| Author |
Message |
Drey
Straight Flush
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 696
|
|
 What is Magic? |
 |
I've been thinking a lot lately about the subject of magic...by this I don't mean the myriad of effects that so called magicians perform, nor do I mean the fantasy we conjure, nor even the experience. What I mean, is the effect. It strikes me as interesting that a lot of what many magicians do isn't magic. For example, cutting to the aces isn't magic. Impressive perhaps, but not magic.
I was in Las Vegas a few months ago and went to see Lance Burton, the magician...but I also went to see Cirque du Soleil, Cirque is more expensive, and for good reason, for all Lance Burton's talent, the experience one receives watching Cirque du Soleil goes well beyond what Lance Burton offers. Yet, while Cirque du Soleil is amazing, it is not magic.
I recently read the articulation of Wesley James on the subject, his comment was that many things may be amazing, but they are not magic.
Now, there is nothing wrong with those things which aren't magic. Gambling routines can receive great reactions, they can be pleasurable to develop, study and perform...they aren't magic, but they can be great. Flourishing is like this, I think though that perhaps flourishing is more honest about what it is as definitely not magic, than some other fields. My conclusion is that much of what we call magic simply isn't and for better or for worse, I think this cheapens the more genuine magic, dilutes it, or at least dilutes its performance.
I've talked to a number of people who dislike performing with cards, or dislike performing regularly, or dislike performing in scheduled events because they feel it takes away from the "real magic". What then is that magic? I would go so far as to suggest to you that mentalism isn't magic.
Over time, I've examined this issue, partially through my own experience of "magic", partially through my own presentation, my examination of other performances, methods, experiences etc. There is a world of difference between cutting to the aces, even the spectator cuts to the aces, and "A Dream of Aces". The later is magical, the former is not, though it may be impressive, baffling, entertaining etc.
How does one cross the line? It's interesting to note that there are four particularly magical effects that I can think of in magic, or at least in card magic. They are, a vanish, a production (conjuring an object from thin air, the opposite of a vanish), a change/transformation, and a transposition. Locating a card is not magical. Concealing an odd back is not magical. Each might elicit a great reaction, but that doesn't make it magical.
Wesley James suggests that the effect itself must be magical, he likely has a point. Jay Sankey speaks of helping the audience to experience wonder...but I don't believe wonder is necessarily magic.
I think of some effects that particularly floored me. Triumph, a Dream of Aces, Tracking Mr. Fogg, Deceptive Perception, a Vanish etc. I find a few of these interesting, Tracking Mr. Fogg perhaps the most obviously so. You see, I'm familiar with a number of versions of the travelers plot and not all seem magical to me. Some are poor, marred by the off beat, others are overdone, others lack clarity etc. One of the best handlings I'm familiar with is Guy Hollingworth's version, it's very direct, easy, clean...but not magical like Tracking Mr. Fogg is. The difference for me lies in the lost cards illusion...and here to me is where part of the magic comes from. In most cases, with what I would consider "magic", the effect is achieved apparently without the performer doing anything.
There are then, in my opinion, three components to magic: effect, handling/method, and presentation.
I believe that magic requires a belief in the impossible. I think what separates magic from many other effects is the absence of an explanation. David Blaine, though people may enjoy knocking him, made people believe what he was doing was magic, watching him he almost seemed to believe it himself in some cases...but he offers virtually no explanation and I feel that absence of explanation is important. It is as if there is no explanation possible, what happened speaks for itself, it simply happened. Of course, an absence of an explanation does not constitute a lack of a presentation, but presentation is certainly well connected.
Returning to some of my examples. Triumph seemed impossible to me when I first saw it because the deck was mixed and then the performer did nothing...yet somehow the magic was able to occur though nothing at all was done. Guy Hollingworth replaces the cards into the deck and handles them, though briefly, while Tom Stone inserts the cards into different locations in a tabled deck and squares them directly, then produces the cards from his pockets, again, magic, because he didn't do anything, it simply happened. A Dream of Aces, you don't touch the cards in question, yet they travel...as though by magic.
