Template errors

  • Template public:font_awesome_setup: [E_USER_WARNING] Template public:font_awesome_setup is unknown (src/XF/Template/Templater.php:781)
  • Template public:page_style: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/page_style.php:101)
  • Template public:page_style: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/page_style.php:155)
  • Template public:uix_config: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/uix_config.php:31)
  • Template public:uix_config: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/uix_config.php:32)

Cardistry: Challenge.

Apr 6, 2011
540
6
Lansing, MI
I had a hard time deciding between posting this in the cardistry section, or the general forum. I decided to put it here for two reasons, I feel like it will get much more exposure here, and more importantly, I feel that it does not concern cardistry in its current form, but more the art of performance.

This was all inspired by a post from wZEnigma, concerning integrating cardistry into magic. As well as the recent five minute nonstop clip of Andrei Jikh performing. It got me thinking. How often do we really see cardists and flourishers performing? It is such a beautiful art, but all we ever really see are compilation/highlight videos. Even in videos, we hardly ever see continuous performance, just clip after clip after clip. Yeah its cool, its impressive, it looks great. However watching Andrei's video... It was just riveting to see a continuous performance like that. How come it is so seldom attempted? Taking this even farther, why is it so rare to hear of cardists performing routines for spectators? Obviously it is much more difficult... and there are many moves that cannot always be attempted.. but I really think this needs to happen.

So, all you cardists out there, I challenge you. Create a video showcasing a performance of a flourishing routine, performed for spectators. Upload it to here. Sadly, the prize is only the development of your art. Oh and I'll give lots of compliments and nice thoughts.
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,892
2,948
Flourishing is an esoteric thing. Only those that flourish really understand what's going on. I also believe that only florishers are really entertained by it. Nothing wrong or bad about those things just the way it is. I think that's why you don't really see live performances. Cards are just not a good medium for object manipulation.
 
Apr 6, 2011
540
6
Lansing, MI
I disagree. People are regularly blown away during some of my more careless performances wherein I use springs and fans and such; audiences that enjoy art love it. I've seen, few and far between mind you, but they are out there, videos of guys (usually in southern asia) performing non-stop flourish routines for live audiences, and they love it! It is not the same type of performance as magic of course, with neither the same goals nor presentation, however it is still a performance art. It is more comparable to say juggling or something of that nature, but I think there definitely would be interest if more people started trying it. I feel like the lack of attempts derives from the lack of confidence in being able to execute entire flourishing routines, more so than any sort of history of failed performances, or of people not being interested.
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,892
2,948
I've never seen a flourishing video I'd watch more than once. Most of them, I can't even make it a quarter of the way through without getting very bored. Cards are not a good object to use for a manipulation act. They're small, they're light, they don't really show up from any significant distant.

Watch Okotanpe on YouTube. That's what good object manipulation looks like. Watch Michael Moschen. Supreme object manipulator. These are the skills that flourishing as we know it developed from. However, you can see a staff from a hundred feet away. Cards you can only see from maybe 5 to 8 feet away. Beyond that it just looks like bad club dancing.

When you say people are regularly blown away, you're using the wrong example. You're talking about a magic show with flourishes used to enhance the showmanship. Try to do six springs in a row and watch their eyes glaze over.

What makes it an art? What is it expressing? What is it evoking? I don't categorize things like juggling or flourishing as art by default. They can be made into art, but that takes an unusual level of skill and devotion that most performers simply do not have.
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,892
2,948
Ekaterina is a skilled performer. But that clip was taken from a longer video where she was also doing magic. Also, it's 1:51 and by the end they had lost interest. Watch the one guy's reactions. They go from obviously being impressed to, "oh, that's cool."
 
Jul 13, 2009
1,372
0
34
Honestly, it would be fun to see some videos come of this supposed contest. However, I'd like to submit a slight change to some of the rules. Perhaps you should drop the perform in front of spectators bit. Here is why I say that:

1) Bringing a camera around to gigs, on the street, out in public can be quite cumbersome for those in it as a hobby and performers alike.

