Mr_Grue wrote:A_n_t wrote:They are such a small part of any prospective audience it makes no sense to panda entirely to them. I am not saying disregard them but your act should certainly not pivot on the possibility of a magician or skeptic being present.
If it suits you, Eshly, think why Derren Brown puts little in-jokes into his stuff? He's tipping a nod to those already in the know, which is quite a powerful, inclusive gesture; earnest, but aimed at getting the magicians in the audience on-side.
My favourite was for Derren's 'living-dead test' when someone came on here and asked how he did it. Derren actually says at the end 'wow.. wow.. that's um.. that's out of this world!'. But yes, magicians SOMETIMES could be in the audience. So could an infallible Sherlock Holmes- does that mean we should quit, so that nobody ever works anything out? As somewhat of a member of the freternity, if you wanted to impress me- you'd have to do it by total equanimity when it comes to the magician's world. I gained even more respect for Derren when I saw him doing essentially a Corinda effect (although with origional presentation) and not giving a damn. Look up Marc Salem, everything he does is essentially Corinda: do people leave believing in him? Do people leave entertained? Yes. Because he's a great showman. So, now I have done my duty of agreeing with everyone, I now must break conformity and do something very strange and disagree with everyone.
Sometimes though, I get the suspicion people disagree with Tom for the sake of it.
It is quite sensible to improve things as best as you can. I know that the cut force works, I have done it. But I'd still rather use the classic force. Why would I want to use a method which an astute or erudite audience member might conceive when a better one is available. Conservative mediocrity and even worse contentment with that apathy and mediocrity has never got anyone anywhere. I have heard so many magician's blabbering about 'presentation not method' as a justification for not constantly refining and improving methods but when it comes to it their presentation isn't too fantastic either. I mean, if they are Tommy Cooper, or Vsevolod Meyerhold, then maybe that's an excuse, but unless you genuinley do divert every fibre of your being into improving your presentation and being origional (which few do) then it is just common sense. Improvement and advancement keep art alive, and magicians always go on about art aswell. Rarley though, when I watch them perform, do I see art. What would have happened if Anneman accepted the status quo?
Randy wrote:Forgot to mention one thing, the completely hands off approach to something is good, but it also falls under the "Too Perfect" theory. Meaning that if the work was done before you did anything. Some spectators will have it in the back of their minds that you used a gimmick, and some might be inclined to question you about. Spectators know about things like a stacked deck and all that stuff. So don't fool yourself into thinking that it will instantly fool them.
The other thing is that when you perform, You are supposed to look like you had a hand in what happened.
Ok granted, if Tom concentrated on presentation no question would be raised about his psychological skills. But Presentation is such an elusive word- and if the emphasis is on realism (which, for some it may not be, but for Tom it is) then that simply means you have to recreate what the real circumstances would be. Elementary, dear readers. 'Method acting' is all about that. So what would a real mind reader be doing, and how would he be doing it. I believe this has been discussed in magic literature copiously. Maybe they would have a method, what is it? Personally, I am fascinated by Paul Ekman's work and it is an interesting thing to discuss with people, they truly find it interesting. I can do all the jargon about 'twitches in the obicularis oculi, Action Unit 6 (Or 12.. nobody has ever questioned me on that though. I think it might be Zygomaticus major, but I'm not sure anyway, we were talking about?), revealing concealed duping delight and therefore deception' or whatever is needed. As a result, the emphasis is on the face, or my mental faculties or the spectator- not on the effect. So I am influencing someone to think of a card. Nobody cares how I have predicted it, the question is have I predicted it? Oh.. well the card is upside down in the deck so he must have predicted it as there is no conceivable way of cheating... blah blah. If you are presenting it right then you control the subtext, and nobody questions deceit. ANYWAY.
The too perfect theory. This is stupid. It is the too perfect theory Eshly rejects when he says what he does, but because of who he is, people find it difficult to look past that and see that he is absolutley right to reject this stupid theory. Is he right because he is the voice of experience and a genius... probably not. He is right because he is applying common sense, regardless of how frustrating he can be. Martin Luther King said that he dreamt that his children could be judged by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin. Well I hope that one day we can judge an argument on its content and not on the reputation of the person propagating it.
Lets look at the 'too perfect theory'. Similar, although not equated, is the 'If it ain't broke don't fix it' argument. The too perfect theory, as stated by Johnson and Racherbaumer (the two who conceived it) is the notion that:
'some tricks by virtue of their perfection, become imperfect. Some tricks, by duty of their imperfection, become perfect'
I shall avoid digressing into an inquiry into the aesthetics of perfection and philosophy of it all, but perfection does not exist. Improvement is a constant, living endevour: there is not an end, there is simply the journey. To aim for perfection is just as stupid as this theory. To not aim for betterment and the endevour which carries us closer towards a non-existant, perpetually diminishing concept of perfection- is even stupider. Tommy Wonder commented on the too perfect theory, saying that it was an easy solution but its price was progress. And he was right: who doesn't want to believe that having to think less and not climb the mountain of betterment and refinement actually creates perfection? It is a nice thought, but if you don't climb the mountain you don't see the view. You sit there are let the art rot.
The too perfect theory is illustrated by the exaple of a magician trying to improve the nest of boxes effect: a borrowed watch appears in a box. The rational spectators of the real world, not the stupid spectators of the south parkian imagination land, expect that the watch got into the box somehow. They don't quite know how, but they know thats how it was done; 'I don't know when you did something, but I know you did it'. The magician rejects the too perfect theory and improves it, until the box is not even touched. Of course then, there is no opportunity for the previous assumptions. But the new assumption is that its a duplicate watch. The method was improved, but it had a worse effect. Alas, the too perfect theory.
That theory admits defeat, and accepts mediocrity, because otherwise the magic becomes too unbelievable and we wouldn't want that now would we? So we either have them believe they have missed the move, or that I am using a duplicate watch. Once more today, I observe a flaw in logic. This is a false dilema, do they have to believe that the watch is a duplicate? Well no, it simply means you have to
THINK about it, you have to climb the mountain and feel the pain of something called effort. It means you need to think of a way of proving that the watch is the same one and keep the stronger method. So to all the maxims floating around, I add another:
Nobody said betterment is easy. But it is better.
After all, nothing worth achieving is easy. But 'if it ain't broke- don't fix it' does not mean that we should reject being as best as we can. It is common sense, that anyone who cares enough about magic wants to do it as best as they can, I cannot conceive why people do not understand that. If it ain't broke don't fix it implies something is broken. I never said there was anything wrong with the cross cut force. I am simply saying I think its better to use a cleaner force. Think people.
''To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in another's.'' Dostoevsky's Razumihin.