talkmagic.co.uk

I am gob smacked at the level of back biting that is occurring in multiple threads which people have a tendency to justify under the banner of being a "purist". This post is a frustrated brain dump aimed at those who preach purism as the one true way and deny the skill of others who can't perform all of their effects without a standard deck. It is not a dig at purism as path.

We all entertain people in our own way. Some of us use cards, some coins, some sponge balls, and many other props. If the audience is entertained, does it matter? Does it matter if the prop is an everyday object? Does it matter if it's a trick item?

At what point does the spek care?

If one is concerned about the spek deconstructing the trick and assuming that there is some form of gaff involved, then may I suggest that one's presentation is at fault.

There are a huge number of tricks using standard decks which give the impression of a gaff, but they are not there. Quite recently, I performed a trick with a standard deck and the spek assumed it must have had more than four aces in it. Yes, I was able to say "well look for them then" but he didn't care to look. He just trusted me. Even if he had looked and then not found them , he might have accused me of culling them anyway. Ultimately, he was quite happy with being amazed.

So what is the appeal of purism? I think it's probably a self satisfaction thing. It's really quite cool to borrow a deck or get our some change and perform some gasp worthy magic. But is that what's important to the spek? I suspect not. If it's important to Madge to add "and I did that with your deck" verbatim, in order to get the reaction, then the presentation was not good enough.

It strikes me that the non-gaff vs gaff argument is much the same as the borrowed deck vs own deck, stacked deck vs spek-shuffled and sleight vs non-sleight.

Some purists accuse other magicians and substituting gaff for skill. I wonder if they would accuse Scarne in the same way for removing the sleights from a number of popular effects, making them more accessible to the less "skilled".

A wise man recently quoted "why run if you're not being chased" when discussing the use of self working vs sleight tricks. The same argument could be used with a gaff. Why not use a gaff, if it has the same effect? Is a short card not a good replacement for a key card?

Is it the case that purists want to give them impression of skill to the spek? I personally don't want my spek to think of me, I want them to be amazed by the magic; to feel a glow and sense of mystery. I'd prefer that they don't try to deconstruct the trick, but if they do, I want them to loose the inclination as soon as possible and not even reach the stage where they draw a conclusion that there must be a gaff or stack.

If the trick can be deconstructed immediately to "it's just a trick deck", then the tool has been used or presented incorrectly.

Some gaff's might not be the magician's style. Certainly, I don't presently do any tricks which don't begin and end with what appears to be a red backed bicycle deck (or borrowed deck). That's my style. I might use a Tree of Hearts as a comedy angle one day and I've designed a trick which requires an excess of jokers. I'm evolving.

I can do a trick which involves a card vanish, but really, what the difference between that and a blue/red back change from the spek's perspective? Is that a gaff? Is it not a pure trick anymore?

As magicians, we can assume, based on our level of knowledge, what is achievable with a straight deck and what needs a gaff. We might appreciate the skill of a magician who performs an act of without the use of gaffs, but our perspective is skewed compared to the spek. We are not presenting skill to the spek, we are presenting magic.

I wonder if purists think they are "better magicians" because of they use of skill over gaff. From a magician to magician perspective, I suspect the purist might assume other magicians my applaud their skill, but it has been so often the case that in these recent threads, this has not been the case. Purism seems only to be appreciated by purists.

If one's aim is to prove to the spek that we can perform a feat of skill which they are both incapable of deconstructing and performing themselves, then I wonder how that might make the spek feel. Doesn't sound like a whole world of positive emotions to me. I prefer to leave my spek's with a sense of wonder rather than inferiority.

As we learnt in a recent Stripper Deck oriented thread, the gaff can be used as a tool, not only to aid in the creation of an otherwise difficult effect, but to facilitate the creation of a trick which is just not possible with a regular deck. This is not "bad magic".

As I learn more and more about the magic arts, it's clear that the skill is in presentation and audience reaction, not the attainment of physical manipulation skills alone. Along with that come skills of preentation, misdirection and creation of false memory, etc. Of course it's not possible to allow a forcing deck to be examined, but if the spek has examined a deck previously and subsequently, then there is sufficient memories to juggle later.

