talkmagic.co.uk

I'm all for keeping things as simple and natural as possible, if you heave sheldoads of brightly painted props around then the specs know there's trickery afoot (or a-1/3 rd of a metre for our continental readers) so using items which appear to be just there in the vicinity is a good way of increasing the magic and entertainment - there's no obvious explanation like 'it's all done wiv mirrors guv'. As a ferinstance, sugar packets are so common that they're almost invisible until you do something magical with them but, of course, some preparation is required beforehand. I saw a TV prog with a guy floating a Starbucks cardboard cup all over the place but, as you might expect, it wasn't the one he'd just bought coffee in, oh dear me no, it had been procured earlier and, er, 'doctored'! To the specs it all looked as though the cup had been bewitched and floated around 'unaided' so, as far as they were concerned, the desired result was achieved. However if you can pick up genuinely ungaffed items and work magic with them then you're doing alright!

I used to love these arguments. Really I did, unfortunatly now I just don't give a poopy flavoured lolly pop. However People love my okito box. It is an old looking pewter piece with a dragon raising out of the lid. Goes very nicely with my dragon etched flip watch and folks love the story of how the dragon keeps very close watch on his treasure and he is very good at hiding it. Sometimes he hides it in his little box (coins go in box) and sometimes, (open box and there is a slight fog and as it disapates the coin is gone) when he knows that the looters are after his treasure he hides it here, (flip open the watch) and there is the previously initialed coin. Doing this exact same routine without the boxes in the spectators hand gets a slightly different reaction, not better not worse. Far more enchanted with the first one though. And of course I use both. I keep every tool I can in my repetoir. And I have learned when to use which.

I remember George Schindler was requested to do a wedding for a lot of money. The customer wanted lots of big box stuff. George, being George and if you know Mr. Schindler you will know what I mean, said trust me. He showed up with a deck of cards some of those dinki little sponge balls and did the show. Not only was the audience and employer exceedingly happy with the show he got a huge tip and all his expenses paid. They flew him from Boston/brooklyn always get confused on which, to Montreal

I don't believe the magic is any more belivable if you just grab something off the table and perform or reach into your pocket and pull out a cup. It depends on your situation and your abilities.

In certain situations the audience may be more appriciative of your slight of hand techinque if you are using every day objects. But does this mean your performance was more magicial? I doubt it, they are just giving your sleight of hand credit rather then the prop, in either case the audience will be entertained but in both cases they are concentrating on method, rather then just be amazed. It is kind of like missing the song cause you are too busy watching the techinique of the piano player. If they believe in either case that it is truly magic then it doesn't matter what you use. Those who believe, just do.

I'm a huge fan of Rene Levand. He says his wish is that one day his grandchildren will ask him to tell him the story, and when he responds, 'what story?" they will say, you know the one with the magic in it.

As an aside ever watch Bob Little perform his chop cup with that large beat up dented cup? It is hiliarious, I just don't remember if it was magical. Perhaps that is in the eye of the watcher, not the magician.

Like the Pendragons, I believe in keeping it believable.

its not what you use, its the way that you use it...

meh...

Markdini wrote:as Ortiz says “Magic should never be a puzzle”

When magicians use the word "puzzle" (in the context of saying that magic shouldn't be one), they often seem not to realise that they are speaking in code. My immediate response whenever I hear "magic should never be a puzzle" is to wonder, "what precisely do you mean by a puzzle?".

It's absolutely true that magic shouldn't be a puzzle in the same way that a cake shouldn't be a bowl of flour. A cake transcends being a bowl of flour because it's mixed with other ingredients that change its nature. Magic transcends being a puzzle for more or less the same reason. But there's still flour in cakes and there's still a potentiality for intellectual analysis in magic. (There's a myth that intellectual analysis and a sense of wonder are mutually exclusive, but that's utter nonsense.)

In magic, the spectator sees something happen that they know to be impossible. It's the spectator's right to choose how to respond to that paradox, including whether or not to try to think of a plausible hypothesis to resolve it. Any way of enjoying magic is legitimate so long as it doesn't interfere with the enjoyment of others, and I hate it when magicians want to dictate how the audience is supposed to enjoy their magic. (Personally, I've always felt that it's more entertaining to be completely baffled eight times and have some vague notion of what might be going on twice, than to be completely baffled ten times in a row.)

Totally Mental wrote:The spectators are prepared to suspend logical thinking long enough to allow you to perform each trick. Any sane person knows that the coin hasn't really travelled up your arm, across your shoulders and back down the other arm - but they are still amazed when it does just that!