2) What purpose does performing in front of spectators through a camera have? Is it ego stroking? In my opinion a performance of any kind should play just as well with no one in the audience than when there are.


Also not to join other pessimists, I honestly feel you will not get any bites unless there is a prize put up. Even if there was you'd have to go through Theory11 staff first before you submit a challenge with a prize to the community. I understand your good intentions if it is any consolation. However, I suggest next time to submit a custom sample video and also structure the challenge a bit better with an objective standpoint.
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,892
2,948
Honestly, it would be fun to see some videos come of this supposed contest. However, I'd like to submit a slight change to some of the rules. Perhaps you should drop the perform in front of spectators bit. Here is why I say that:

1) Bringing a camera around to gigs, on the street, out in public can be quite cumbersome for those in it as a hobby and performers alike.

2) What purpose does performing in front of spectators through a camera have? Is it ego stroking? In my opinion a performance of any kind should play just as well with no one in the audience than when there are.


Also not to join other pessimists, I honestly feel you will not get any bites unless there is a prize put up. Even if there was you'd have to go through Theory11 staff first before you submit a challenge with a prize to the community. I understand your good intentions if it is any consolation. However, I suggest next time to submit a custom sample video and also structure the challenge a bit better with an objective standpoint.

Performing with an audience is completely different to performing without one. When there is an audience, there is an energy to respond to. The only time it wouldn't make a difference would be if the performer were completely ignoring the audience, and that is not the way to create a good performance.
 
Jul 13, 2009
1,372
0
34
The only time it wouldn't make a difference would be if the performer were completely ignoring the audience, and that is not the way to create a good performance.


Actors ignore the audience yet the audience walks away in tears or roll around in laughter. Television Soap Opera actors have no audience either, yet they hook audiences to watch their shows. Sitcom, dramas, comedy, etc. all don't perform for a live interactive audience. That is one reason why I believe youtube could be the next best place to find a talented magician or have a successful show of your own without even leaving the comfort of your home.

Yes! I acknowledge that these productions have things like good audio, music, story, script, set pieces, directors, stage managers, stage hands, fly rigs, etc. etc. and so forth. But that is what it takes to make a REAL good performance. It is the difference between the fifty dollar gig magicians to the magicians that can actually make a living off of it.

Yes, there is an energy that you respond to in live performances. But if we take David Copperfield and break down some of his shows you'll find that he does have a script and does have a powerful character and stage presence. Even still, during the illusions he usually takes his focus off the audience and becomes a character in a short story that the audience spectates. It is brilliant! Why? Well simple, fairy tales are easier to digest and instead of the audience trying to relate with David Copperfield they are trying to relate to the story being acted out.

I can't relate myself to David Copperfield as a person, he is a wizard of some sort. However, I can relate to the stories of love, separation, horsing around at work, adventuring into an abandoned house looking for ghosts or less specific seeking out the unknown, so on and so forth. Personally, I feel many of the illusionists and magicians need to take a step back and look at the entire picture. The show is about you, but it also isn't about you all the time. Buatier De Kolta, Robert Houdin, John Maskelyne, were magicians in history who used to present their illusions as small one act plays. They didn't taunt the audience to figure out what contorted figure the woman was in, unless it was scripted into the show. They weren't puzzles to their audiences, the illusions presented were mysteries.

I've lost track of what I am talking about but just to sum up my views, ignoring the audience can make an inspiring, terrific, production.
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,892
2,948
Actors ignore the audience yet the audience walks away in tears or roll around in laughter. Television Soap Opera actors have no audience either, yet they hook audiences to watch their shows. Sitcom, dramas, comedy, etc. all don't perform for a live interactive audience. That is one reason why I believe youtube could be the next best place to find a talented magician or have a successful show of your own without even leaving the comfort of your home.

