The Weekly Debate: #3

[toyrobot]

As for visual and implied magic - the horror movie analogy is good. Here is why - look at Blair Witch - you never actually SEE the witch - it was a HORRIBLY filmed movie, but had a great cult classic ending. You don't see the witch, so the monster in your head is created (implied magic - LIKE a card coming to the top after doing a DL then placing X card in middle, and showing it on top). This monster scares you, as I would HOPE the monster you create with your OWN imagination, is larger than the one I can create in reality...no matter HOW scary. If you look at a movie like "Halloween" - Mike Myers is creepy and scary, but as an adult mind, I am not scared once I leave the movie. I don't imagine how he MAY look, only how he does...THIS is like visual magic. I SEE the monster you create, or the move (think of the visual rise of "Ray's Rise or any outjogged visual ambitious sequence).

Each has their place - but the question is when and why - however, I personally believe that the implied sequence is stronger, because I allow YOU to use your mind to fool yourself...after all...we all agree magic happens in the mind...not the eye. Moreover, if you look at classic effcets, like Darwin Ortiz' All Backs- he does 3 visual "prints" of a "marked" card from a double back to an ending that happens in the particitpants hand - with a implied change. Classic magic for a reason...well thought out and strong endings.

Without giving too much away, there's a version of B. Smith's Wounded where you display your open palm, and a wound simply opens up out of nowhere. The wound itself is quite small, but due to psychology and a simple move, you actually plant the image in your spectator's mind that the wound opened up much bigger - it didn't grow bigger afterwards, it was ALWAYS that big.

After I watched a demo of it, I swore that part of his skin popped open and folded back to accommodate the wound (no such action takes place). My mind made the stigmata a lot more graphic and impressive than it already was.

There is a strong effect in letting the spectator fill in the pieces. What I'm thinking to myself now is that it's a matter of WHICH pieces they get to fill in. Like, isn't it a good idea to let them see some magic, but not others? With the example of above, it's quite visual - the wound appears and slowly opens, and more and more blood forms. You as a performer see it a different way than a spectator - their implied version is a graphic, disgusting hole of blood forming and taking over your empty palm. Their explicit version - what they really see versus what their mind tells them later through recollection (which is where magic can be the strongest) - is simply a small wound appearing, a logical gesture, then more blood. The subconscious seems to glorify it for them.

Lots of magicians talk about how, Later, the spectator will tell others about it, and make it much grander. "He never touched the cards!" (He most certainly did), "The coin bent instantly!" (there was a notable delay), "The wound opened up about the size of a quarter!" (MAYBE a dime).

It's like the spectator's subconscious mind is amplifying that to make it more impressive for them. This happens in other things, not just magic. But it still happens: it's as if their mind is trying to make it bigger and better in order to impress them.

I'm still of the mindset that being visual isn't necessarily a bad thing - that's it not showing the monster - but I'm certainly more in tune to what's being said, I think. You can show the monster, you can ruin their imagination, you can fill in gaps for them, but maybe that's through other parts of the routine, not from simply punching up the sensory aspect.

It CAN ruin it, but not always.

 

[Sir FansAlot]

I'm still of the mindset that being visual isn't necessarily a bad thing - that's it not showing the monster - but I'm certainly more in tune to what's being said, I think. You can show the monster, you can ruin their imagination, you can fill in gaps for them, but maybe that's through other parts of the routine, not from simply punching up the sensory aspect.

It CAN ruin it, but not always.

Quick visual effects aren't a bad thing, we all have them and use them. It's the lack of connection between that quick effect and the audience that needs to be addressed. You can't take out a deck of cards and do a clipshift color change and put the deck away as if something amazing just happened. To them, clipshift = card changed colors (it that's the objective). So what's the difference between that and a classic Erdnase color change? In their minds? On this debate it is obvious to me that magicians need to take more care about how their effects affect an audience or spectator. And less about what it means to them personally.

 

[Morgan B]

Actually - I think it is not just the lack of connection, but visual things can have an emotional appeal - I just think it is the link to method and the effect - how close in proximity they usually are, that is the weakness of most visual effects. Not to mention, the skill it takes to pull them off well - as I have seen very FEW visual effects cover the method well.

I think this has a bearing on how it is seen by the spectator - but this is another topic.

The concern here is direction of magic - and the direction....at least from the magicians stand ponit seems to be focused on "freaking people out" rather than "creating everlastin memorable impressions" on what magic is - verus the preconceived notions on what it is.

So - the concern should be the LACK of direction that contributes to poor methods, Youtube exposure and uneducated magicians claiming to be pro's because of invalid milestones (working a restaurant, friends say they are good, have done it for a long time) as credentials.

What direction can magic go, when those that are claiming to the general public that they are MAGICIANS on their journey...but have NO MAP on where they are headed, other than just taking the journey itself in hopes to end up in the right place, BY desperately asking for directions from strangers on forums like these?

You NEED a "map" and an END DESTINATION to be on a journey...and those that claim to be magicians can take that journey - it is through our journey we will create what magic is and is not - that we will define this era. Right now - it is only being defined by hap hazzard and the market on what is being sold and promoted through television - which is MIND FREAK and REACTIONS - but if magic is going to be a connected experience and we all come together to decide what magic should be - then and only then can we define what fits into this ROAD MAP or CRITERIA on our way to this destination.

So where is magic heading...YOU TELL ME? THEN we can discuss how it will get there.

 

[Dylan P.]

Hey everyone, I am loving all of the ideas and debating that is going on here. But, just a reminder, you still are in the Theory11 forums so keep everything respectful and stay on topic. Thanks for participating everyone. Keep it up.

Dylan P.