I found it interesting to learn that Forgery by Wesley James was a relatively recent effect, it seems so obvious to me and in fact I've played around with it extensively before ever knowing he came up with it...but never as he has and his version is better. Why? Because, though I don't particularly like his method, the effect is isolated, clear...and seemingly offers no other explanation.
So I'm interested, what do you think magic is? What makes something magic? What distinguishes the magical from the amazing?
|
|
| Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:31 am |
  |
 |
IanKendall
Chip Tricks Contest I Champ
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 384
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland |
|
| |
|
Michael Close has a very good definition of magic; it's in one of the early Workers books (probably number one).
When asked, I've always maintained that magic exists in someone's head. If they want to believe, they will. Blaine is very good at getting actors to believe...
Having said that, and given my performing style, I've had people genuinely ask whether something was real. It's whatever they want.
Try to get hold of the Genii issue a few years back where a number of writers offered essays on the Too Perfect theory. I can't remember the issue, but Cameron Roat has an index somewhere.
Take care, Ian
|
|
| Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:23 am |
 |
|
Drey
Straight Flush
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 696
|
|
| |
|
Michael Close has a very good definition of magic; it's in one of the early Workers books (probably number one).
Thanks.
When asked, I've always maintained that magic exists in someone's head. If they want to believe, they will. Blaine is very good at getting actors to believe...
I was watching Criss Angel last night and noticed a diametrically different approach between he and Blaine from the perspective of the show and I think people look on them in a fundamentally different way because of it. Interestingly enough, Blaine is also far more popular by far than Criss is. That's not to say one approach is better than another, they are different and each can have their place, but I'd definitely argue that Blaine presents "magic" to a much greater extent than Criss does. Again, whether that is a good or bad thing is a question you could ask, but Blaine is definitely more popular, in spite of less impressive illusions...though you could also pass that off on other factors.
Having said that, and given my performing style, I've had people genuinely ask whether something was real. It's whatever they want.
Good to hear...do you notice any trends in the effects? I know I've had people tell me they think I'm a wicca after performing various effects, but certain effects definitely get better reactions (so do certain presentations incidentally...as do certain handlings). I've never had anyone accuse me of witchcraft when performing a gambling effect that I can think of.
Try to get hold of the Genii issue a few years back where a number of writers offered essays on the Too Perfect theory.
This is always an interesting point, sometimes exposing more is actually less. I used to be in favor of quite visual magic, I'm really not anymore, it's something like comments by Max Maven and Marlo regarding how doing nothing at all can get less of a reaction than doing something minor. Similarly, it is interesting to note that Blaine got as strong reactions, if not stronger, than Criss Angel with his levitations yet they aren't nearly as impressive nor as baffling...again, sometimes less is more.
I certainly agree, magic is totally in the mind of the spectator, but it isn't just anything in the mind of the spectator, it is something special, something unique, something that goes beyond wonder or amazement.
|
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:03 pm |
|
|
-Shade-
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 220
Location: The Darkside |
|
| |
|
This is an excellent topic, becuase a trick is only as amazing as a person can grasp, due to the fact we live in a factual world where most people believe they live in a 0 miracle world though even the idea of life is a miracle. Many believe everything revolves around rules, rules like gravity... what magic does it bends and breaks those rules.
Have you ever thought about the tricks you do? things like moving around small pieces of paper or vanishing coins. These tricks are awsum due to the fact that people can grasp the concept of it. Most people dont believe in magic, and know they are just being tricked, but they still watch becuase someone has taken the time to practice or invent somthing very kool.
Things that the bible talks about such as walking on water, healing and such. these are all just things that people can dream of and so on. Think about this...
If i showed you somthing in 2 places, that may not amaze you, but that is one CRAZY thing. its not possible! the same thing in 2 places... thats crazy stuff, but becuase that isnt even comprehendable it doesnt seem that amazing. You'd just think that it was some sort of funny reflextion or weird lighting...
This puts us in the genre of quantum physics, the idea of your mind effecting what you see... I shall post on this matter in the near future
_________________
The Art of Shade, is difficult but can be achived through many different lightings |
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:25 pm |
   |
|
machinator
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 86
|
|
| |
|
This will I’m sure verge into pretentious drivel at times, it is unlikely to be completely coherent and will be slightly contradictory as to be frank I’m at a loss to what magic “is”.. so forewarned is forearmed .. Furthermore I’ve had a couple of bottle of wine this evening, it’ll be even more incoherent.
