talkmagic.co.uk

Is there anything inherently wrong with being an armchair expert when it comes to magic and mentalism? Yes, these are both performance arts, but is there anything to be said for studying the theory behind it all but not performing at all? I have read so much on magic forums coming from supposed armchair experts; they talk a good game but have no apparent experience performing and are immediately denounced for spouting nonsense based on nothing substantial.

I don't do paid work and only perform for the usual "family and friends" (and strangers at parties, on occasion) so my performing experience is limited. Does that make me a semi-armchair expert?

I've read somewhere that T. A. Waters did not perform much, yet his Mind, Myth and Magick book is held in very high regard for the most part. Some of the material is impractical, but it's a very good book overall. Was he an armchair expert, though?

i think its more when armchair-experts give advice an opinions on performing that the problem arises - and they speak as if its "their experience", rather than having just read it somewhere...

someone may be an expert in how medieval swords were made, but a) could they make one themselves? b) could they use the sword in question if handed one?

Before I get started I just point out that this is a most interesting topic that deserves significant contemplation more than mere discussion. But at least the seeds have been planted and reason for internal debate (at minimum) given.


When I was in the military I was put through what they call "A-School" in which they trained me in my particular field of specialty (aviation ordnance) only to find myself assigned to my first squadron and being told by an old salty Senior Chief to forget 85% of what they filled our heads with at A-School in that what you find in a book isn't necessarily how things really worked in the field; over the 30ish years since, I've come to see how that really does apply on so many levels and in so many areas of life on the whole, not just our particular niche there of.

I'd be exceptionally way off base to say that book knowledge isn't important; hell, I complain all the time about how unread so many are in today's world. If information isn't on a DVD or in Video format of some kind, an amazing cross section of "enthusiasts" simply never learn it. Then we have those that really do judge books by their cover in that they look at anything published before 1990 as being antique and if it was in print prior to 1970, obsolete...
... fortunately for many of us, that means we don't have as many fools littering the playing field by ruining even more of magic and in particular, some of the "classics" (dare I say, "rare" classics at that). Too, this wonderfully lazy cross section of our industry allows we creative types to reintroduced yesteryear ideas as something exciting and new and thus, legally pick a pocket or two (shhhh, magic dealers have done this for generations... preying on the unread, curious, and lethargic)

Pardon my pseudo-sarcasm here, but either of these examples bring about a hint of contrasting Pro & Con factors when it comes to the bookworm syndrome and magic; there is a huge amount of good, advantage and value in applying one's self into actually learning about how our yesteryear contributors thought, approached and presented (or developed) magic. There is value in understanding how certain technologies have evolved and too, how yesteryear thinking can give you a modern-day marvel that stumps the majority of our contemporary thinkers. On the other hand, if you have the book knowledge but no direct contact or experience with those things you've merely read about, you cannot a.) appreciate what's really involved; b.) understand the nuances and performance elements the books simply cannot teach that only direct experience can deliver; and c.) you become more limited (constrained) in your own ability to be creatively expressive via innovations that are based on real world experience executing personal theory.

When the Mind, Myth & Magic booklets first came it (like Corinda, it was not a complete book for many years) the greater majority of working pros sneered and mocked it. My original copies were picked up for two and three dollars each in the clearance bin of Hollywood Magic along with some of Gene Poinc's ideas on grand illusion designs. Water's being seen as a great theorist; someone that could challenge the most ardent performer in ways that helped him/her to bring out not just the better side of themselves but the effects and how they were presented. His enthusiasm with the occult and the more esoteric aspects of human mind potential likewise allowed Tommy to create ways of approach via which "the tricks" were removed and a greater sense of impossibility/mystery created... that is, for those that had a mind geared towards the idea of creating intrigue... a more theatrical mode of expression.

No, Water's was not the greatest of showmen and by his own admission, he was just an information junky that "dabbled", his stage shows (which, really were more frequent than some suggest... sometimes two or three a month) were more a matter of experimentation; a means by which to refine some of his theories.

