 Posts |
EDIT: Once again, excuse my horrendous spelling. 'Prefession' should be 'Profession'.
Andrew, We're at cross purposes here. If you are arguing for the existence of a spectators brain, I don't disagree with your overall viewpoint. The issue was this: Quote:
On 2011-05-10 23:50, Andrew Zuber wrote: I'd imagine there's a huge difference between real magic and a performer. Simply because it doesn't exist in itself! There's no such thing as REAL magic, so the term 'real magic vs. a very skilled performer' is a bit nebulous. I haven't misunderstood you though, because I know you're trying to illustrate that spectators have functioning brains. I'm with you on that! However, it was the last part that people took issue with. You provided no middle ground so people argued that you shouldn't adhere to extremes. Also, I think you should be wary of defining juggling by the fact that people 'know how it's done'. Once again, I'll reference my engineer analogy and previous definition of magic to justify this. Thanks again for your input. Chappo
The rules of a sleight of hand artist, Are three, and all others are vain,
The 1st & the 2nd are practice... And the 3rd one is practice again - 'Magic of the Hands', Edward Victor (1940) |
|||||||||
Al Angello Eternal Order Collegeville, Pa. USA 11045 Posts |
I am a full time juggler, and every where I go people calls me a magician. Most jugglers do some magic tricks in their show, but very very few magicians have the skill to PERFORM juggling in front of an audience, and from the looks of the comments here I doubt if more than a few of you ever saw a live juggling act. What we have here is a case of extreme tunnel vision.
Thank you
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/ "Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone" |
|||||||||
vinsmagic Eternal Order sleeping with the fishes... 10957 Posts |
When you execute a control it should look like you did nothing period,,,,,, this is what a magician strives for period
thed godfather |
|||||||||
Al Angello Eternal Order Collegeville, Pa. USA 11045 Posts |
Thank you for not disagreeing with me Godfather.
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/ "Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone" |
|||||||||
itshim Elite user Milton Keynes 417 Posts |
Chappo, I am a juggler. Yesterday I did a show for some kids. When I left, the mother said 'what do we say to the nice magic man?'. There was no magic in the show at all (for a change). I even call myself Nigel the Juggler. Many, many people think of juggling as magic. To return to the topic of this debate, how you present your performance is up to you. There is no right or wrong way, there are however ways that work with your personality and ways that don't. Anyone who says that only one way works isn't a performer but is instead a conservative thinker with limited performing experience.
"You have to perform everything cleanly and be in control of the tricks" - Tommy Cooper "You should never give anything away about how tricks are done" - Penn and Teller For every authoritative statement I've read on here or elsewhere there is a performer who is an exception. Nigel
I knew a man who kept saying "pliers, pincers, scissors". He was speaking in tongs.
www.itshim.co.uk |
|||||||||
J.Warrens Inner circle Canada 1098 Posts |
This old dead horse again? Man, live and let live.
Who needs all these rigid definitions of what magic is or isn't? Magic is many different things to many different people. I agree with the last line of the poster above me. Cheers. |
|||||||||
Chappo Special user Bris Vegas 754 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-05-16 13:12, itshim wrote: If that's the case, then consider me an 'exception' to the authoritative statement you've made there mate Didn't mean to cause offence to jugglers. You guys have a job I couldn't hack in anyway shape or form, so consider that a compliment of the highest order. Flogging dead horses aside, the topic is a valid one to debate and I know it's helped me flesh out my own opinions. Best to all of you, Chappo
The rules of a sleight of hand artist, Are three, and all others are vain,
The 1st & the 2nd are practice... And the 3rd one is practice again - 'Magic of the Hands', Edward Victor (1940) |
|||||||||
writeall Special user Midland, Michigan 930 Posts |
I always thought there were effects where adding a flourish helped. Case in point: A triumph with a gaffed deck. Show it one way and they are mixed, the other way and not. It just seems natural to me to add a bit of "something" in there to disguise the gaffed nature of the deck. Even if it's the riffle you might do in ACR to "bring the card to the top." Maybe it's the plot line about a magician's training. But it comes up in other effects that are just "too good" without some wave of the hand, snap, or "something" to mark the moment.
I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong though. |
|||||||||
Andrew Zuber Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 3014 Posts |
I don't think there is a "wrong" in this case - merely a difference in opinions. That's why performing can be so great. There are no rules, or at least there shouldn't be. Putting limitations on what we do serves only to stifle creativity. I think the performance arts is truly a case of "to each his own."
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Deckless! » » Flourish and false cuts (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 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 < |