|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Larry Barnowsky Inner circle Cooperstown, NY where bats are made from 4770 Posts |
I just read a piece in October Magic by Derren Brown. He mainly talks about what kind of card magic should be done but he also comments on coin magic. Has anyone read this? He appears to have contempt for coin magic. Is this guy an effete snob, or just ignorant, or is he really insightful and magicians doing coin magic should give it up and become mentalists? Your comments are invited.
|
|||||||||
Dan LeFay Inner circle Holland 1371 Posts |
I go for your first assumption...
"Things need not have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths, that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot." Neil Gaiman |
|||||||||
mithrius Regular user Chicago, IL 127 Posts |
Maybe it's in retaliation against all of the coin workers who eschew card magic?
|
|||||||||
MrCyNic Loyal user England 238 Posts |
From what I understand, Derren was pretty disillusioned with most forms of magic at the time that piece was written. I'm guessing his intent was to ruffle a few feathers, which makes it slightly harder for me to take his thoughts seriously.
That said, I can't imagine the coin magic community being severely rocked just because some (forgive me, it's just my opinion) rather dull performer who just did a Bullet Catch with the gun pointed the wrong way says it doesn't interest him. If it's all the same to everyone, I think I'll keep working with my coins anyway. My cards, rings and Zombies too, for that matter... In all honesty, I don't know that Derren Brown has anything to say about performance theory that Henning Nelms didn't say better. Of course, that's just my opinion. And yes, I do know where I can stick it. Cheers, Cy. |
|||||||||
Dave Egleston Special user Ceres, Ca 632 Posts |
It seems like his misdirection and performance style, coupled with his apparent disdain for most magical performers, border on the theory of "If my audience is half asleep - They won't truly see how boring my act is"
There are only a couple of magicians I consider unreadable and un-watchable - Mr Brown is one of them. … I know I'm in the minority. That he dislikes any form of interesting magic is not a surprise to me. Dave |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
What makes D. Browns opinion of interest? Does he DO close-up magic?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
MICKEY SILVER Elite user Boston, Ma. 442 Posts |
I read D. Brown’s book. Do I value his opinion because it's in a book? ... NO I DO NOT! Jontown has a very good point. What kind of close-up magic does he do, and if so, for whom. However, it’s just D. Brown’s opinion on magic. However, he does tell you he is going to give his opinion whether you like it or not! So D. Brown’s is honest in that way.
It all depends how you look at it. |
|||||||||
JimMaloney Inner circle 1184 Posts |
Personally, I'm a big fan of Derren Brown. Does he do close-up magic? I'm not sure if he still does, but for a long time he did. Just check out his books for some excellent effects and presentations.
He has moved on to the point where he mostly performs mentalism now (and some excellent mentalism at that.) I haven't seen this article, but from what I've read from him before, he's not snobbish and he doesn't hate all (card, coin, whatever) magic. What he does despise is mediocre magic. I don't blame him. I also don't disagree with the fact that most magic IS mediocre. But, like I said, I haven't read the article, so I can't really comment on the content of it. -Jim
Books and Magazines for sale -- more than 200 items (Last updated January 17th, 2014. Link goes to public Google Doc.)
|
|||||||||
Larry Barnowsky Inner circle Cooperstown, NY where bats are made from 4770 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-10-09 19:47, JimMaloney wrote: Here is the exact paragraph from October 2003 Magic which he talks about coins: "I take it that we are in agreement that Sponge Balls, Finger Choppers, and lengths of rope can be happily excluded from the list of vehicles for wonder. I have, as I have said, very little use for coins, other than in a few mental effects. In coin magic, the little devils move magically from here to there, and for a real thrill they may suddenly become quite large. This is not enough for me, and again, I suggest that if you insist on performing coin magic, keep it separate from what you are coming to develop as real and wondrous." I guess those "mediocre" performers like Dean Dill and Curtis Kam should throw away those coins, buy a turban, and begin astonishing the masses with their wondrous mental mysteries. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
I can relate to the issue of coin animation being 'clever' and hence less than 'real' or 'wondrous'.
The issue in practice comes down to presentation. Perhaps those who present routines as 'clever' might benefit from some time in the other parts of the forum where the focus is on ideas and stories. Now that we live with the Internet and have open access to things like NLP, one could argue that mentalism is about ready for a retooling as well. The findings of the last hundred years about what happens in the real world are quite a bit more disturbing than the oft presented allusions to the findings of Freud and Jung. In fact... one could argue that our collective unconscious is on display at the local cable station. Anyone using a TV guide and TV set for this stuff yet?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
martyk Loyal user 275 Posts |
I don't know if Derren is right or not (there is no absolute truth) but I love the invective in the sugar coated world of reviews where everyone and everything is at least pretty good to fantastic. Milbourne Chrisotpher had to hide behind the name "Joglar" in order to safely voice negative for Hugard's old Review. Secondly, I love his British and erudite way of expressing his views, I love the language. He is ***abley bright (and was a Barrister [attorney] before magic, I believe). Not sure I agree with him on much, though his effects like the card in cigarette smoke, are devastating, but I certainly love reading him as a piece of literature. MartyK
|
|||||||||
Curtis Kam V.I.P. same as you, plus 3 and enough to make 3498 Posts |
Larry, thank you for the direct quote, now we have something to discuss, at least superficially. Any well-informed opinion would have to come from someone a bit more familiar with Mr. Brown's work than I. Taken at face value, the paragraph seems intentionally provocative, but well-intentioned, which is about what one would expect from a relative newcomer to these ideas. But I could be wrong.
