talkmagic.co.uk

If you think it's a simple case of pointing in another direction and hoping they'll look, you have an awful lot to learn.

I don't think I ever said any such thing. Though to me, misdirection is best utilised as a subtle tool to enhance your effects further, rather than being the method, effect, the whole caboodle (sp?).

What I meant was that if the effect HAS NO RATIONAL EXPLANTION and your misidirection or whatever was used was indetectable then the only avenue for a lot of people to go to is something supernatural.

I would argue that they don't know how you got the card under the box (or whatever), and not that they think there is no rational explanation. They know you put it there, but they just dont know how you did it. I would be suprised however, if many rational adults believed a card under the box routine had any links to the supernatural.

AndyRegs wrote:

If you think it's a simple case of pointing in another direction and hoping they'll look, you have an awful lot to learn.

I don't think I ever said any such thing. Though to me, misdirection is best utilised as a subtle tool to enhance your effects further, rather than being the method, effect, the whole caboodle (sp?).

What I meant was that if the effect HAS NO RATIONAL EXPLANTION and your misidirection or whatever was used was indetectable then the only avenue for a lot of people to go to is something supernatural.

I would argue that they don't know how you got the card under the box (or whatever), and not that they think there is no rational explanation. They know you put it there, but they just dont know how you did it. I would be suprised however, if many rational adults believed a card under the box routine had any links to the supernatural.

Magic isn't real you know. The specs know that. I don't see what you're getting at.

Magic isn't real you know. The specs know that. I don't see what you're getting at.

Oh dear...and here's me thinking that every time I get my magic wand out, and see the astonishment on peoples faces, its because I have these magic powers that nobody else has! Having said that, certain effects can make people at least suspend their beliefs.

I think I have made a relevant point that is worth discussing, but the last few posts have seemed to be a bit patronising so I will give up now. We obviously don't all agree on our approach to magic, and what I say may mean that I don't like certain effects that others do, but I suprised that people don't even understand the point of the discussion. It is surely worth looking critically at all effects/methods.

Hey, I think I understood it with my 'distraction' post!

Hey, I think I understood it with my 'distraction' post!

I didn't mean everyone. Sorry if it came accross that way. It was a valuable contribution to the thread.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I did expect a majority to disagree with me (though perhaps a few more to agree ), though to make a valid argument in return. It's the not understanding the relevance of the post that suprises me.

I understood your point (or at least I think I did). and yes it was a valid arguement but is a very difficult one to answer. It all depends on what your understanding of 'magic' is.

AndyRegs wrote:

Hey, I think I understood it with my 'distraction' post!

I didn't mean everyone. Sorry if it came accross that way. It was a valuable contribution to the thread.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I did expect a majority to disagree with me (though perhaps a few more to agree ), though to make a valid argument in return. It's the not understanding the relevance of the post that suprises me.

as far as I can see, people have made plenty of valid arguments in return

I honestly don't see what you're getting at.

What I'm assuming you're getting at, is saying that misdirection isn't magic. To me that's just an opinion, like saying "using a gimmick isn't magic" or "magic is only true if the object never leaves your sight"

If the spec thinks it was magic, do you say "well it might look like magic to you, but believe me it isn't. I just made you look the other way while I did the move. But if I had done the move while you were looking at me, then it would have been magic.

Apologies if I sound in any way patronising, it's not intentional.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm with you on this one Mr. Regs and I fully understand right where you're coming from.

Misdirection (or direction, depending on your point of view) should be looked at as critically as any other tool that we use when weaving our tricks or routines together. Just because a magician is clever enough to force you to look where they want you to doesn't mean that you'll be drawn into that momentary suspension of disbelief.

When something is so blatantly obvious that it's only explanation can be misdirection, then certainly you've left your spectators with no other choice that to realize that they've been misdirected. In all honesty, aren't we supposed to be taking away any possible explanations? I think that we are.