I've gotten a bit tied up on the issue of MMM & Waters here... getting back to the question, I can only echo what I've learned by way of standing with one foot in the world of the perpetual student and one in the realm of the thespian; both are required if one is to have a reasonable working knowledge and association to things (regardless the field). This is where and why you hear me state things like "knowing how a trick works and how to do the effect are two entirely different things."

I've watched the guys who "invent" new magic fall flat with their dream children and yet, when placed in the hands of another, more rounded individual, the effect takes on a life of its own and thus, evolves into being something sensational. In fact, I don't know of many effect designers that haven't had "book knowledge" fall flat upon building the mock-up of an idea and discovering its physical limitations as well as staging nuances that might improve upon the original design... everything from how to paint and properly finish the prop to backdrops that work best for optimum deception as well as lighting and performance blocking... those little things books can't tell you until the physical thing has been toyed with, and even then there are nuances never spoken of.

EXAMPLE: 99.9% of all magic bums believe that the Thurston Sawing used two girls. The reality is, this is way off base. No, the legs and feet were very much real, no mirrors or dummy parts were used, but there was never a second girl. Yet, the majority of book explaining the Thurston/Sielbit method will not disclose this particular truth and the logic behind it.

I can give a long list of similar examples but only because I'm privy to these subtleties as the result of hands-on experience working with said apparatus.

The other side of this same coin is the fact that most "classic" effects have more than one single means of operation. Where most of us might know the basic principle behind the Asrah levitation (as an example), few of us are aware of the dozen or so variants to the effect, including those in which absolutely no "gimmick" is employed. Even the so called "All Inclusive" Authoritative history of the effect is lacking certain of these nuances and design differences e.g. books will not/cannot, give you a complete and inclusive understanding behind "it all".

I MUST EMPHASIZE HOWEVER that without books and the effort of self-application when it comes to study, you will fail!

I'm not speaking about magic specifically here, but life as a whole. It is something that was drilled into me (kindly and gently) by the late Harry Blackstone (Jr) and a point of view I find as a constant in every single human being I admire (even those I may disagree with for whatever reasons).

When it comes to Magic specific studies I am compelled to point out two other vital factors;

a.) Magic is a THEATRICAL ART and as such, even by our own definitions, we are obliged to learn about THEATER and not just tricks.

Far too many of us talk the talk but don't invest into learning how to walk the walk when it comes to being SHOWMEN e.g. we do not take those formal classes, workshops, etc. that teach us about being "actors", understanding what blocking and stage directions are and aren't, make-up and persona elements as well as wordage and pronunciation/grammar factors.

b.) Magicians both figuratively and by way of lore, are supposed to be men & women of greater learning & understanding and thus, wisdom. We are said to be graceful, deliberate, and examples of higher presence. That would imply that we are well rounded when it comes to general education, issue of trivia/history, the arts as a whole and the nuances of "proper" society. In other words, true Ladies & Gentle Men... something we've seemingly misplaced in recent times, not to mention the fact that it is something rarely if every, covered in those books.


Thank you for this thread!

Great post Craig - does that make you a wheelchair expert?

(...said in kindness, I hope you accept it as such!)

Farlsborough wrote:Great post Craig - does that make you a wheelchair expert?

(...said in kindness, I hope you accept it as such!)

Thanks for the chuckle!

Iain has a good point (though I could construe it as being a jab ) and that is the score of self-invented "experts" that express points view based on what they read in books vs. actual life experience. Even at that, I know of at least one or two that go too far when it comes to being experienced and offering more than two-cents worth

The sword analogy is awesome btw... I have spent time in a smith's forge just for the sake of learning some of the basics and walked away knowing one thing for certain -- there's no way I'll ever be able to do what "they" do when it comes to blade making let alone some of the more artistic elements I've seen when it comes to Damascus swirling, etc. Of course, I can say the same about tattoo art... I did piercing work for years as an apprentice to Jim Ward, one of the top authorities in the field, but the progression of the body art/modification industry totally blows me away now days... so even experience in a given field, has its limitation (and expiration dates, it would seem).

i meant it purely as a general comment...

it would be like me giving indepth illussion and stage advice when i have absolutely no experience in it...and i always try and add from what perspective im talking from when i do have advice to give...