Yes! I acknowledge that these productions have things like good audio, music, story, script, set pieces, directors, stage managers, stage hands, fly rigs, etc. etc. and so forth. But that is what it takes to make a REAL good performance. It is the difference between the fifty dollar gig magicians to the magicians that can actually make a living off of it.

Yes, there is an energy that you respond to in live performances. But if we take David Copperfield and break down some of his shows you'll find that he does have a script and does have a powerful character and stage presence. Even still, during the illusions he usually takes his focus off the audience and becomes a character in a short story that the audience spectates. It is brilliant! Why? Well simple, fairy tales are easier to digest and instead of the audience trying to relate with David Copperfield they are trying to relate to the story being acted out.

I can't relate myself to David Copperfield as a person, he is a wizard of some sort. However, I can relate to the stories of love, separation, horsing around at work, adventuring into an abandoned house looking for ghosts or less specific seeking out the unknown, so on and so forth. Personally, I feel many of the illusionists and magicians need to take a step back and look at the entire picture. The show is about you, but it also isn't about you all the time. Buatier De Kolta, Robert Houdin, John Maskelyne, were magicians in history who used to present their illusions as small one act plays. They didn't taunt the audience to figure out what contorted figure the woman was in, unless it was scripted into the show. They weren't puzzles to their audiences, the illusions presented were mysteries.

I've lost track of what I am talking about but just to sum up my views, ignoring the audience can make an inspiring, terrific, production.

I wonder how much live performance you've done? I seem to recall that you did some kind of theater stuff, but now I'm wondering if that's someone else.

Yes, people on TV can act and draw us in, but they are acting with each other and they have take after take to get the proper feeling or whatever. Soap operas have notoriously terrible acting and ridiculous story lines.

A stage actor that ignores the audience entirely will not connect with them and will not put on a very good show. You have to read the energy of the room and work with it. If you ignore the audience entirely you'll inevitable end up delivering the wrong energy for the crowd.

Many magicians do present their work as plays. But the best ones do it in such a way that they are still bringing the audience into the act. Watch Teller perform Shadows live. He gives subtle hints to the audience that they are experiencing this wonder along with him. Personally, I don't think the show should be about the magician at all. It's all about the audience. Standing up there showing people what you can do is boring and inartistic.

And bringing this back on subject. How can someone relate to flourishing? What is there to relate to? Nothing. It is just a display of skill, and humans become accustomed to such things very quickly. You watch someone throw a knife twenty feet and hit the bull's eye once, it's amazing. Watch them do it again and again, and you quickly begin to expect it. It's not interesting any more. That's why everyone that sees an acrobat says the same thing, "Can you do a back flip now?" Then if you do a back flip, they say, "Now do two!" Or every juggler has heard, "Can you juggle another one?"

Displays of skill aren't all that interesting beyond the first few encounters with said skill, unless you're someone who also works on that skill as well.
 
Jul 13, 2009
1,372
0
34
I wonder how much live performance you've done? I seem to recall that you did some kind of theater stuff, but now I'm wondering if that's someone else.

A bit beside the issue. But if my credentials are being questioned, here they are slapped out onto the table. True I don't perform magic much in front of real people, mostly because of a personal standards. But instead I work as a stage hand for several local theatrical productions, a stage manager for one of the top haunted houses in America, an understudy for a Sea World show, and a singer in a production put on by Sea World for their Christmas season.

That doesn't include my non paying jobs as a volunteer horror actor in independent film, improv horror actor for the haunted house (I'd rather get paid hourly as a stage manager than get actor pay, which is a set pay per night otherwise known as theater pay), scenic consultant for community plays as well as set fabrication.

Yes I don't have as much experience performing parlor tricks, however I do have many other talents that supersede most of my peers in the field of magic credentials. I'd like to discuss show production and how we as a community can integrate these techniques to further our supposed art, not toot my horn for my own muffled arrogance.

Yes, people on TV can act and draw us in, but they are acting with each other and they have take after take to get the proper feeling or whatever. Soap operas have notoriously terrible acting and ridiculous story lines.

Shouldn't we as performers do multiple takes in rehearsal so that what we do becomes muscle memory and get that perfect feeling each time we step out onto our stage? Sure, sometimes you have a bum show, something goes wrong live and you really can't do much to fix it. But if you know your show well enough you will be able to take steps to cover and make it seem like the mistake was actually all part of the show and go unnoticed by your audience.

The opinion on Soap Operas is objective. Which is fine! I respect opinions but in the context of this situation I felt it was just as unnecessary as passive aggressiveness toward my credentials as a person in the field of performance art. I don't have the ability to say I've had an illustrious performing career and suspect many people on here don't either. Just remember:

Does this need to be asked?
Does it need to be asked by me?
Does this need to be asked by me right now?

*An adaptation of a good Craig Ferguson quote.



A stage actor that ignores the audience entirely will not connect with them and will not put on a very good show. You have to read the energy of the room and work with it. If you ignore the audience entirely you'll inevitable end up delivering the wrong energy for the crowd.

As an actor, it isn't the performer's job to connect with the audience, it is the character's job. An actor plays the part and breathes life into a character. They connect through their story, through the events that happen around them, how they react to that situation, how they are human in a fictional world. Magic isn't real, but it is real to the character that is portrayed in front of an audience. It is the actor's goal to help the character they are playing to draw the audience in to suspend their beliefs and join the character in a world where magic is real.

But that brings up a dilema, since the magician’s character most likely will have to directly interact with audience members there is a degree of unpredictability. You as the magician offstage will have to analyze the show and change the character you portray slightly or take note of what to do in certain situations. If the character you play on stage has a very dry sense of humor and it seems to work with some audiences but not others, then you need to rehearse something that could be of use as an actor to win back your audience and pull them back into the story you are acting out.

Many magicians do present their work as plays. But the best ones do it in such a way that they are still bringing the audience into the act. Watch Teller perform Shadows live. He gives subtle hints to the audience that they are experiencing this wonder along with him. Personally, I don't think the show should be about the magician at all. It's all about the audience. Standing up there showing people what you can do is boring and inartistic.

Teller is interesting, he doesn’t verbally interact with anyone while on stage. He uses pantomime to show and not tell what he is about to do. I don’t need to see this performed live to see the power it has through video media (which incidentally supports my claims that youtube could be the next form of media to self publish magic specials). Personally I do not agree that it a performance be completely audience focused. Teller is focused on sadistic act of dissecting a flower with a knife while sharing that moment with the audience allowing them to watch as it happens.

If you have no character and it is just a person on stage pulling doves out of their sleeves or putting girls in various different boxes I believe they are hurting magic instead of pushing it forward. However, if you stage your character correctly you could pull off just that, standing on stage and showing your audience what the character can do. As long as the magic presented fits the context the character would be in and there is a bit of story to act as the glue to hold each effect and demonstration of mystery together.

And bringing this back on subject. How can someone relate to flourishing? What is there to relate to? Nothing. It is just a display of skill, and humans become accustomed to such things very quickly. You watch someone throw a knife twenty feet and hit the bull's eye once, it's amazing. Watch them do it again and again, and you quickly begin to expect it. It's not interesting any more.

If I watch a knife thrower throw a knife at a bullseye and hit it dead on that is impressive. But if that same sword thrower does the same thing a second time the same way, it’ll be impressive but not as impressive as the first time I saw it. This is true, but a real showman can turn this skill into something fresh and exciting. Perhaps they add a 2nd knife and throw it two handed and then next two knives from one hand. Then maybe juggle three knives and while juggling throwing each blade at balloons and popping each one. Now, what if for the finale they add a human being into the act to stand as an obstacle?