I feel compelled to point out a few things, however, that seem to be unnecessarily limiting in the argument presented above: "I take it that we are in agreement that Sponge Balls, Finger Choppers, and lengths of rope can be happily excluded from the list of vehicles for wonder." It's been said before; they may seem prosaic to us, but the sense of wonder one can create with a set of sponge balls is not to be underestimated. The impact often overcomes the obvious fact that they exist solely to perform magic. And if the premeditated nature of the sponges is overcome, the basic effect of a real, honest-to-goodness solid object appearing in your clenched fist is far more memorable than some stranger coming up to you and guessing your weight. And regarding rope, I suppose Mr. Brown is too young to recall Doug Henning performing Paul Curry's "Sliding Knot". It was a pure and simple miracle. "I have, as I have said, very little use for coins, other than in a few mental effects. In coin magic, the little devils move magically from here to there, and for a real thrill they may suddenly become quite large. This is not enough for me..." If that's all there is to your coin magic, I agree. That's not enough for me, either. Although under test conditions, a coin moving from here to there can be quite impressive and memorable. Consider David Regal's effect with the two glasses, or Armando Lucero's transposition of a coin from one card to another. When a coin (or indeed, any inanimate object) moves invisibly from point A to point B without any rational explanation, people are disturbed. I suggested this thought-experiment once before: Imagine if I asked you to take a coin from your pocket, hold it in your left hand, it then vanished from that hand, and appeared in your right. Would that not be a significant and memorable experience? Wouldn't you rather be able to do that than guess the astrological sign of complete strangers? "...and again, I suggest that if you insist on performing coin magic, keep it separate from what you are coming to develop as real and wondrous." Here, I disagree with the tacit assumption that only that which the performer presents as "real" may be considered "wondrous". Certainly there are wondrous things that may be presented to an audience that are not in any way meant to be taken as "real". Movies, plays, and other acts of imagination are not presented as "real", but people find them nonetheless memorable, important, and moving. Legends and myths have always captured the imagination, not because they pretended to be "real" but because they exaggerated and distilled real life. Is magic the only performance art that must pose as something it is not to be effective? Some apparently think so. Frankly, it's easy to convince people that mind reading is real. A good percentage of Americans believe that already. What's hard is to present something that they know in their heart of hearts is impossible in such a way that they believe you have done it. If making someone guess that you've drawn the three of diamonds on a piece of paper is impressive, imagine how impressive it would be if you were really able to do the cigarette through quarter. I feel I am about to echo Tommy Wonder's thoughts on the "too perfect" theory. Mentalism is what happens when you give up too soon. "You must be psychic" is about as satisfying as "You've got fast hands". They are both "false explanations" that the audience settles on when the performer has failed to lead them all the way to the experience of magic. I am going to leave this at that. These comments may be as intentionally provocative as those that inspired them, but you've got to excuse me, I'm new to these ideas, too.
Is THAT a PALMS OF STEEL 5 Banner I see? YARRRRGH! Please visit The Magic Bakery
|
|||||||||
JimMaloney Inner circle 1184 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-10-09 20:54, The Original Countelmsley wrote: It seems to me that Derren is arguing against what Eugene Burger refers to as "The Adventures of the Props in the Performer's Hands." Can't say I disagree. I've never seen Dean Dill or Curtis Kam perform, so I can't really comment on that. But, I can say that the large majority of magic, coin or otherwise, that I see performed falls into the "yawner" category. I doubt Derren is ruling out the props entirely as vehicles for wonder -- just that they are too commonly used in ways that are not. At least, that's my take on it. -Jim
Books and Magazines for sale -- more than 200 items (Last updated January 17th, 2014. Link goes to public Google Doc.)
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Mind reading...
Okay, let's kick that buzzard of a chip off our collective shoulders. What do you know that did not come from someone or somewhere? Where have you been that did not leave a trail of credit card and personal contact data? Is there something you believe that does not come from our cultural framework and social experience? Science fiction authors started explored these topics over fifty years ago. Stories with telepaths and multiple futures are now commonplace. On Television, the series 'Connections' explicitly addressed this as part of life after the industrial revolution. If nothing you posses (physical or information) is unique to you, then how are you unique? He asked then... ten years ago. The basic issues of causality and 'free choice' will be with us for a while. Though our perspective was greatly expanded thanks to quantum mechanics in physics and 'modeling' in psychology. One of my psych professors in college did work on changing the 'internal audience' of people. That means not just the voice we use to narrate our lives (think doonesbury) but the internal processes we have that react to things we perceive. …From Freud and Jung to Phillip K. Dick to Richard Bandler in less than a century.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Dan Watkins Inner circle PA 3028 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-10-09 22:33, martyk wrote: Is that statement an absolute? |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Truth is a measure of something being in accordance with one's beliefs.
