talkmagic.co.uk

MagicBill wrote:

only for us.The audiences really couldnt care less how we do it, as long as we do it well, and in an entertaining manner

This is a good point well made!

Haha Dale! But that's my point. I want to feel like I've fooled my audiences with pure sleight of hand - not a bunch of gimmicks! It comes down to personal satisfaction in the end.

Would Monet be equally as satisfied with a landscape he'd painted upon a blank canvas as to one where he'd 'painted by numbers'?

But would Monet paint with his eyes closed rather than with them open just because he could?

And if my auntie had testicles would she now be my uncle?

Thing is i used to want to be gimmick free, but there's some seriously good effects out there you simply couldn't achieve without a gimmick.

Want examples now do you?

Well im too tired for that, you should know what they are.

It's all very well being a black belt in sleight of hand, but the point is the audience shouldnt know you're doing sleight of hand, so how are they going to appreciate it?

Yes, that's right - Monet could paint with his eyes shut!

To me magic is a performing art. Our art can have a lasting impression if it's elegant, mystifying and entertaining.

Please do not quote me back my own words about 'entertaining' being the point - I know this. Methods are nothing, effect is everything!

In terms of close-up though, I just can't remember the last time I saw one of the top magicians performing a set with gimmick after gimmick after gimmick.

I really have nothing against using the odd gimmick, but my overall point is that they shouldn't replace sleight of hand. The best way to build your confidence is through mastering the basic techniques. There should be no cutting corners.

The title 'magician' should be earned, not bought. Just my opinion. And no matter how much we consider our audiences point of view we are ultimately driven by our own motivations and fulfilled by our own personal satisfaction.

The problem is one of perception. Since when is using a gimmick instead of sleight of hand cutting corners? It takes skill and technique to use a gimmick, just like any other method. In many cases, the gimmicks go hand-in-hand with sleight of hand technique, so even more skill can be required, to a certain degree.

To flatly state that anything but sleight of hand is cutting corners is just wrong.

I have seen both types of shows - and have seen both the terrific and the terrible. I do not hold a devotee of pure sleight of hand to a higher standard than someone who incorporates gimmicks or sure-fire props. If both can entertain an audience, one is not better than the other. They're just different.

There is no right or wrong answer as to which line of thought is correct. If you don't think using gimmicks is magic - then you shouldn't use them. If you don't see a problem with using gimmicks, use them. You are no better or worse than any other magician out there (unless you're not entertaining, of course).

It all depends what we're talking about here. If we're talking about someone just pulling gimmick after gimmick out of his bag, doing a trick and then putting it away again then that's not good magic. But if you can incorporate a gimmick or two into a well thought out and entertaining routine then where's the problem?

It's only other magicians that are going to look down on you for using a gimmick, your audience don't know and don't really care how you're doing something.

Although I have no problems with using them, I think if you rely pretty much entirely on gimmicks and have next to no non-gimmick effects then you could run into problems. If you lose your gimmicks or they break then it could lead you into having to abandon your set and consequently not get paid and even worse, tarnish your reputation. Equally, if you run into someone and they ask you to do something magical and you are without your 'props', you're going to look pretty stupid or hugely arrogant if you tell them that you won't do anything for them.

When I first became interested in magic I bought a whole bunch of gimmicks and gadgets almost all of which are now sitting in the back of a draw somewhere because I wasn't good enough to actually use them in the correct context. By studying the 'traditional' methods of conjuring, sleight of hand etc. and reading a whole bunch of theory books on the construction of effects and presentation, I'm now beginning to think of ways of using some of these props in a way that will look like I'm doing the magic rather than the gimmicks doing it for me.

You can buy things that will help with your magic but you can't buy the magic itself.

I seriously believe that we are in danger of taking ourselves too seriously! Is a customer going to be more impressed by a well presented ID routine or a mediochre effect using a DL?

It is what the spectator wants that we should be thinking about if we want to perform in public. If we are just interested in perfecting a sleight and sitting in a dark room playing with it for our own benefit then fine, but I don't see the point of that. In fact there is a word for people like that.

What needs to be considered first and foremost is how is a layman with no knowledge of anything magical going to perceive the effect? Having another magician admire my work would be great and an added bonus but the guys who pay me to perform aren't magicians, they are pub landlords, restaurant mangers, joe public organising a birthday party etc. If I can impress them my first and main goal has been achieved.

I work with a mix of gimmicks and sleights. I can do a full set of table hopping tricks with one deck of cards in my hand. But if I want a quick in to a group the ID, Sankeys Holey Moley, a marked deck and a nudist (self printing) deck can come out in quick succession. And I still do not have anything in my repertoire that can draw a better reaction than a well worked ID routine.

Some may say this is shallow. But its deep enough for me to get paid to do it, and to get repeat bookings!

I have a dislike and distrust of intellectual snobbery and sneering at gimmicks borders on this to me.