Honestly tell me what I just described wouldn’t be impressive to watch. It is the same skill, just with added variation. Yet the core skill of throwing a knife with great accuracy is the core effect. Sort of like the Acrobatic Card Routine, it is a card that appears at the top of the deck in an increasingly impossible manner. Houdini is plastered in history because of one core skill, escapology, specifically escaping from handcuffs. He succeeded because he was a brilliant showman! He knew how to draw sensationalism to his acts of escapes.

Apply this to cardistry and you could have a very good potential showcase! Add a bit of flare to a card trick through cardistry to enforce the idea that you are skilled when it comes with cards if the character isn't a strictly “it’s magic” sort of character. True cards don’t play very far on stage, but that isn’t to say that methods couldn’t be invented to make it work. Jumbo cards, fluorescent backed cards, more aerial moves rather than the tight finger contortions, larger movements, integrated dance and body movements, numerous different things to make card flourishing seem much larger than it actually is.

That's why everyone that sees an acrobat says the same thing, "Can you do a back flip now?" Then if you do a back flip, they say, "Now do two!" Or every juggler has heard, "Can you juggle another one?"

Displays of skill aren't all that interesting beyond the first few encounters with said skill, unless you're someone who also works on that skill as well.

It is not fair to use blanket terms, especially since I have a great respect for the circus arts and history. One thing I would not do if I were to meet a previous cirque performer is to ask them to demonstrate their skill. They aren’t performing monkeys, they are people who have dedicated their life to their art. I almost feel that the word dedicate isn’t a powerful enough word to convey the amount of work they do.

This brings me to a point that I touched near the beginning of the post. I don’t perform because I hold myself to very high standards. I used to perform magic for random strangers and families, however I put an end to that after I was asked almost constantly. I’m not their puppet boy and I felt the fact that I was showing tricks willy nilly was doing a disservice to the magic community as a whole. It was cheapening it, so I stopped and decided to focus myself on other things. I’ll only perform magic in formal venues or in a designated area that is considered a performing area. A place where the people watching are expecting to see something funny, mysterious, strange, or horrifying! Never on the streets when I’m not in my character. Never on stage when I don’t have my character presence switched on and most definitely never when I feel an effect that I perform feels out of character or not committed to muscle memory.


Anyway that is all the time I got, time to get in some Black Ops gaming before work.



Keo
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,892
2,948
A bit beside the issue. But if my credentials are being questioned, ... not toot my horn for my own muffled arrogance.

I wasn't questioning your credentials, I was wondering if I was confusing you with someone else. I said that because what you've been saying basically goes directly against everything my actor and performer friends talk about. While I am not really an actor, I have known many (was dating a professional actress for a few years) and I've been in the performance community for several years. Everyone I speak to agrees that one needs to connect with the audience to create really good performances. One simply cannot connect with something they are ignoring. The act of ignoring something creates a barrier between you and it.

Shouldn't we as performers do multiple takes ... unnoticed by your audience.

First, recorded media and live performance are not equal parallels. They require completely different styles of performance to pull off. Yes, we as magicians and performers should have every physical move so embedded in our subconscious that we can do it without even realising we've done it. But all the solo rehearsal in the world will not account for a live audience. In fact, over rehearsing, I think, could prove detrimental if one cannot deviate from the rehearsed actions when necessary. Introducing a live audience is introducing a major variable. One may have to speed up or slow down, add emphasis or reduce it, etc. and one cannot know when to do that if they are ignoring the audience. This is how you get technically skilled performers who are incredibly boring to watch.

The opinion on Soap Operas is objective. ... Craig Ferguson quote.

Yes, it is objective. But it's also an opinion shared by many. Soap operas are purposely over dramatic, and the plot lines are purposely ridiculous to keep things from getting stagnant. However, I will repeat: Recorded media and live performance are not equivalents.

As an actor, it isn't the performer's job to connect with the audience, ... join the character in a world where magic is real.

We will probably have to agree to disagree on that point. I believe it is the performer's job to connect the character with the audience. I don't care how real the character is in a live play, if I don't feel a connection to the person I get bored. And trust me, I've sat in on a lot of plays where I was completely bored due to the fact that the actors were only giving energy to each other and not the audience. I personally think that someone using this model (the character connects with the audience, not the actor) would be incapable of connecting with an audience.