As such it is at best a slippery creature that does not travel well, unlike facts or hypotheses. 'Absolutes’ tend to be relative in relation to the framework within which they are experienced. Try to remember that the atom may be the building block of molecules, yet it turns out NOT to be the smallest unit of matter. Likewise the speed of sound is the limit at which a propeller can pull a plane, though is not the limit of how fast a plane can travel. What may be absolutely true and profound for you might have no meaning whatsoever to a dog or whale or houseplant. It helps to keep some awareness of one's beliefs and frame of reference.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
KirkG Inner circle 1391 Posts |
I think, as I read the quoted paragraph, that Derren's point is that some performances just come across as tricks and not occasions that elicit wonder. As such, there is not a strong emotional response to the effect.
I think that lies more in the fault of the performer than the choice of props. Curtis made an excellent point using Armondo Luceros matrix as being a performance that evokes wonder and plenty of it. Another would be the repeat performance of copper/silver. I have seen fear in the eyes of more than a few people when the magic is so clean they have that moment of wonder if you might be in touch with the forces of darkness to accomplish what they just saw. No, I don't see people break down in tears as they do when you tell them their dead mother loves them, but then I think that is a cheap shot at their emotions and not a very profound thought. Kirk Grodske |
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts |
I think the sponge balls and coin magic can be very astonishing.
Without either real belief, or the suspension of disbelief, a sense of astonishment (or wonder) is not possible. It’s easy to suspend disbelief when you perceive something directly. This can be true even when the method is known, although then the surprise is qualitatively different, e.g. a well-performed retention of vision vanish actually makes it seem like something has disappeared. I enjoy a good performance of any type, but I would always prefer productions, vanishes, relocations, transpositions, transmutations, and other visual (and auditory) surprises over any other type of effects, including mentalism effects. By the way, I actually do enjoy a short performance where the coins move from here to there, and then one of them becomes large! It might not be the best that coin magic can be, but it's still pretty good.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
Jeff Haas Special user 929 Posts |
This thread got me to flip ahead in my copy of MAGIC and read Derren's article.
It seems to me that he's setting out the boundaries of what his character should and shouldn't do, based on his feelings about magic. One thing to remember is that the article is part of a chapter of a book, so we're seeing it out of context. Earlier in the article, he discusses how the only way he'll use cards is in non-manipulative ways... a spectator shuffles the deck, Darren turns away, and he names off the order of the cards. Or, a spectator picks a card and Darren gets them to "give away" what card they picked as he talks to them. These are decisions of a performer who wants to emphasize the mental and psychological aspects of magic, instead of the manipulative ones. ("The adventures of the cards in the hands.") I'm reminded of some of the reactions to Darwin Ortiz's "Strong Magic." There's a section in there where he discusses his character, and what he likes and dislikes...for example, he doesn't like card tricks where the cards are given names and used to tell a story ("The Ace of Spades represents the criminal, the King of Clubs is the police detective, and the deck is the city of London...") Ortiz prefers to do tricks where the cards are used like you'd use them at the card table. He said that this doesn't mean there aren't good story tricks, just that they're not his preference. But some people (one a prominent reviewer) interpreted that section to mean that Ortiz was laying down the law for everyone, instead of illustrating what kinds of choices you should make. So that's how I interpret Darren's article. And it's good to see that he wrote it with such passion...that has to come across in his performances. Jeff |
|||||||||
Chris "linkster" Watson Special user England 564 Posts |
To answer a few questions, Derren’s close up card magic from his Devils Picture book is very good indeed. He has enough misdirection in one routine to enable him to place a card under a card box three times whilst seated around a small card table… nice one handed shuffle too. So he probably is qualified to comment on close up magic Coin magic, well that’s another matter.
As far as his approach to “mentalism” it is more an approach of planting psychological suggestions and reading body language than “look I can read your mind. This makes his work a lot more believable than out and out mentalism stuff (in my opinion.) I think we sometimes forget that the Café provides a forum, which attracts some of the finest practitioners in their field of magic… Curtis, Jonathan, Reed etc., etc. I feel it is therefore understandable that people not subjected to good coin magic could easily feel this way. I think also that there it is perhaps a little more real world experience for your average person to draw on when it comes to coin magic. We hold coins every day and they to not turn invisible or fly from one hand to another and alas they don’t go into my pocket and change to a larger denomination. I think with mentalism there is a lot less tangible/ real world experience to draw upon which therefore leads people down the logical path to “it must be real” a lot quicker. On the other hand with coin magic there is a much greater pull for it to be explained away “it’s in the other hand” “it’s all down to the quickness of the hand” etc. I think that rather than taking something negative from Derren’s statement we should perhaps explore our own magic… leave people with no possible outs!! And lead them to the only assumption left… it must be MAGIC. Thank you to all those on the site who are already leading us down this road with the excellent tutorial material coming out, and through sharing your thoughts here on this forum….watch out Derren the future might just be…COINS!!! |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Nothing up my sleeve... » » Derren Brown and Coin Magic (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < |