|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 | ||||||||||
Ray Pierce Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 2604 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Jul 3, 2021, tommy wrote: Lol… that might be true depending on where they saw you! Channing Tatum played me in a film and I assure you it was based off me as a real person. Just depends on the situation I guess.
Ray Pierce
|
|||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts
|
I think that in the audience's mind, every performer is a character. They will assume things and make judgements about the performer based on their prior experiences and prejudices. The performer either takes control of how his character is portrayed, or not. The backstory and motivations the audience will create for the magician may not be the one the performer would prefer.
|
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5931 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 2, 2021, Dannydoyle wrote: Wow, dude, you are flat out losing it. 1. It’s YOUR Greg Brady statement. You made a clear definitive blanket statement, which now admit was inaccurate, by using the definitive “can’t”. But to try and wiggle out of being flat out wrong you are attempting to blame others, distort what you said, distort what others said, and dilute your incorrect blanket statement. 2. I have not applied any statement here in this thread to “everyone else”. I have merely pointed out one can, and some do, credit the creators of the things they perform. The examples are trickling in from others, so you are in spin mode to lessen the sting of being wrong when you said, “It can’t be done.” 3. Your absolutely absurd claim that if one credits one part, one must credit all parts shows how tenuous your position was... before it collapsed. Spin away Danny. |
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5931 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 1, 2021, George Ledo wrote: I would say the same, but I WAS perfectly clear. I won’t be spoon feeding anyone here. If you look for the examples you will find them. If you look for examples to the opposite, you will find that, too. The latter does not disqualify nor diminish the prior. |
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5931 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 3, 2021, tommy wrote: Tommy, you need no confirmation to your being a character. 
|
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5931 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 2, 2021, Ray Pierce wrote: Ray, that is a lot of words to say “I’m not just some guy doing tricks.”
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 3, 2021, Tom Cutts wrote: Just like your claim about how musicians credit. And no spin. I have an ability to correct an incorrect statement. Which I have several times in this thread. Nothing collapsed. You decide to nit pick, which is cool. I backed it up and said blanket statements shouldn't be used. I guess we use dissent definitions of spinning. Admitting it was not correct, and correcting it does not fit my definition. Your mileage may vary. And while it was my statement it is your standard. See the difference
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts
|
"The egos shine like lightbulbs, so bright you cannot see them,
Blind each other blinder than a sandbox. All the fury of an argument, holding back their yawns, A challenge shakes the chandeliers, the sophist swords are drawn. To the loser go the hang-ups, to the victor go the hangers on..." ~Phil Ochs |
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5931 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 4, 2021, Dannydoyle wrote: See, that’s once again more Danny being wrong. It’s NOT my standard. YOU made an exacting definitive INCORRECT statement and now you are busy trying to divert your own guilt from that by trying to frame someone else for something they didn’t do. There was NOTHING vague or grey or in any way imprecise about what you said. Your attempts to prove your falsehood with links show the exactingness of your then conviction to your what you said. The EXACTINGNESS is all YOU, but now you can’t own it. But you’ll keep trying to argue and deflect blame to wiggle out this. Spin away. Spin away. |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 4, 2021, Pop Haydn wrote: Yea this.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 4, 2021, Tom Cutts wrote: How did one spin when he admitted he misspoke exactly?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5931 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 4, 2021, Dannydoyle wrote: By deflecting. You see, a real admission would be “I screwed up and shouldn’t have made a definitive statement.”... and then shut up. But in your world you have to salve that wound so you get all riled up about some “exact words” delusion you had and you keep spinning that and spinning that in the hopes it gets traction. It is the classic ploy of “Yeah I lied but...”. Not that you “lied”, that is just the most crystal clear use of it. |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Whatever. Not much deflection happening. If you choose to see things as such Pop is dead on right.
What a shame. I think the typed word removes a lot of context. But if armature psychology makes you happy have at it.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9988 Posts
|
Searching for something of value in thee recent post related to the them of this thread ...
if lying and the detection of lies and the projection of what is a lie is critical to communication - and magic, how is exposure in any form a problem when those in the audience may be more adept at lying than the performer? Many/most each day wallow in multiple persona at work, school, home and on the Internet. They lie to their boss, accountant, spouse and neighbors - and therefor assume that everyone else must be lying too. Every statement that starts off positioning oneself by putting someone else down is based on a lie. Bullying? Hardly based on truth. They are exposed to marketing lies, robo-call lies, and superstition driven drivel in the form of 'news', conspiracy theory, etc. Heuristic fallacy is bucket list of "I ain't tried that yet," with little concern over rational congruency or certitude. So, how does a typical audience member view what a mystic arts performer does? Most probably as a lie - every word, story and action. Thus, when a 'secret' is revealed why should they consider that to be true? Some of their entertainment comes from having their own lying practices validated. Of course, none of these thoughts should be taken to actually represent what I think or feel about lying or the importance of integrity in life. I am just expressing mused thoughts prompted by this thread - for entertainment. Danny and Tom have exposed themselves to some degree, but I would never pretend that their words here actually represent what they feel about exposure in performance magic. Therein lies a problem. (pun) I once thought I might enjoy seeing Danny perform and hoped Tom might share any magic effect he has ever performed. Sigh! Now I think I will just teach the kid next door a trick or two and the value of secrets and honesty in performing. and talking to trees. They never lie to me.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
Exposure is a catastrophe, which transforms a magic effect into a drama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_s......text.svg Note that unlike drama magic provides no explanation after the climax.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
will lane Veteran user Will likes to post so he has made 339 Posts
|
Bit older thread, I'm late to the discussion, and I'm not sure where exactly my thoughts put me in this debate...
If we get out of our heads and think a little more simply (or maybe realistically), direct exposure does ruin the illusion of magic. Most people do not believe that real magic exists; but what can exist, and what we strive to create, is the illusion of magic in the spectators mind. And directly exposing the howiediddits ruins that illusion, which can drastically or completely ruin the entertainment value. If I tell the spectator to pick a card and loose it in the deck, but that I'm going to find their card using a key card, the illusion of magic is ruined. I could still make it entertaining by being really funny or dramatic or skillful, but at that point it's no longer entertainment through magic but entertainment through comedy (or drama or skill or whatever). Penn and Teller's Cup and Balls is an example of this. But I think we should differentiate direct exposure, which is what I've been talking about, from wide-spread exposure, which is exposure that we think is collectively known by most laypeople. The trick that started this thread, Timeline, I hadn't heard of until browsing today. What we think is widespread knowledge... probably isn't. And what actually is widespread knowledge, could be re-worked or re-framed to be just as magical. TT's and IT are probably two of the most well-known gimmicks to laypeople. Yet they can still work in environments where people know they exist. Smoothini's performance on AGT is an example of this. Sometimes it's as simple as changing what vanishes. Maybe change what floats. Maybe borrow what floats. Maybe borrow what vanishes. Maybe all you need to do is change the color of the scarf from red to yellow. |
|||||||||
|
gregg webb Inner circle 1564 Posts
|
Think way back. Most laymen know about marked cards, even when it was for cheating at cards not tricks, but they know. Also, most know about palming. When they watch a magician, they are at least partly looking for what could be marked cards and/or palming. Most new card tricks weave into their handling a kind of dis-proof that marks or palming could be the secret...and then try to get beyond that.
But, to this day I am annoyed when a gaff is simply displayed at a magic shop. A lot of people wander in, never buy anything, etc. Yet they go away having seen a thumb tip laying there, a key ring laying there, a billiard ball shell laying there. That kind of thing sticks with people. I hate it. Yet, one can go the route of not using gaffs or store-bought tricks, and learn skill and become a purist. They'll still think it went up your sleeve when it didn't - the secret to that is work with your sleeves pushed up like several of the great names in history. I did the regular old cups and balls and a scientist in the audience told me after the show there must be trap doors in the cups. At a sorority party, the young ladies tore my table apart looking for hidden magnets as if that would explain my card and coin and small ball tricks. Well, good luck to us all. And, have a nice day. |
|||||||||
|
lynnef Inner circle 1407 Posts
|
Thanks to all for this fun thread. I've been thinking about the use of gimmicks more lately because of the passing of Harry Lorayne (who specialized in the borrowed deck). Anyhow, not being anti-gimmick, I read the advertisment for an effect on a magic site: "gimmick does all the work". I don't think that's true, especially for the magician. Even with something like an invisible deck, it really makes a difference in the manner (even if you know the gimmick) how the deck is produced in reality. Likewise, there are many different effects possible other than producing a hanky using a TT. Finally, it sometimes amazes me to sometimes find that an effect was in fact performed with a gimmick. Lynn
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » The effect of exposure (21 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 | ||||||||||
Posted: Jul 3, 2021 05:58 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 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 < 
|