But that brings up a dilema, ... pull them back into the story you are acting out.

How will you do this if you're ignoring the audience, though? You'll never know if you're losing the audience if you're not paying attention to them and interacting with them.

Teller is interesting, he doesn’t verbally interact with anyone while on stage ... sharing that moment with the audience allowing them to watch as it happens.

If you've never seen it live, you cannot say that you don't need to see it live to understand what it's like live. You have no basis for comparison. I watched it a dozen times on video before seeing it live and I assure you, it is different. I never said that it's audience focused, I said he includes the audience. The comment that a show should be all about the audience is my own assessment. And I do believe Teller is sure to bring the audience in, even if he's not directly interacting with them. It's like he's going on this journey through this strange world, and he's constantly looking back to make sure you're still with him.

YouTube could very well be the way to publish magic specials, but if they don't connect with people it will flop. The public is bored with watching a magician push boxes around on stage. I believe this because of one simple thing: Where's the magic on TV? How often are illusion-style specials aired any more? I can't remember the last time I even heard of one coming on. We've had a couple decades of people in flowy shirts putting women in boxes and throwing doves around. We want something new and interesting. We've seen that act, we want a new one.

If you have no character ... bit of story to act as the glue to hold each effect and demonstration of mystery together.

Again, we may have to agree to disagree here. When I was very young, I saw a card manipulation act on TV. It was interesting for a moment or two, and then I was waiting for the magic to begin. But he just kept going, pulling cards from behind his hand (yes, I could tell he was holding cars behind his hand) and I just stopped caring. Maybe if he could see my boredom he would have changed things up? Who knows. I watch the audience on these shows and I see them politely watching with a glazed look in their eyes. Since seeing my first magic shows on TV, I can't watch any more that involve those props or those manipulation acts. I've seen it. If a box gets pushed out on stage, I've seen it. Even if I haven't seen that particular trick, who cares? It's going to be a 'more impossible' version of something I've already seen and I still know it's the box that does it. That's not interesting. I want new, I want interesting, I want interaction.

If I watch a knife thrower throw a knife ... brilliant showman! He knew how to draw sensationalism to his acts of escapes.

Watch that same knife act three more times and tell me how interesting it is. This is why jugglers and knife throwers and such have to escalate so much. We get used to everything they do almost as soon as they do it. Look at your own example. Houdini had to increasingly make his stunts bigger and more dangerous to keep holding the crowd. David Blaine currently has the same issue, he's got to keep being more sensational because, let's face it, who would watch him try to hold his breath again?

Apply this to cardistry and you could ...

We're not talking about magic and flourishing combined. I've already said that flourishes can enhance a performance when used well, but we're talking about strictly using flourishing as a performance.

True cards don’t play very far on stage ...

This brings up an interesting discussion. Is it still cardistry if you're doing backflips to make it interesting? Then it's acrobatics. Of all those suggestions I think the only one that could have real potential is fluorescent cards. At least then there'd be changes in lighting to draw attention.

Now, as a personal opinion, I think it looks ridiculous when people are trying to make flourishing 'bigger' by swinging their arms out and such. Until you stray into dance territory (which, again, is it still 'cardistry' if you're dancing to make it interesting?) the motions look awkward and contrived.

It is not fair to use blanket terms ...

I'm speaking from personal experience. I currently perform in a circus troupe and have been in another back on the East coast. I've done several shows and I have done many demonstrations of skill and I almost always get asked those questions. This is setting aside a decade of fire performance where similar questions are asked. You personally may not ask, but I'm willing to bet that someone will.

Sorry for truncating your bits, I went well over the character limit.
 
Apr 6, 2011
540
6
Lansing, MI
Wow. I love the direction this post has gone.. Very interesting discussion guys. I am way out of my league here, however I do have some bit's to throw in.

