talkmagic.co.uk

It's an interesting question which comes up sometimes: "What does magic look like?"

Seriously, if we were really using 'magic', what would it look like?
Some people think it would just be out of sight for a moment and the bits are restored, like the video Lenoir posted.
Some imagine you put the bits back together and they stitch together, like the Torn or Restoration methods.
Some imagine it should look like Animate and Restore, where the bits magically come together.

Similarly, everyone in the audience has their own idea of what magic is. Some would assume a switch unless they saw the bits go back together one at a time. Others would find the idea of just using what is essentially magic glue to stick the bits back together a bit mundane.
"Why are the creases still there if it's so magic?" or "it's a different card you tore, this one hasn't even been folded!"
"Why can't you restore the last bit?" vs "I don't have any proof that this was even torn"

That last one might seem an odd question, but if you're the sort of person who likes to give away an impossible souvenir object (which is me to a T) then it's worth considering. What proof does the spectator have that the card was ever torn at all? Because that will be the first thing their friends ask when they show it around afterwards.

Ultimately I think that you should present the effect as it would be most impressive to you, the way in which you think magic should look will be the easiest for you to 'sell' to your audience.

-Stacy

The4thCircle wrote:if we were really using 'magic', what would it look like?
-Stacy

Excellent point, that should be the yardstick by which all magic is measured - not just how it looks to the performer but how it looks to the specs.

interesting points!

maybe i'll stick to using David Stone's Tool for my T'n'R routines....magical enough!

Much love

Aza

Lady of Mystery wrote:I still think that the Torn and Restored in Mark Wilson's book is one of the best, it's simple to perform and gets good reactions.

I second this, and if you are putting together a routine of classics, this is pretty much a classic handling.

The4thCircle wrote:It's an interesting question which comes up sometimes: "What does magic look like?"

Seriously, if we were really using 'magic', what would it look like?
Some people think it would just be out of sight for a moment and the bits are restored, like the video Lenoir posted.
Some imagine you put the bits back together and they stitch together, like the Torn or Restoration methods.
Some imagine it should look like Animate and Restore, where the bits magically come together.

Similarly, everyone in the audience has their own idea of what magic is. Some would assume a switch unless they saw the bits go back together one at a time. Others would find the idea of just using what is essentially magic glue to stick the bits back together a bit mundane.
"Why are the creases still there if it's so magic?" or "it's a different card you tore, this one hasn't even been folded!"
"Why can't you restore the last bit?" vs "I don't have any proof that this was even torn"

That last one might seem an odd question, but if you're the sort of person who likes to give away an impossible souvenir object (which is me to a T) then it's worth considering. What proof does the spectator have that the card was ever torn at all? Because that will be the first thing their friends ask when they show it around afterwards.

Ultimately I think that you should present the effect as it would be most impressive to you, the way in which you think magic should look will be the easiest for you to 'sell' to your audience.

-Stacy

Excellent, it also depends on the type of magic you wish to show. For example, I know that Jay Scott Berry always asks himself the same question..."What would Merlin do?" His sword production from mist is amazing by the way.

Returning to torn and restored card effects, there's one just come out which illustrates my point: Slide (from Paul Harris)

If you could do magic for real, this might be what it would look like, the pieces moving together by their own accord. To some people though, it probably looks too mechanical, like (say for instance) you were sliding it across with your thumb...

-Stacy

PS: Anyone who caught this when I first posted it will notice I accidentally called it Slide 2.0 absentmindedly because in another thread we were talking about how many effects end in 2.0 these days. Edited all that away now.