thats why i end up giving out thoughts or ideas/angles rather than anything else...im not a fulltime pro, and i'd rather not pretend to be!

i gig, but its not my only job...and everything i've ever put out, is pretty much always based on something old, just approached in a different way...i always try and be as honest as possible in those kinds of things...

i see armchair experts as people who pretend to be one thing, whilst really another...faceless forums are ideal for that...

its like when people slate an effect without actually trying it out in front of a real life stranger first...

there are exceptions - but its better to try something out first, and then pass comment...rather than just living it all out from our vivid imaginations...

on the other hand, there is always room for theorists too - people who have those kinds of brains that can just grab two or three techniques and instantly come up with a working effect without moving off the toilet...we can all do it at times, but some seem to be able to do that consistently...

i think, rather like The A-Team, you need a balance of all things to drive things forward...

a good example is Luke Jermay's Emotional Intelligence - there's nothing there a pure theorist couldnt have come up with, but then there's some very nice subtleties in it about peeks and so forth from luke, that you couldnt pick up apart from "doing it" for punters...

If the advice is good, the source is immaterial. The problem is that, on the internet, anyone can profess to be an expert and offer their opinions, no matter how off-target they are.

I think of 'armchair experts' as a term applied to people who don't have a lot of practical experience in a subject. In magic, just as in other things, this may, or may not, matter depending on the advice being given.

For example, a professor of English literature might know a hell of a lot about Elizabethan plays, and have researched life in Shakespeare's time. This person might offer a lot of useful help in interpreting one of the Bard's plays, putting it in context, understanding some of the linguistic changes etc.

Without relevant experience, this person might be of no help whatsoever if you wanted to know how to stage a production of 'Twelfth Night', how to give direction to the cast or how to market the performances and run the box office.

I think a lot depends on what these arm chair experts are say and what the advice they're giving actually is. An awful lot can be learnt purely from reading books and people with a suitable interest and the right mentality will be able be able to build up a huge wealth of technical and theoretical knowledge on techniques and effects. There's no reason why these people can't come up with amazing effects and give good and valid advice to others on their effects.

But there's always going to come a point when their lack of real world, performing experience is going to get in the way. There's no reason why they can't advise on the technical aspects of a performance but without performing experience they'll never really grasp those little subtilties that take an effect that little bit further. I'm sure that we've all come up with what we thought to be an amazing effect only to see it fall flat when performing it. And the opposite is true too, I've been stunned several times when a simple little opener has hit bigger than my main effect. Performances are where the effects get polished and perfected, it's only through watching audience reactions that we find out where the weaknesses are and where the tweaks and changes need doing.

Thanks for the replies so far, folks. And thanks to Craig for the essay*; some very interesting points raised. I like to think that although I have limited performing experience, I only pass on what I know based on that limited experience. I wouldn't dream of advising people on real world issues with theoretical points or vicarious experiences that I read or heard somewhere. But I do agree that so-called armchair enthusiasts/experts do have some valid points, depending on the advice being imparted.

*Which I read on my sister-in-law's mobile phone last night, with text which was the size of this apostrophe... '

Replicant wrote:Thanks for the replies so far, folks. And thanks to Craig for the essay*; some very interesting points raised. I like to think that although I have limited performing experience, I only pass on what I know based on that limited experience. I wouldn't dream of advising people on real world issues with theoretical points or vicarious experiences that I read or heard somewhere. But I do agree that so-called armchair enthusiasts/experts do have some valid points, depending on the advice being imparted.

*Which I read on my sister-in-law's mobile phone last night, with text which was the size of this apostrophe... '

One valuable lesson I learned long ago, when it comes to such things, was how to point people to those individuals that may have a better pov on a given issue than I based on what I've seen, heard, etc. That's one of the reasons I tend to send people to other historians rather than taking my word at things 100%... people like Mr. Tipton or Maven understand the finer points to such things than I.

Author/Life Coach Anthony Robbins points this out in one of his earlier books; it's not that we need to "know it all" but rather, we need to know who and/or where to get the information that may be required. It's a kind of delegation process that lends a "defined" course of value to our networking assets/relationships.