And, when that card turns up in your mouth or under a glass, then only one explanation is there...

Further, if you've done this with panache, then your audience will attribute you with the greatest insult to a magician: "You are very clever." I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that I don't want my audience going away thinking that I was clever, I want them thinking that I was magic.

Obviously, nobody believes in magic, but I would rather my audience walk away with no explanations rather than simply chalk up my entire performance to misdirection. Used properly, misdirection is just as imperceptible as any well executed sleight, but card to mouth and card under glass can be accomplished in no other way and offers the spectators no choice other than coming to the full realization that misdirection was used.

Does this mean that nobody should be doing card to mouth or card under glass? Certainly not. But don't fool yourself into believing that you are not giving away the method of what you're doing (simply because no other explanation will suffice).

Mike.

I feel that I've just looked to the east, and seen Gandalf charging to the rescue on shadowfax!

What I'm assuming you're getting at, is saying that misdirection isn't magic. To me that's just an opinion, like saying "using a gimmick isn't magic" or "magic is only true if the object never leaves your sight"

I think this shows that you haven't got what I'm getting at at all. I think misdirection is an amazing tool if used properly. But yes misdirection isn't magic, just as a D/L isn't magic, or PK ring isn't magic. The effect is the magic, and if the effect is the same as the method, then the magic is lost.

I understand your point Andy and agree with it; it's something I have thought about a fair bit before.

With an ACR for instance the strength of the effect is derived from the fact that they see their card go into the middle of the deck. Their attention is focussed on where the magic is happening - which is why it is so impossible when it appears back on the top of the deck.

When something appears on your shoulder however that's not as magical (some may still find it magical) as the ACR example because your attention was not focussed on your shoulder. Contrast this example with you looking at your shoulder and seeing something appear there. That is magic, the former is but an example of audience management and control (reiterating other points I know).

As to whether or not it is magic, however, is something only the perceiver can decide upon. They may be truly mystified by it (I know somebody who was amazed when his card appeared on the back of his chair) or they may be amused at how they did not notice what had happened.

Yes I'll admit that I'm really not getting this.


"With card to mouth for instance the strength of the effect is derived from the fact that they see their card go into the middle of the deck. Their attention is focussed on where the magic is happening - which is why it is so impossible when it appears in your mouth".

Not much different to me. How can one be magic and the other one not

Beeno

Take these two scenarios:

1. I am sitting opposite you in a pub. I say "Wow, look behind you, the barmaid's showing us where Bristol City are playing next". You look behind you to see that the barmaid is in fact a barMAN and he's just polishing glasses. Meantime, I shove a playing card in my mouth. When you turn back round, there it is, a playing card in my mouth.

2. I am sitting opposite you in a pub. I get you to select a card from a deck, and return it—signed. I then do some fancy shuffles etc. and spread the deck face up. As you scan through, you can't seem to see your card. My finger points upwards, and as you overt your gaze upwards, following my finger, your card is in my mouth.


In the first scenario, it's blatantly obvious that I made you turn around whilst I put the card in my mouth. Nothing magical there then.

In the second scenario, your signed card (focus object) has somehow vanished from the deck and appeared in my mouth.

The obvious
In scenario one, the misdirection is apparent. In scenario two, it is not.

The motive
In scenario one, there is absolutely no motive, reason or purpose for the card to appear in my mouth.

In scenario two, the purpose is a card reveal—which can be a magical thing—a vanish, followed by a transportation to another location without visible means is quite amazing, and seemingly impossible.

Physically possible vs. seemingly impossible
If a misdirection is so obvious that it points to something being a physical possibility—i.e. scenario one—then is it magical?

However, if used as part of an effect and used well, a misdirection can cause the illusion of physical impossibility, ergo, a magical moment.

Eloquently put, seige!

Errrr. Someone please slap me, because I still no know.
So are we now saying that "card to mouth" IS magical?
Because the whole premise of this thread started with "card to mouth" not being magical.