To begin with magic isn’t something we do, whilst it is deeply routed in the effect, the performance and the persona it differs from other artistic endeavours in that it is routed solely in the audiences perception - it is entirely subjective. Theatre, dance, literature can all exist without requiring an audience to enter into a certain mindset - without requiring a certain mode of perceiving things - without demanding a bond of understanding in the same way magic does to function - to be magic. There can be bad theatre, it often is when students are involved, but it is still theatre, you can watch a film and detest it, remain completely detached and still wander out of their having appreciated it.
Magic contorts that idea, perverts it even, which is why it remains so powerful, when it works, when we hit nail an effect perfectly it isn’t that much abused Coleridge quote - the “suspension of disbelief“, the audience needn’t suspend disbelief - that is a later rationalisation - “Oh it was all a trick” - for that split second they saw something very real, very impossible. That is magic. The physical perception of an impossibility however trivial.
Returning to that Coleridge quote, often evoked when talking of magic - the “suspension of disbelief”. Do were seriously expect a spectator to be so emotionally involved with the plight of that “ambitious card” that they are willing to suspend their disbelief in trickery, in sleight of hand? No, clearly not, the spectator couldn’t give a flying fu*k about that card, no matter how large they have penned their name upon it. They to be frank, couldn’t care about the effect, they are not emotionally involved in the same way, Coleridge alluded to, they know what they saw. The saw a card very deliberately, very clinically inserted into the center of the pack and it was once again on top. An impossibility? Perhaps, provided the spectators believes it went into the center of the pack - otherwise where would the impact of the effect lie? A point in example is - have you seen, since your incursion into magic an effect that was felt like real magic?
Now naturally, there is a certain suspension of disbelief to enter into that frame of mind. Anyone watching magic must be willing to watch, it is very easy not to watch - as with any other human endeavour preconceptions can mire, pervert and distort what they see (I for example read 60% of American’s believe the previous Iraqi regime was responsible for 9/11 - despite the fact there is no evidence to support this view - a very modern, very real public example of distortion of reality).
Another similar idea revolves around LSD, psychosis, distortion, real magic. Were magic real would it be magic? By which I mean, were we all ardent believers that the finger gymnastics often passed off as magic the real thing would that be magical? Would that be magical? If for example, you heralded me as Jesus, the son of God (or you for that matter, I’m not setting myself up on a pedestal here) would you experience the feeling (and that is surely all magic is - a fleeting feeling?) that you had experienced magic as we aim to perform when I for example made a blind man see again? Or would that be the reality - a stead fast and very real one?
Which introduces a second aspect of magic - the challenge aspect. It is I believe no accident, we choose to perform with what are traditionally objects of chance - cards. Is there no greater epitome of chance than these objects? Any card game is traditionally associated with the vagaries of chance, fortune and ill luck.. Yet we do, as people all desire, all to a certain extent believe they can - contort that chance in our favour - contort those models of chance to favour our will?
That is perhaps an example of us distorting a social archetype (or more probably, riding piggy back on those who choose to do this, not for some emotional feeling but for personal profit and game) but either way we do this.. Do we not?
Magic is a challenge, we set out to say - this is a trick - this isn’t real - but it sure as hell feels real doesn’t it. Which is why we - in the modern era can remain in business (although it sure as hell isn’t a very profitable one).
Ultimately what magic is, largely depends upon what the spectator feels - it can be all those things- amazement - wonder - perplexing. It isn’t one single thing and never will be - it is a personal response (when competently executed) to the impossible - and I sure as fu*k talk for the world. All we aim to do as magicians is to make that as real, as credible, as true for the greatest number of them.
apologies for the pretentious drivel that has decended into.. whether that will be coherent largely depends on spelll check.
_________________
"The more unintelligent a man is, the less mysterious existence seems to him."
-Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:59 pm |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Home
Chip
Card
Pool
Chip
Card
Magic
Pen
Forum
Chips
Poker
Videos