I am not entertained by a number of forms of magic. I do not perform them, but I would never say they are bad. I don't like ballet, but I'm not denying it as an entertainment form. I don't like olives and humous, but I'd not see them wiped off the planet. Wasps, however, are a different matter.

I love the card work of Derren Brown. He's not a purist, and I don't care. If the discovery of this fact makes him less a magician in your eyes, then I feel very sad for you.

I feel like I'm digressing now, so I'm going to sum up.

We are entertainers. Our goal is to entertain. We should be aloud to use whichever tools we choose in order to create the desired effect with maximum reaction from the audience.

As magician's, we should be here to support and aid eachother and not to decry eachother's methods as bad or in some way wrong.

Purism should remain a personal preference and should be appreciated by others as a virtue.

Some people like Bentleys and others like Rolls Royce cars. And they will argue over what is the better car. Some people love slight of hand others find it intimidating so they stick to gaffs. I think I am right in saying that a couple of people here on TM have made a career for them selves using gimmicks and gaffs and very little or no slights at all.

Yes Marvell it is all in the entertainment factor but I don’t think getting wound up about it is going change people’s opinions of each other. Arsenal fans don’t like Tottenham fans and visa-versa it is a diffranence of opinion that is all. And some times it may get petty and a bit back biting but its all taken in good human. Like me, you and Seige discussing old school or new school its all done in the interest of good clean fun. Anyhow you know me and him are right don’t you?

Now you may have guessed I like doing the sponge balls and the svengali deck. Sponge balls are pure slight of hand if you will I use no gimmicks of gaffs in the routine some of you saw on the file sharing thread of this very forum. On the other hand the svengali deck / striper deck are both gimmicked decks dose this mean , me for using one is any less of a magician or Tomo for using his striper deck? No in my eyes it don’t. how many children’s magicians in the magic circle rely on gaffs and the likes? I like to venture not many. And would you go down there and say “you are not pure magicians”. thought not


But Marvell I agree with you its in the entertainment factor, 100%. Of course you should learn some impromptu slight of hand stuff for when your on the spot. I think any magician should but that’s another matter I feel.

Gimmicked non its all about the entertainment. Its nice to borrow a deck of cards or some coins, or have people look at stuff. In my sponge ball routine my table version that is, after the first production of the ball I let people look at the ball added misdirection there. I think Marvell you are reading too much in to some light hearted banter between us all. But I do agree whole heartedly it doesn’t matter what you use to entertain so longs you are entertaining.

Yes, maybe I've read light hearted comments as more than they are. From a beginner's perspective, it's quite daunting coming in to a group comprising of people who are significantly more experienced than myself and finding them scrapping over what seems to be an issue of personal choice.

Marvell everything is daunting when you first start something and looking in from the outside. But you will find this in all forums just not magic ones.

Marvell wrote:and finding them scrapping over what seems to be an issue of personal choice.

Oh it happens a lot! It's good to see that members are passionate about our art - sometimes a bit over-passionate but it's usually all done for the best of reasons.

If there was none of this fighting then every one would be doing the same trick in the same style wouldnt they?

No, specifically, they would be doing their own tricks in their own style and respecting others' differences.

In the end, it's the effect that really matters, isn't it. The spectators never see the cause - or at least, they shouldn't - so in theory, it could be practically anything.

Interesting points guys.
Entertainment is , as you say, paramount.
Gaffs and sleights from our point of view are very different, however, from a spectators view they are identical. Before I am pounced on from above, this is because they should be completely unaware of either. Everything has a Sankey approved copacetic appearance. All looks normal. Aside of course from the Ace of spades appearing 5 times in a row at the top of the pack. They do not think, DL or sveng, they should merely be thinking "what the *!$%!" or similar.

This said, I do perform the vast majority of my card magic with an unstacked, ungimmicked pack of cards. Is it from a standpoint of wanting to be a purist? No. It is so all can be handled by me or the spec at any time without having to think "I hope they don't look at xyz", "please dont shuffle too much" or "oh poo how do I get out of this one". I don't care about the views of how I perform an effect for them, only the effect itself on the specs

It is a good skill to be able to use a gimmick smoothly and without it appearing as such, be it a sveng deck, ninja coins or whatever. Then again, it is dangerous to be limited to just gimicked tricks. I say this with a very acknowledging nod towards Mr Lewis. There are exceptions.
What if a magii forgot to put their sveng or ID deck in their pocket (far fetched i know) and arrive at a party only to be confronted with the hosts pack of cards and "show us that one where the card kept coming to the top". If they only knew how to do this with the sveng deck currently residing on their sideboard at home they would be proverbially and royally bu**ered.

This topic I have seen raised a few times and there are always good arguments for both, but in my opinion they can dwell happily in the same pocket. My thoroughly shuffled bikes are keeping my ID company right this minute. It is only me who knows that I am using the self working miracles of the ID, a DL or my personal favorite ovette (I just cant help it, it's sooo easy but oooh sooo baffling. It's making me lazy). To them it's just a case of "but how the hell DID he get the card in the badger?" "dunno mate, must've been magic...your round aint it?"

Gimmicks are useful, but they are a means to an end. That end should be pure astonishment, no matter how you get there.
Yes, people often assume it is a gimmick even if no evidence shows as such, but the same is true of the all encompassing spec comment "oh, it's JUST sleight of hand" like that completely explains the entire working of an effect and they have managed to figure it all out.
These my friends is where the preconceptions come in. Use them to your advantage. It is why it is said so often that kids are harder to fool, they have none and merely see what they see without preconceiving what you are "up to". 2 card monte for example. You are showing them how to do a sleight. or so they think, leaving you much more room for manouvre

Scotch and soda is an amazing effect, but what if you left it at home?
the pot of jam trick truly is an (very nearly) impromptu miracle.

I love to be able to amaze with the most basic of objects. It is why cards and coins are a draw to so many.

If I may quote from Paul Daniels when asked about his favorite book......
"Martin Gardner's Encyclopedia of Impromptu Magic. All my working life I have been able to perform magic with anything anywhere. Once, in a northern nightclub, I saw a very good magician in cabaret. His act was clever, routined, and reasonably entertaining. What is known in the business as a good second top or filler. Afterwards he joined me and a few others at my table and a punter asked him to do a trick. The magician replied that he didn't do tricks, only his act. The punter replied, unthinkingly but with great wisdom, 'Oh, you're not a real magician then?' IF, repeat, IF, you are selling yourself as a 'Magician', then the magic must be there all the time." (Thanks to magicweek for the above quote)

This, to me, is true and you should not be stopped in your tracks just because you have either exhausted your "act" or left your precious gimmicks at home.

So where do I stand and moreover do any of you care? Personally I think that sleights and gimmicks both have their place, and both are equally overused and emphasised. If what is said of a silent script is true, should we not be thinking that all is as it appears anyway, regardless of how we are approaching the culmination of an effect?
If we believe then so will they. Probably. What do I know, I am but a mere monkey.

Now, where did I put my scotch n soda....

Marvell wrote:I am gob smacked at the level of back biting that is occurring in multiple threads which people have a tendency to justify under the banner of being a "purist". This post is a frustrated brain dump aimed at those who preach purism as the one true way and deny the skill of others who can't perform all of their effects without a standard deck. It is not a dig at purism as path.

First of all, I have NEVER met a serious card magician who is not able to perform with a borrowed deck of cards. The problem with gimmicked cards is that they are freely available to the public and most people know that there exist trick decks.

Often when I perform during an evening one or two spectators ask if the cards are magic cards. I explain that serious magicians never would use trick cards and go no to explain how it for example is possible to detect if the cards are marked. I riffle through the cards and explain that had the cards been marked they would typically see a little dot jumping around....

This explain in problem in nutshell: When I perform I often find myself performing for spectators who know about magic cards and often have a quite negative view of card magic. Essentially, I have to compete with uncle Harry's svengali deck. And uncle Harry is not a performer like Mark Lewis.... He is a complete beginner who only read the instructions in the deck he got in the local toy store. He certainly did NOT read Mark Lewis book.

I am not against gaffed cards and trick decks! I am against bad magicians and exposure of magic to the public.