Christopher, you brought up a childhood memory of a card manipulation act, and how it bored you. If that is the type of demonstration you thought I was referring to by flourishing, a lot of your arguments make more sense to me now. That is by no means what I mean by flourishing. You specifically associated the act boring you, and knowing he was holding more cards behind his hands. You mention that he just kept doing the same thing over and over again... and that also added to your boredom with the performance. You also pointed out how you cannot watch acts like that anymore on TV, as you had seen it all before. Finally, you mention that he could not see the boredom he created in you, and perhaps that is why he didn't improve or change. All of these problems are completely true, and agree with you 100%, about stage card manipulation act. Flourishing as I mean it is a very different game. Card manipulation is closer to magic, as it is attempting to create the illusion of impossible card production. Flourishing is closer to a visual art (such as sculpture, canvas, ETC), or a performance art (as you've mentioned, juggling, knife throwing), in that it is attempting to be impressive and expressive through visual means. Instead of trying to astonish, it is trying to be visually pleasing. As to your point on repetition, as Keo said, you are able to change your specific performances while maintaining your base skill. Throughout a flourishing performance two changes are almost constantly occurring; new flourishes are being introduced (going from springs to cuts to fans), and each specific flourish is becoming more impressive (adding aerials to cuts, double fans, larger fans). You argued Keo's point on that by saying that it gets boring the 2nd or 3rd time around, what doesn't? That is true of nearly any visual skill, as you said. It isn't meant to be seen over and over again. You wouldn't repeat the same magic routine and you wouldn't repeat the same juggling routine, if for some reason you happened to perform for the same person twice. You also brought up Blaine and Houdini; I am not discussing this as either a stage performance or any sort of TV based performance. By performance I meant solely close up magic, if I didn't specify before. That would mean that you are able to react constantly to your audience, and alter your routine on the spot to better fit them; as with any close up performance. This also means that people would not be waiting for your next big show or TV special, to see what new spectacular thing you have to show them. Instead, it would be most likely be a once in a lifetime experience for your spectators, and a very intimate one at that.

As to your discussion on the importance of audience interaction and acknowledgement however, I absolutely agree with Christopher. The main thing to say here, I have never encountered a live performance wherein ignoring the audience would play better than interacting with them. There are undoubtedly good performances wherein the performers ignore their audience, but I have never encountered one that would not be better with audience interaction. Ignoring them isn't bad, but appreciating and acknowledging them is great.

Also, Christopher is right, soap opera's constantly impress me with how poorly they are thought out and performed. It is a matter of opinion, but opinions arise from fact.

Fluorescent card's would be the best innovation in cards since the ID.
 
Jul 13, 2009
1,372
0
34
I wasn't questioning your credentials...

My mistake, I apologize.

First, recorded media and live performance are not equal parallels. They require completely different styles of performance to pull off…This is how you get technically skilled performers who are incredibly boring to watch.

See now I agree with ya here. I sort of forgot that most of the things such as slowing down the pace of material, off the cuff lines, etc. aren’t common knowledge. Those sort of variables are just kind of second nature to me. I’m not sure if I used the word ignore or not, but that is beside my point. Ignore isn’t the right word for what I’m trying to say. As a performer you are conscious of the audience in front of you but focus on acting out the character you are portraying. Yes you interact with them when you need to but it usually doesn’t deviate from whatever you rehearsed or out of character of what you are doing.



Yes, it is objective. But it's also an opinion shared by many…However, I will repeat: Recorded media and live performance are not equivalents.

Pfft, whatever I‘ll watch Young and the Restless elsewhere. Y’all just jelly that Ashley is having an affair with Colin. :p


We will probably have to agree to disagree on that point. I believe it is the performer's job to connect the character with the audience…I personally think that someone using this model (the character connects with the audience, not the actor) would be incapable of connecting with an audience.

