talkmagic.co.uk

mruetz
Thanks for posting the link to that article. I'm only starting out in magic, and though I'm inclined to change things like the patter, or maybe alter tiny elements of a trick's handling, reading that article has made me think a bit more about taking it further.

A very interesting read and a good point in there too.

Thanks again.

I think maybe I have missed the point I was trying to make in the article. I think most agree that we should create our own handleing or patter for presenting an effect, But my point in the article was more in reference to the PROPS themselves. To change the colors, print or design to make it look different.

Mark Wilson and Bev Bergeron used to do this with props every week, and in doing so they were able to give it a new face and it would seem like a different effect. Sometimes the prop was rolled out and the paint was still wet.

The article was to make people step back and look at their respective shows and routines hopefully with a freash eye. It was not designed to say that anyone was doing something wrong.

We change up patter and presentation to make an effect "our own", I just thought that to do so with the Props themselves would also add to your show.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my article and thoughts.

Yours in Magic,
ERIC

ERIC wrote:I think maybe I have missed the point I was trying to make in the article. I think most agree that we should create our own handleing or patter for presenting an effect, But my point in the article was more in reference to the PROPS themselves. To change the colors, print or design to make it look different.

I thought it was clear enough (and a very useful piece). However, the discussion that spun off from it was still interesting!

Nice of you to drop by and chip in, Eric. (the joy of site stats eh?)

I think you made that point very clearly, actually. Even as one who doesn't have any props yet I picked up on it (and on that note, I've often thought magic props/boxes and the likes just looked suspicious and often horribly cliché). I actually took the point much further than that and into the trick itself... it seems a lot more "art" like when you take the basic elements, inspiration from other presentations and make your own rather than imitating.

Much like the difference between being inspired by a master painter and emulating his works with a slight twist.

Mine's my own presentation on different tricks... I find it easier to remember that way.

It is amazing how much can be changed just by painting something a different colour.
Painting a Drawer Box in brighter, different colours. Making a Dove Pan gold coloured, though I do need to repaint this.
As Eric said, ( great article by the way. ) too often there are people using props with Chinese dragons or such on them.
Apart from making your props different, by painting them, you can make them look less like props.

Take something like the Clatter Box. The one my son has was too sensative. While part way through his routine, it fell apart. (Luckily, it was showing some magicians, informally, rather than a show.)
I then tweaked it so it stays in shape, until required.
BUT, while I want to paint the old markings out, I haven't yet. This is because I want to build a new one, which would make it look different.
Changing the size and proportions, apart from not painting Dragons on, would do this. But why can't they be a different shape? Maybe round?
As the final production is a flag, surely something that is made to look like a football would be much better, especially in World Cup year?

While I do use props sold for Children's shows, some of those props come painted with the same tired, lazy and condescending designs. It is almost as if we are stuck in a Time Warp.

While it is true that there isn't much that is truly original, that doesn't mean that we can't make them unique.

First of all, I don't think there is any self respecting magician on the planet who has ever used a reccomended scripting for a trick. At least I hope not.
I think it is inevitable that magicians are going to be heavily influenced by their idols. I know when I first started I occasionally caught myself even saying some of the things that my role models did. But as theklangster said, you learn what your own style is soon enough.
I was reading through and I still think a fantastic analogy was that of a cover musician. Now, I don't think that anyone who tried to argue covering songs is a bad thing has a leg to stand on. Amy Winehouse did a cover of 'valerie' which has now pretty much wiped out all recollection of the origional (and been immensly overplayed)- sometimes old stuff can be updated or ok stuff made legendry it all depends on knowing your style and what you can adapt to it. But still using this analogy, no sucessful or particularly interesting band has ever got by on soley other people's music, because in the end the best thing that's gonna suit your style is your own stuff. So in conclusion, copying can be a good thing, but in moderation, imitation is a great way to learn. As a musician, I first learned the guitar by learning other people's songs, and imitating their style- artistically it's not so great and you could still hear the many different influences come through in my playing which has all culminated into my own unique 'fingerprint' and distinct style which allows me to create within that- but my style all came about from, so to speak, 'the shoulders of giants'. It is futile to attempt to be or claim to be 100% origional, because there will always lie some insipration somewhere- and from that grows this elusive concept of 'origionality'. I think of it in a small way a bit like evolution- we all inheret traits from our influences and then pass those down- the bad dies and the good survives, in that way imitation is a good thing. But that said, still I puke when I see the sickly mini Blaine/Brown/Banacheks.
I suppose what I am trying to say beneath the vail of my analogy weiving prose is that origionality is extremley difficult to pinpoint- insipration will come from somewhere, evenif it is only a private vision which will have been inspired from somewhere. Learning occurs on a basis of imitation and it is only once we have learned to talk from imitating our parents and family that we develope the capacity to create new words (Another analogy for you). Origionality is great- but we must in some way stand on the shoulders of giants.