I don't think that has anything to do with suspending logical thinking. They're not amazed because they're suspending logical thinking; they're amazed because their logical thinking tells them that what they see is impossible. The amazement depends on their logically-acquired knowledge of what is possible and what is not.

I almost don't want to enter into this debate as it's entering into the realms of people's beliefs, and these things are often very hard to influence or change. Also I'm still quite new to this delightful forum.

But here's my 2 pence;

Any magical effect performed with a borrowed object will always appear stronger to a spectator as it removes any heat from the object in question as it is theirs and they know it to be genuine. The first thing the typical lay person thinks is something on the lines of "it's gaffed" (Although they probably wouldn't use the word 'gaffed')

For example, any coin effect that you perform with your own coins will always have the small seed of doubt in the spectator's mind that the coin isn't genuine, no matter how well you perform. However that doubt is completely removed if you borrow one of their coins.

Borrowing things from spectators is also a great way of building rapport with them as it involves them more with the magic and, in the case of a £20 note, gives them a genuine interest in the outcome!

The same can be said for card effects, the amount of people who want to have a look at the deck of cards you produce from your pocket always amazes me. However if you're lucky enough to be handed a deck of cards to perform with all the heat is off the cards (they're always nasty cards though, why don't lay people buy decent cards!!!) however you can have the spectator shuffle the cards and that then involves them in the magic and also removes considerable heat of a stacked or gaffed deck.

Personally I find that any magic that is performed with unusual things will be viewed as 'a clever trick' by the spectators and you are insulting their intelligence if you really expect them not to know that the key to that effect is in the unusual, and obviously gaffed, object. Granted they may never know exactly how it is done, but they will know enough to lessen the effect in their eyes "it's just a 'trick box".

That said there is a place for professional looking props, I know that if I was paying good money for a stage show and the magician was using Starbucks cups and scrunched up napkins I would be a little bit disappointed.

Whalemeister, I am glad that you entered the debate. There is no sense in a chat room or message board if people don't enter the discussions. With that said, I disagree with your statements.

Before I start please keep in mind this is opinion based on my experience, I’ve been doing this since 1974 I was 9. I was brought up in the magic business and have been around magicians and performers all my life. I also stay away from absolute terms such as never and always.

Usually the object in question does not make an effect stronger. Perhaps when you borrow an object the effect is stronger and that may be do to your style or circumstances. If the object is given a legitimate purpose for being there most audiences are accepting of the object. An object is only unusual if it is out of its element or unexplained. Once it is legitimized it is, for the most part no longer an issue. An audience will seldom question the object if presented properly. The same person that will question your object will probably assume that the object you borrowed was somehow switched. Or will be impressed by your sleight of hand in any of those situations the magic that I am trying to achieve is gone. Like Doug Henning I want to rekindle a sense of amazement in my audience. I don’t believe that they actually believe that I am able to perform miracles. But if I can give them that feeling then I am happy. I am the first to admit I don’t totally understand how the whole suspension of disbelief works. I simply hope that the audience are enjoying themselves enough that they don’t care how it works. And sometimes that is achieved. I get some people who want to know and others who straight out say, ‘oh my god that is amazing I don’t even want to know how you do that’ that statement alone tells me they know there is some sort of trickery but they are enjoying the show and still amazed.

I never show one trick. I perform a routine within that routine I establish my legitimacy with my audience. My okito box, (that I mentioned earlier) fits in with the context of the routine and my okito box is not gimmicked except for the nature of the box itself and I really don’t use the benefits of the okito factor. I start off by handing them the box asking them if they have ever seen anything like this before and then go into a whole story about it, they are probably aware that my story is garbage but they also understand that they are watching a show, and now that prop is part of the show, they have handled it, may have even examined it while I was weaving my tale, in any case the box is now legit. Earlier I may have done an effect with a bill where I borrowed the bill or have performed an effect with cards where the cards were shuffled and handled by a spectator. I most likely did something with a sponge ball where for the most part the spectator has more contact with the prop then I do. I may have reached into my pocket several times for my pen to get them used to the action for when I need to ditch an object. The point being, I am conditioning my audience and I have established myself and my props and that is part of my job. Jay Sankey for example always makes a lot of noise around his deck, constant riffles and shuffles the deck has a lot of motion in his hands, all this so when he does do something and there is an unavoidable noise or movement of the hand the audience is conditioned that this is normal and therefore they don’t suspect.

I do certainly agree with your statement about borrowing money because then they are vested in the effect. Same with borrowing finger rings and other personal objects. I’m all in favour of performing with every day objects. But I certainly don’t discount a magician having props and I certainly don’t believe that the magic is less because you are using your own props if handled properly.