Well John, I don't think many people are going to be impressed by a 'mediochre effect', whether it uses a DL or some kind of gimmick!

I don't perform any mediocre effects and that's probably why I have 4 weekly residencies and contracts with two major Scottish football clubs to perform round the suites on matchdays.

In other words, I am not being a snob - I'd like to think I know what I am talking about. I DO use the occasional gimmick, but simply from a personal point of view I prefer sleight of hand. And I'll say it again, the number of magicians I meet that don't even hold a pack of cards right or can execute a jog shuffle properly is astounding. I think that's why it's important to master the basics then, by all means, incorporate gimmicks into your act.

And something that hasn't been touched on yet - originality. I put my success partly down to the fact my sets are original. There are only so many ways you can perform the ID, or the svengali, etc. etc. If we all went out and performed mostly with gimmicks we'd all be performing the same material!

Because I have almost every sleight at my disposal there is virtually no effect I cannot perform. The majority of effects I do perform are my own creations, to guarantee originality, and this wouldn't be possible without the foundations in place. You also have so many 'outs' with a large arsenal of sleights that you're probably never going to be in a position where you can't pull some kind of climax off again.

Learn and master the basics. Be creative. Be original. This is just my opinion.

MagicBill wrote:And I'll say it again, the number of magicians I meet that don't even hold a pack of cards right or can execute a jog shuffle properly is astounding.

I have no idea if I hold a deck of cards 'right' - but I grew up playing cards with my father (and you wouldn't believe how difficult he is to jog shuffle), so I hold them like a card player. Am I wrong?

No, I'm only being silly there, not actually having a go. I agree with your main point, but I'm not sure the specifics really back it up - does a spectator care hugely how one holds the cards, as long as the magic is good? Mastering some basic skills is a very good idea, but I don't think there's any real need for people to be an expert in all the basics. Assuming anyone can agree upon what they are.

If we all went out and performed mostly with gimmicks we'd all be performing the same material!

That depends upon what they are. Swamis, Stripper Decks, TTs, Marked Decks, ITRs, The Extractor, hold-outs, toppits - all with dozens (hundreds?) of possible uses each. Just as an example, my routine for The Extractor is wholly original to me (at least, if anyone else does it - and I'd be amazed if they did - I certainly didn't get it from them). It is, however, a gimmick and one that (largely, maybe entirely) can be replaced by sleights.

I'd say that any gimmick that's invisible is something I'd feel okay using - if it's a plastic wallet that the card has to go into for it to change, that's something I wouldn't bother with.

Well, I thought I would throw in my thoughts on this topic. First, I would like to agree that magic is an art. This art can be sub-categorized, certainly. For example, there is the art of sleight of hand. Granted, we have all seen poor artists in every branch of art. It is an art, none the less.

It seems there is a question as to whether or not a magician is an artist, if her/his tricks depend, even in every case, on a gimmick.

Without only simply stating my opinion, you can review the repetoire of the finest magicians throughout the ages, and I believe your conclusion will be similar to mine. The facts speak for themselves.

In the world of close-up, there are many fine sleight-of-hand artists. However, did Don Allan use gimmicks? Does Eugene Burger use gimmicks? How about Paul Harris? Almost EVERY effect in their professional close up acts used/uses some kind of gimmick.

My opinion? You can have a full repetoire of effects, in which each and every one relies on one or another gimmick! Isn't this a fact? And using only gimmicked effects, you can rise to the very top of the magic world - is this also not a fact?

It is rare to find a close-up artist who uses no sleights whatsoever - perhaps you can name some (I would have a hard time). I am not negating the idea that sleights are often used, even with gimmicked effects. But here again, do you need to master a littany of moves and sleights? I can't remember, for example, Goshman ever doing card tricks in his act. He had (almost) a single vanish - his own - that he used for every effect, whether it was coins or sponge balls, etc.

Artistry is not dependant on mastery of a wide spectrum of skills or effects. I wonder if it is possible to introduce true artistry into a single effect?!? Shall the artist be less of an artist if he uses a gimmick? Shall he be more of an artist simply because he mastered one or more sleights?

Whether you use sleights or gimmicks, whether you have ever read a magic book or only created your own effects - how much bearing does that have regarding artistry?

One is a discussion of skills, and the other is a discussion of artistry. You can garner expertise and skills in many fields. Artistry can be revealed in the performance of even a single effect, regardless of method.

If my job is to convince a spectator that they have witnessed a miracle, does it matter how I did it? There are actors that can sing and dance, make you laugh or cry, etc. Should we deny accolades to anyone who, by whatever means, has accomplished true artistry, even if they can't sing?

I use sleight of hand when I perform - I don't think that makes me more of an artist than someone who uses none, or only uses the bare basic single sleight they need to accomplish a particular effect.

I would urge you, no matter your methods, no matter your field (mentalism, close-up, stage, parlor, etc), to try to give an excellent performance, and continue to elevate our beloved magic towards fine art.