But see that doesn’t make sense to me. Unless the actor is doing an aside, their character’s focus is supposed to be on the other actor on stage. The audience doesn’t exist behind the forth wall. Unless you are talking about when actors don’t turn out to the audience while in conversation with the other character on stage. If this is the case, that isn’t a fault on the performer but the director who blocked the show.


If you've never seen it live, you cannot say that you don't need to see it live to understand what it's like live. You have no basis for comparison. I watched it a dozen times on video before seeing it live and I assure you, it is different.

I appreciated Quidam the Cirque show on dvd just as much as I did seeing it live on tour. I am pretty sure it is just a personal preference on my part I don’t feel much more excitement seeing bands I love live or shows I love live. They are respected equally by me.

I never said that it's audience focused, I said he includes the audience… It's like he's going on this journey through this strange world, and he's constantly looking back to make sure you're still with him.

Yes I agree, but I was commenting on your assessment not Teller’s performance.

YouTube could very well be the way to publish magic specials, but if they don't connect with people it will flop…We've had a couple decades of people in flowy shirts putting women in boxes and throwing doves around. We want something new and interesting. We've seen that act, we want a new one.

Hate to say it, but I think Criss Angel sort of made magic on the television into a novelty in America. With the public disarmed with the idea that magic is now about gorilla styled magic tricks and camera trickery, a modernized version of magician would be much welcomed. Look at Derren Brown, even though it is mentalistm it is still part of magic. If we were to get an Americanized version of Derren, I’m pretty certain they’d succeed. It isn’t street magic, it is stage magic in front of a live audience filmed by professional television camera.

On that note, magic television specials are flourishing in other countries other than America. Sort of a pitty really.


Again, we may have to agree to disagree here. When I was very young, I saw a card manipulation act on TV. It was interesting for a moment or two, and then I was waiting for the magic to begin. But he just kept going, pulling cards from behind his hand (yes, I could tell he was holding cars behind his hand) and I just stopped caring. Maybe if he could see my boredom he would have changed things up? Who knows.

Nope, probably not they spend many hours to perfect their act. Card manipulation maybe boring to you but I know laymen who are still blown away by good dove, card, billiard, manipulation routines. The only glazed eyes in audience I’ve seen are those of magicians.

I watch the audience on these shows and I see them politely watching with a glazed look in their eyes. Since seeing my first magic shows on TV, I can't watch any more that involve those props or those manipulation acts. I've seen it. If a box gets pushed out on stage, I've seen it. Even if I haven't seen that particular trick, who cares? It's going to be a 'more impossible' version of something I've already seen and I still know it's the box that does it. That's not interesting. I want new, I want interesting, I want interaction.

Yep, a pipe dream. The only thing I can say is set the example and not just preach it. I haven’t performed because I share a similar view and will not perform unless it is under certain circumstances. Everything that is wanted will not happen overnight. It is going to take many many years.



Watch that same knife act three more times and tell me how interesting it is. This is why jugglers and knife throwers and such have to escalate so much…David Blaine currently has the same issue, he's got to keep being more sensational because, let's face it, who would watch him try to hold his breath again?

But see there is a difference between a knife act and someone who is in the greater populace’s light. David Blain is a larger and more public figure than generic knife thrower. That knife thrower/juggler can do the same act for years and get paid well too. Same with Houdini, he knew as a good showman that he’d need to constantly one up his previous stunts. That is what I was trying to say in the first place.



This brings up an interesting discussion. Is it still cardistry if you're doing backflips to make it interesting? Then it's acrobatics. Of all those suggestions I think the only one that could have real potential is fluorescent cards. At least then there'd be changes in lighting to draw attention.

Wha? I don’t follow the logic presented here. If a club juggler does a pirouette during a three or five club flash it doesn’t make the act of juggling ballet. Bo staff, flow wands (or in magic terms Dancing Canes), are all forms of object manipulation and aren’t always consider dance. Is cardisty performed with a bit of dance still cardisty? Yes I do believe it is, just like contact juggling combined with dance is still contact juggling.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results