talkmagic.co.uk

Which style of magic do you prefer? Do you prefer an implicit style (with the magic moment simply implied) or an explicit style (visual, in-your-face magic moments)?

To be completely honest, I'm really into the implicit style. don't get me wrong, I DO perform a fair bit of explicit magic, but I feel the implicit style leaves much more to the spectator's imagination and leaves some effects fairly open ended... leave it up to the spectators to decide how the effect happened. To me, explicit magic is fine and all, but whenever I perform certain effects under this category, I feel like Criss Angel and it makes me feel dirty. Some explicit magic, I have no problem with.

But the problem with a fair bit of explicit magic is that the illusion just doesn't look how it should... this of course does not count for every effect, as there are some beautifully realistic explicit effects out there, but I find a lot of the stuff I've looked into just doesn't look as it really would in real life. Implicit magic, to me, creates mystery. A lot of explicit magic can point toward trickery. Then again, these are just my own simple feelings, feel free to completely diagree and even argue my points.

Michael Kras asks about implicit vs. explicit magic.

A possibly better division might be "cerebral vs. in-your-face magic".

Or "intellectual vs. broad-strokes" magic.

In any case, I also lean towards the "implicit" type of magic.

Now what?

I have to second Peter's suggestions but likewise point out that the wise conjurer employs both, allowing one to embellish the other. That's part of what one must learn if you are to create "Magick" vs. tricks

plus you can combine both at the same time, to through in those extra surprises - or get some dirty work done...

the question sounds rather borrowed from Mr. Sankey if you don't mind me saying so young Kras...thats not a dig, just something that came across explicitedly...

I didn't borrow it from Sankey, at least not intentionally.

This is probabaly just me being thick here but I'm not really all that sure what's meant by implicit and explicit magic

Lady of Mystery wrote: I'm not really all that sure what's meant by implicit and explicit magic

explicit magic is when you wear a low-cut top and swear a lot lomster..well, that's what i do...

I wouldn't worry about it Lomster, it seems to be creating categories and boundaries where none are needed.

MK - when you talk about "explicit, visual" magic coming across as not real, how do you describe card to wallet for instance? Nothing supernatural is happening - it's not like you're trying to persuade anyone one card actually melted into another etc - but their card ended up in your wallet, and they cannot explain it. Seeing you take a card out of your wallet is nothing shocking in itself, it's not "unreal", but they have no idea how it came about - it's a mystery - is that implicit or explicit?

I think by "implicit" you are naturally leaning towards mental magic, and ultimately mentalism, i.e. something impossible that doesn't necessarily have any physical or visual element of impossibility.

I would say I do mostly what you would call "explicit" magic, because in the settings in which I perform, "implicit" (which just means "implied") would be lost. When people are out partying, having a little to drink, chatting etc. I don't want them to have to sit and puzzle over the subtleties and implications of a piece of magic, I want them to go "wow!".

One more thing - r.e. magic moments. A magic moment should always be "implied", unless it's marked with a flash or a bang etc - when you say "visual, in your face" I'm pretty sure you're talking about the reveal. They're two different things. Vanishing a coin for instance - the "magic moment" isn't when you show your hands empty (that's the reveal), it's when you click your fingers or blow on your fist - it's when you imply that the magic is happening, it gives the audience a point to remember. The true "magic moment" is very rarely visual and/or "in-your-face".


Let's try and keep this in the real world - what effects that are magic, not mentalism, do you deem to be "implicit"?

Peter Marucci wrote:
A possibly better division might be "cerebral vs. in-your-face magic".

Or "intellectual vs. broad-strokes" magic.

In any case, I also lean towards the "implicit" type of magic.

Who would have guessed .

Farlsborough wrote:I wouldn't worry about it Lomster, it seems to be creating categories and boundaries where none are needed.

MK - when you talk about "explicit, visual" magic coming across as not real, how do you describe card to wallet for instance? Nothing supernatural is happening - it's not like you're trying to persuade anyone one card actually melted into another etc - but their card ended up in your wallet, and they cannot explain it. Seeing you take a card out of your wallet is nothing shocking in itself, it's not "unreal", but they have no idea how it came about - it's a mystery - is that implicit or explicit?

I think by "implicit" you are naturally leaning towards mental magic, and ultimately mentalism, i.e. something impossible that doesn't necessarily have any physical or visual element of impossibility.

I would say I do mostly what you would call "explicit" magic, because in the settings in which I perform, "implicit" (which just means "implied") would be lost. When people are out partying, having a little to drink, chatting etc. I don't want them to have to sit and puzzle over the subtleties and implications of a piece of magic, I want them to go "wow!".

One more thing - r.e. magic moments. A magic moment should always be "implied", unless it's marked with a flash or a bang etc - when you say "visual, in your face" I'm pretty sure you're talking about the reveal. They're two different things. Vanishing a coin for instance - the "magic moment" isn't when you show your hands empty (that's the reveal), it's when you click your fingers or blow on your fist - it's when you imply that the magic is happening, it gives the audience a point to remember. The true "magic moment" is very rarely visual and/or "in-your-face".


Let's try and keep this in the real world - what effects that are magic, not mentalism, do you deem to be "implicit"?

By "implicit", I mean an effect in which the magic moment happens under concealed conditions, thusly heightening the mystery of the effect (in many cases). I'd describe Card To Wallet as implicitly magical.

If so, what would you term as explicit then? Most magic effects I know of require/have some sort of cover.

Only one effect comes to my head where no cover is needed, i.e. linking rings, where it appears to just go through directly.