I love good magicians! Derren Brown and David Blaine make it easier to get work as a magician. Bad magicians make it more difficult to find work for magicians. The first hand impression people have of you as a magician was created by the previous magician they experienced....

Did you ever watch Lennart Green? I forgot how it was, but I once read that famous magicians wife on a regular basis meet some of the worlds leading card magicians. And she said she never saw anyone as Lennart!
And he is I dare to say more purist than most. I think he only on a rare occasion allows himself to use a stranger card or a duplicate card.

We all entertain people in our own way. Some of us use cards, some coins, some sponge balls, and many other props. If the audience is entertained, does it matter? Does it matter if the prop is an everyday object? Does it matter if it's a trick item?

Does it matter if we entertain but for example explaining how the magic effects are done? I am sure many would find it entertaining to see explained how a coin can one minute later can appear inside a coke can. Is revealing secrets entertaining? Yes! Is revealing secrets damage to magic? Yes. The issue is not whether the poor use of trick decks is entertaining, but whether it is a damaging?

Is it the case that purists want to give them impression of skill to the spek? I personally don't want my spek to think of me, I want them to be amazed by the magic; to feel a glow and sense of mystery. I'd prefer that they don't try to deconstruct the trick, but if they do, I want them to loose the inclination as soon as possible and not even reach the stage where they draw a conclusion that there must be a gaff or stack.

Well there are two schools that leading slight of hand artists seems to consider (using trick decks is as far as I remember not even discussed in the 5 volumes of the card college or on Allan Ackerman's DVDs on expert card technique. Or on Lennart Greens videos. However they all discuss and have an opinion on is the real the real divide: Flourishes versus non-flourishes. Dai Vernon was greatly against the magician showing off any kind of skill. This is a very interesting issue. Clearly, to use a svengali deck to display all cards as the same goes against Dai Vernons philosophy of card magic.

Beginners using trick deck are I suppose complete unaware of the important debates concerning flourishes in card magic.

Allan Ackerman (who master both paradigms) has sympathy for both positions, though he acknowledges that the spectators in general find flourishes very entertaining.

(I have edited my original post to fix some disturbing typos)

Is it OK for a magician to use film trick while performing magic on TV?

If you think its not legitimate, why not? Is magic not just about entertaining people? If people do not realise the film trick why bother?

This question is in my mind related to the issues of using trick decks!

How come that a magician tries to create dual reality instead of just hire 100 stooges?? When Derren Brown is using dual reality it has - from a magical point of view - an esthetical element. To hire 100 stooges might be as effective but it is lacking the esthetical dimension. Using one stooge might in certain situations be OK. When David Copperfield performed Grand-pa's aces, he could have used film tricks and hired stooges to enhance the effect, but he did not! He used the minimal tools needed to create the strongest effect in the given circumstance. The same holds for Derren Brown who incidentally also is an excellent slight of hand artist!

For me the way trick decks are use by beginners is no different from someone post their magic trick on You Type using editing tricks to enhance their performance . I have no respect for a beginner making a film trick on You Type where he for example fool people to believe he vanished a chair by genuine magic. And I have no respect from a beginner appearing to do a card trick, but in fact are using fake cards when its not really needed.

Am I against film trick in magic in general? Not really! Film editing combined with clever dual reality is absolutely OK. In the same way I am not against trick decks, when it is done properly and the deck switch is professional etc.

Hope this clarify my position.

Soren Riis wrote:Derren Brown who incidentally also is an excellent slight of hand artist!

Do you think he uses straight decks for all his card tricks?

I understand your concern about the bad use of trick decks and the created assumption that we are all using them. However, this should be a challenge to us, rather than a problem.

If a badly done standard deck trick can create the assumption of a trick deck and a well done trick deck trick be done in such a way that the audience is sure that it was a regular deck, then which do you think should be done?

I'd go the the latter, every time.

There's nothing more dmaging to the magic community than bad magic, gaff based or otherwise.

I can only intepret your latest question as you essentially have not understood anything I wrote. Some of my writing contained some typos, but I suggest you take the time and for example carefully read my latest message before you charge ahead and atribute me with views I do not have.

OK, in that case, I don't understand the term "dual reality".