Hyper Visuality

[Maaz Hasan]

First off, great name for a thread right?

Anyways, I just wanted to know what you guys think of the super visual tricks (like the ones in 52SoR).

On the one hand, They look stunning. On the other hand, they almost always involve some form of gimmick, making some of them near impossible close up (and your not always clean).

Don't know how to feel about them...

Thoughts?

 

[Maaz Hasan]

Oh and about this, what about Hyper Visual w/ Gimmicks vs Visual w/o gimmicks.

 

[Clee26]

Personally, I don't really like gimmicks, one thing is that they don't require that much skill to learn how to use well as opposed to some sleights that takes years to master like the classic pass. It's something that a layperson can just pick up and get used to using (not all, but a lot of the gimmicks do not require that much practice).

 

[Maaz Hasan]

Personally, I don't really like gimmicks, one thing is that they don't require that much skill to learn how to use well as opposed to some sleights that takes years to master like the classic pass. It's something that a layperson can just pick up and get used to using (not all, but a lot of the gimmicks do not require that much practice).

Er, I'm gonna need to disagree. The gimmicks that are worth it are easily hidden or disposed of. And can we really argue with a layman buying, learning, and use a gimmick? It may be his introduction to magic!

Let me put it this way: A super basic sandwich trick requires very little practice. A layman can easily learn and perform one. Is it wrong to use one?

Here's the deal - if the gimmick is good enough, it will take care of itself. Meanwhile, there are a ton of gimmicks that take a huge amount of practice. Take Shin Lims Flash Deck Switch - great trick, spent the money to buy it (I think it was like 50 bucks at the time!), practiced for a while, and now it is just sitting in its box because I can never bring myself to use it. It is hard to master, and harder to perform with, but when you get it, you can do wonders.

 

[Clee26]

Er, I'm gonna need to disagree. The gimmicks that are worth it are easily hidden or disposed of. And can we really argue with a layman buying, learning, and use a gimmick? It may be his introduction to magic!

Let me put it this way: A super basic sandwich trick requires very little practice. A layman can easily learn and perform one. Is it wrong to use one?

Here's the deal - if the gimmick is good enough, it will take care of itself. Meanwhile, there are a ton of gimmicks that take a huge amount of practice. Take Shin Lims Flash Deck Switch - great trick, spent the money to buy it (I think it was like 50 bucks at the time!), practiced for a while, and now it is just sitting in its box because I can never bring myself to use it. It is hard to master, and harder to perform with, but when you get it, you can do wonders.

Yeah, I'm probably just too classic-styled, but then again, some gimmicks are expensive af.

 

[obrienmagic]

Gimmicks or no gimmicks, it is whatever helps make it look as magical as possible.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

"Classic Styled" is gimmicked to the hilt, really. A lot of the sleight of hand used these days was not invented at the beginnings of magic - they came along later.

Using gimmicks is an art in and of itself, so to speak. While the gimmick may seem to do the work for the performer, the concealing of that secret object, and the creation of a presentation that makes it worth watching, takes a lot of work. There's no such thing as "self working" really.

As to the original question - I think super visual is highly overrated. It's pretty to watch, but nothing we can actually, visually, show an audience will ever compare to what they can imagine is happening.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

As to the original question - I think super visual is highly overrated. It's pretty to watch, but nothing we can actually, visually, show an audience will ever compare to what they can imagine is happening.

Yeah that's how I felt. I watch these super visual tricks, but they don't really last in my memory. There's no real story being told - no patter - no nothing. However, I feel as though they are great to assist a routine or a trick. The problem there is how complex of a gimmick can you keep in plain sight, or sneak it in without damaging the gimmick, and keep a trick or routine going for that long.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

You'd be surprised what you can get away with when the audience is engaged and likes you.

As long as the audience is enjoying the story they are seeing (and the story is whatever you're doing on stage) then you have quite a bit in play and it won't be a problem. It's when the audience is not engaged that they start noticing gimmicks and oddities.

 

[obrienmagic]

Helder Guimaraes is one of my mentors and he constantly reminds me that the method does not matter. It is the experience you are trying to create. If a gaff helps achieve that in the most magical way possible then use it!

The effect above is one he performs at the castle all the time. Fooled basically every magician and laymen alike in the room. It uses a gaff.... but you would never know that because it is such a clean effect. Like pure magic.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

Helder Guimaraes is one of my mentors and he constantly reminds me that the method does not matter. It is the experience you are trying to create. If a gaff helps achieve that in the most magical way possible then use it!

The effect above is one he performs at the castle all the time. Fooled basically every magician and laymen alike in the room. It uses a gaff.... but you would never know that because it is such a clean effect. Like pure magic.

The problem lies when the gaff takes over the experience. Like in Shin Lim's 52SoR - The effects were wonderful, but I didn't love the effects as much as I could have, because there was no story. It is just too visual, and there are so many things going on that no story can connect them. Don't get me wrong, I love Shin's work, but I don't love his stories - but that works for him because his story is about the cards and music or some dope philosophy like that.

 

[Matthew F.(7)]

I agree gaffs are good if you use them correctly. They should never be seen.

 

[obrienmagic]

The problem lies when the gaff takes over the experience. Like in Shin Lim's 52SoR - The effects were wonderful, but I didn't love the effects as much as I could have, because there was no story. It is just too visual, and there are so many things going on that no story can connect them. Don't get me wrong, I love Shin's work, but I don't love his stories - but that works for him because his story is about the cards and music or some dope philosophy like that.

This is the main issue many people had with Will's AGT performance. I don't think your gripe is with gaffs, I think it is with lack of story and relying too much on the actual visual performance to get reactions.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

This is the main issue many people had with Will's AGT performance. I don't think your gripe is with gaffs, I think it is with lack of story and relying too much on the actual visual performance to get reactions.

Yes. Exactly Couldn't have said it better!
I love the tricks, just not the performance.... if that made any sense.