Hey guys,
I had a thought today (a surprise in itself), and it was prompted by Theory11's 1-on-1 Blind. As it stands I haven't really thought about it in much detail, I just wanted to put some thoughts out there. I'm not passing judgment, I don't have a strong opinion on this yet, but yeah. I touched briefly on this in one of my other posts, somewhere (yeah I know that's not very specific).
So Blind comes out, right. And over the next week, threads pop up. Threads with questions, questions like "Is the reset instant?" and "Is there a setup?" Other ones include "How long does it take to set up?" "Do I have to set this up each time?" With other releases, the questions are "Is the gimmick hard to make?"
These are the repeat questions, the ones that are always asked. Why? Well for starters I think the emphasis on totally impromptu effects is very great.
But as the title suggests - I wonder if the subtext isn't that we're just really lazy?
"How much work do I have to do to perform this?"
The internal monologue being: "Is the reaction worth the effort?"
I feel like people are essentially asking how un-lazy they have to be to do the effect.
Now, I know the questions asked are based in some sort of truth. Obviously, these are aspects of the effect that the performer should know. But - they're not the only aspects that the performer should know. Some other things that could be asked are - is the concept applicable to other effects? Is there a history behind the effect? Other versions of the effect? These are just as crucial.
So why are only some of the crucial questions asked about an effect - the same ones, over and over again? This leads me back to my theory about laziness. Now, I'm not saying that the people who asked those questions just want to be lazy. They weren't thinking "How little work can I get away with?", of course they weren't.
But that doesn't mean that laziness doesn't pervade magic, either. Just because we don't physically think it, doesn't mean it's not there. Obviously, laziness is not only bad for performance, but it's a bad ethic to have in a lot of life.
It hardly needs to be said, but you're always performing for your audience, to entertain them. Well, how far would you go to astonish them? Would you perform a set up each time you perform it? A lot of people are fond of saying that beautiful cliché, I perform to astonish my audience. Well, this is really the question, to what extent do you mean it?
What made you first think that "Wow, that trick is cool, I want to get it!"? That's what your audiences will see, and they won't care whether you've spend 5 minutes setting up or not. It's about them, we all love saying it, so this is the test of how much you really mean it.
Which is not to say that someone who rejects tricks with setups doesn't want to astonish an audience necessarily. But what I definitely do mean to say is that attitude means a lot, and I do honestly believe that some people are deluding themselves, and really are motivated by simply wanting, even subconsciously, to be lazy, to take the easy way out. Is this you?
I can understand someone who performs on the street asking these questions, amongst others. But then again, I also think more people should perform on the street in the first place. Regardless, I'd make the point again that these are only some of the crucial questions that should be asked - but why are these and not other crucial questions asked?
A lot of people will simply think to themselves that they agree. Some will post they agree. Some probably will completely disagree - after all, I'm close to calling a lot of people lazy, and people don't like that, so it's natural to respond by disagreeing. But regardless, I just want this to hopefully make you think a little about what you're really doing.
Some will absolutely ignore that last paragraph, to their detriment - but that's alright.
Overall this is really I guess just something to provoke thought about your work ethic, and about what's really going on below. I hope it makes some people think.
I had a thought today (a surprise in itself), and it was prompted by Theory11's 1-on-1 Blind. As it stands I haven't really thought about it in much detail, I just wanted to put some thoughts out there. I'm not passing judgment, I don't have a strong opinion on this yet, but yeah. I touched briefly on this in one of my other posts, somewhere (yeah I know that's not very specific).
So Blind comes out, right. And over the next week, threads pop up. Threads with questions, questions like "Is the reset instant?" and "Is there a setup?" Other ones include "How long does it take to set up?" "Do I have to set this up each time?" With other releases, the questions are "Is the gimmick hard to make?"
These are the repeat questions, the ones that are always asked. Why? Well for starters I think the emphasis on totally impromptu effects is very great.
But as the title suggests - I wonder if the subtext isn't that we're just really lazy?
"How much work do I have to do to perform this?"
The internal monologue being: "Is the reaction worth the effort?"
I feel like people are essentially asking how un-lazy they have to be to do the effect.
Now, I know the questions asked are based in some sort of truth. Obviously, these are aspects of the effect that the performer should know. But - they're not the only aspects that the performer should know. Some other things that could be asked are - is the concept applicable to other effects? Is there a history behind the effect? Other versions of the effect? These are just as crucial.
So why are only some of the crucial questions asked about an effect - the same ones, over and over again? This leads me back to my theory about laziness. Now, I'm not saying that the people who asked those questions just want to be lazy. They weren't thinking "How little work can I get away with?", of course they weren't.
But that doesn't mean that laziness doesn't pervade magic, either. Just because we don't physically think it, doesn't mean it's not there. Obviously, laziness is not only bad for performance, but it's a bad ethic to have in a lot of life.
It hardly needs to be said, but you're always performing for your audience, to entertain them. Well, how far would you go to astonish them? Would you perform a set up each time you perform it? A lot of people are fond of saying that beautiful cliché, I perform to astonish my audience. Well, this is really the question, to what extent do you mean it?
What made you first think that "Wow, that trick is cool, I want to get it!"? That's what your audiences will see, and they won't care whether you've spend 5 minutes setting up or not. It's about them, we all love saying it, so this is the test of how much you really mean it.
Which is not to say that someone who rejects tricks with setups doesn't want to astonish an audience necessarily. But what I definitely do mean to say is that attitude means a lot, and I do honestly believe that some people are deluding themselves, and really are motivated by simply wanting, even subconsciously, to be lazy, to take the easy way out. Is this you?
I can understand someone who performs on the street asking these questions, amongst others. But then again, I also think more people should perform on the street in the first place. Regardless, I'd make the point again that these are only some of the crucial questions that should be asked - but why are these and not other crucial questions asked?
A lot of people will simply think to themselves that they agree. Some will post they agree. Some probably will completely disagree - after all, I'm close to calling a lot of people lazy, and people don't like that, so it's natural to respond by disagreeing. But regardless, I just want this to hopefully make you think a little about what you're really doing.
Some will absolutely ignore that last paragraph, to their detriment - but that's alright.
Overall this is really I guess just something to provoke thought about your work ethic, and about what's really going on below. I hope it makes some people think.
Last edited by a moderator: