When I create a card trick, it has to fit three points.
- Angle proof
- Practical
- Have meaning
Magic Importance.
- Thread starter James Kard
- Start date
If any one has read my posts before I always shoot for Justification first. I guess you could argue that "practical" is similar but I get tired of seeing effects that are practical in their use (often meaning they are simple and require little set up) but impractical in their justification.
This for me breaks down into a few different criteria:
1) Is is justified in it's normalcy?
This for me comes to effects that use items that really have no place on a person. This of course will vary on your magician persona, your venue space (i.e. table hopping, stage, parlor, age of audience, and on the street) I could never find a use to do anything with a thimble, it doesn't fit my character, it doesn't fit my audience, it just comes across as weird. Rubber bands for me don't fit my style either, I have no reason nor good "excuse" to carry them around. However, others may find those things fit them and are justified for performance. When it comes to cards, even still there should be a reason to have them on you which obviously can be as simple as, I'm a magician so naturally I have cards on me.
2) Is it justified in it's purpose?
This ties in a little with the "have meaning" criteria you have said but again requires a little more explanation. There are very many magical effects today that are no more than just eye candy, Simply its magic for the sake of magic. I really don't care for that stuff because I don't understand what justifies the reason for linking a borrowed ring on a key chain. Other than it being a crazy-random-happen-stance, at the end of those effects all I think is so what? You could through patter explain a reason for the events to happen as the magic happens in which case you could use the above effect as a template for something better. I find magic that has more going on that just visual eye candy has a lot more impact on people. The eye candy stuff is like an advertisement, its gets people in the mindset of who you are and what you do. So the best play for eye candy magic would be in my opinion at the intro of your performance. This often I see as the case for "street magic" it really has no purpose other than to take something innocuous and do something impossible (though often just improbable) with it. This can be a place for great magic but I still think the question why should be asked before performing an effect. Why should I show this to people? Why should they care? Why does it happen?
3) Is it justified in it's movement?
This is one that can often times be hard to work on properly. When the above two points or worked on this is the final stage and it involves the secret moves you do and how they are hidden. Some are hidden by just being that smooth with them others are hidden with misdirection and just go unnoticed. Time and again I see moves done poorly or in a way that automatically makes me wonder, why did they move their hand like that? Why is it taking them so long to get a pen from their pocket? Why do they always pick up that card in that weird way? These are questions you do not want your audience to think about in my opinion. They should be to focused on the patter and the effect as to not even care or notice the under workings. This also means the under workings need to be justified in a way that they do not raise alarm. Tommy Wonder was a great magician when it came to a lot of things but especially when it came to proper justification of movement. its about psychology, practice and understanding of what is happening and when. For me some sleight of hand is very difficult to justify the movement of. Meaning I could not find any reason to ever move anything that way. It also means taking into account the Professor's advice in making everything seem smooth and effortless. The best in your face sleight of hand I have seen with cards is almost always slow and easy. Nothing should ever seem awkward or odd in how a magician presents something, part of the art of magic is making something impossible happen in seemingly normal circumstances.
I used to think of angle proof as a huge part of it too and I still do. But it depends on the performance space. What I use in a restaurant needs to be a lot more angle proof for me than what I perform in a parlor or stage setting. This is because naturally the angles are different. But I usually do not look for effects that say they can be performed surrounded simply because I just think that's bad stage presence no matter where you are. Why should people stand behind you when you perform? It just shouldn't ever happen and should not be a criteria for a good trick in that sense.
This is my criteria for creating magic on a basic level. If It can pass those elements then I consider if there is someone already doing it? Is it better than mine? What is my goal with it?
This for me breaks down into a few different criteria:
1) Is is justified in it's normalcy?
This for me comes to effects that use items that really have no place on a person. This of course will vary on your magician persona, your venue space (i.e. table hopping, stage, parlor, age of audience, and on the street) I could never find a use to do anything with a thimble, it doesn't fit my character, it doesn't fit my audience, it just comes across as weird. Rubber bands for me don't fit my style either, I have no reason nor good "excuse" to carry them around. However, others may find those things fit them and are justified for performance. When it comes to cards, even still there should be a reason to have them on you which obviously can be as simple as, I'm a magician so naturally I have cards on me.
2) Is it justified in it's purpose?
This ties in a little with the "have meaning" criteria you have said but again requires a little more explanation. There are very many magical effects today that are no more than just eye candy, Simply its magic for the sake of magic. I really don't care for that stuff because I don't understand what justifies the reason for linking a borrowed ring on a key chain. Other than it being a crazy-random-happen-stance, at the end of those effects all I think is so what? You could through patter explain a reason for the events to happen as the magic happens in which case you could use the above effect as a template for something better. I find magic that has more going on that just visual eye candy has a lot more impact on people. The eye candy stuff is like an advertisement, its gets people in the mindset of who you are and what you do. So the best play for eye candy magic would be in my opinion at the intro of your performance. This often I see as the case for "street magic" it really has no purpose other than to take something innocuous and do something impossible (though often just improbable) with it. This can be a place for great magic but I still think the question why should be asked before performing an effect. Why should I show this to people? Why should they care? Why does it happen?
3) Is it justified in it's movement?
This is one that can often times be hard to work on properly. When the above two points or worked on this is the final stage and it involves the secret moves you do and how they are hidden. Some are hidden by just being that smooth with them others are hidden with misdirection and just go unnoticed. Time and again I see moves done poorly or in a way that automatically makes me wonder, why did they move their hand like that? Why is it taking them so long to get a pen from their pocket? Why do they always pick up that card in that weird way? These are questions you do not want your audience to think about in my opinion. They should be to focused on the patter and the effect as to not even care or notice the under workings. This also means the under workings need to be justified in a way that they do not raise alarm. Tommy Wonder was a great magician when it came to a lot of things but especially when it came to proper justification of movement. its about psychology, practice and understanding of what is happening and when. For me some sleight of hand is very difficult to justify the movement of. Meaning I could not find any reason to ever move anything that way. It also means taking into account the Professor's advice in making everything seem smooth and effortless. The best in your face sleight of hand I have seen with cards is almost always slow and easy. Nothing should ever seem awkward or odd in how a magician presents something, part of the art of magic is making something impossible happen in seemingly normal circumstances.
I used to think of angle proof as a huge part of it too and I still do. But it depends on the performance space. What I use in a restaurant needs to be a lot more angle proof for me than what I perform in a parlor or stage setting. This is because naturally the angles are different. But I usually do not look for effects that say they can be performed surrounded simply because I just think that's bad stage presence no matter where you are. Why should people stand behind you when you perform? It just shouldn't ever happen and should not be a criteria for a good trick in that sense.
This is my criteria for creating magic on a basic level. If It can pass those elements then I consider if there is someone already doing it? Is it better than mine? What is my goal with it?
Very well said.
I have to say that some of the biggest issues I see are when things are very random. Now magic can be random sometimes, but the more organic something is the better. For example, if I walk up to someone with a soda can and do a healed and sealed type effect, the reaction will vary and more than likely the spectator will walk away thinking it was a trick soda can (which it is), but if you can maybe set it up or plant the can in like the trash or on the ground next to one, then walk up later on and pretend like you want to show them something crazy. Look around for an object and use the soda can as an "afterthought" of sorts. Because again, justification. What is the effect? Why a soda can? Well because it was all I had to use... so I used it.... That is better justification than "wanna see a cool trick with a soda can?"
Does any of that make sense? lol
Now to get to the OP's topic.
What I look for when creating an original effect (or in many cases modifying an original idea) are:
-What is the effect? (What am I going for here? What kind of emotional response will I get?)
-Is it practical? (does it make sense, and will it work in situations I will need it for)
-Is it easy to perform? (some people prefer hard methods to create an effect. I am the opposite. I believe magic should look effortless, so if you want to do a one handed top cop into bottom placement from a second deal to make the card change that is fine, but I will use a double lift.... lol)
-How much does it involve the audience? (I do close-up magic so I try to get the audience involved as much as possible. Even my linking ring routine is mostly done in the spectator's hands)
-What are the cons to performing this? (If there are too many cons, it will become impractical and not worth performing for example: Involves too many objects, objects are constantly destroyed so you will need to remake or purchase more often, very bad angles, doesn't work 100% of the time [I do not like effects that have a chance to fail,] too much set up, expensive, etc.
Yes it makes perfect sense. This is what makes for great magic, just a bit of fore thought. Which comes back to those questions you need to ask before doing a piece of magic. I think a lot of "look at me!" magic can easily become much audience involving and intimate when proper set up is done.
I think this is true in a lot of cases. Move monkeys might like to use something that is extremely difficult but could be easily achieved by something much simpler. However, some effects the difficult sleight is worth the time and effort to make it "simple" some simple card forces are not always as convincing as the harder ones. But in the grand scheme the simpler the better. Its usually the harder to pick up on.
I also try to make my magic to be impossible, or at least highly improbable. Obrien, I have to say that you look at magic the way most magician should.
My main criteria when creating magic is simply that something impressive or impossible happens. The 'impossible' criteria can also be relaxed slightly to include the 'very unlikely', so as not to exclude coincidence effects.
I am a fan of effects that are a bit more 'implicit' and maybe only hint at hidden skill. For example, rather than do a bunch of fancy cuts and spin the Aces out of the deck, I'd prefer to gently riffle up the side of the deck, make it look like I am doing some sort of mental calculation, and then name the positions the Aces are at. I don't openly state that is what I am doing, but I want the audience to think something as happened. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the former style of magic, but personal taste means I tend to go for the latter.
The be honest, I've never been that bothered about justifying my effects*. Why am I making the card jump to the top of the deck? Because I can and because it's fun. As long as my audience enjoys it at least as much as me then I don't see anything wrong with that.
Which leads me nicely to another one of my criteria: Do I enjoy performing it? I've heard stories about people performing things such as sponge bunnies, even though they hate them, just because they get a good reaction. I just can't do that. Why should I not enjoy my own magic as well? Conversely, Harry Lorayne once said (and I'm paraphrasing) that 'if your favourite routine fails to get a reaction you should drop it from your act.' I disagree. Yes, it probably needs more work, but dropping it entirely feels like 'selling out' to me. I want to do it, so I am going to do it, and people will either get it or they won't. If it doesn't quite play right, then I might try it a different way next time, but I'm not just going to give up on my own material like that.
Other criteria, I feel, is open to interpretation. For example, practicality really depends on the situation. People who do a lot of walk around cocktail parties are likely to consider anything that involves a table to be impractical. Some people may argue a method is impractical if it involves a set up and a reset. But if you're only doing a set show once a night then does that really matter as long as the effect is good?
Rev
*As a side note, I do think we need to make a distinction though between the 'effect' being justified and the method and moves being motivated. For example, I'm not that bothered about justifying why the ball is about to jump under the cup, but I am bothered about justifying why I am passing the ball from one hand to the other (e.g. I might want to pick up a wand with the hand the ball is currently in).
I am a fan of effects that are a bit more 'implicit' and maybe only hint at hidden skill. For example, rather than do a bunch of fancy cuts and spin the Aces out of the deck, I'd prefer to gently riffle up the side of the deck, make it look like I am doing some sort of mental calculation, and then name the positions the Aces are at. I don't openly state that is what I am doing, but I want the audience to think something as happened. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the former style of magic, but personal taste means I tend to go for the latter.
The be honest, I've never been that bothered about justifying my effects*. Why am I making the card jump to the top of the deck? Because I can and because it's fun. As long as my audience enjoys it at least as much as me then I don't see anything wrong with that.
Which leads me nicely to another one of my criteria: Do I enjoy performing it? I've heard stories about people performing things such as sponge bunnies, even though they hate them, just because they get a good reaction. I just can't do that. Why should I not enjoy my own magic as well? Conversely, Harry Lorayne once said (and I'm paraphrasing) that 'if your favourite routine fails to get a reaction you should drop it from your act.' I disagree. Yes, it probably needs more work, but dropping it entirely feels like 'selling out' to me. I want to do it, so I am going to do it, and people will either get it or they won't. If it doesn't quite play right, then I might try it a different way next time, but I'm not just going to give up on my own material like that.
Other criteria, I feel, is open to interpretation. For example, practicality really depends on the situation. People who do a lot of walk around cocktail parties are likely to consider anything that involves a table to be impractical. Some people may argue a method is impractical if it involves a set up and a reset. But if you're only doing a set show once a night then does that really matter as long as the effect is good?
Rev
*As a side note, I do think we need to make a distinction though between the 'effect' being justified and the method and moves being motivated. For example, I'm not that bothered about justifying why the ball is about to jump under the cup, but I am bothered about justifying why I am passing the ball from one hand to the other (e.g. I might want to pick up a wand with the hand the ball is currently in).
Very true!
There is a big difference in how difficult a move is vs. how difficult the move appears.
I guess you would need to find that balance so that what you are doing appears to be effortless, even if you are actually putting a lot of work into it. However, if an easier alternative is available that appears just as simple to the audience, then you should use that method.
Thank you my friend.
Sometimes I feel I over think things, but it works for me and my style. I jost hpe to add to the pool of advice so you have different options to chose from that will help fit your style!
I have doing magic for 8 years, and my style has only changed twice. First it was coin magic, now more card effects. And over thinking magic to me is a good thing. That shows that you truly want your magic to be as magical as possible.
These are two great points. I would honestly say that you have justified why the card jump to the top. The effect is because I can. The fact that your a magician is the justification in that sense. For my Ambitious routine the signed card is forced to the top against my will be the other cards being jealous of the signed card. That is in no way a plausible justification of events but its doesn't matter because its enough for a spectator to follow.
I guess for me motivation and justification are very similar because you still "justify" the motivation for a move.
So here is the question... why should the spectator care about what you are doing? Reading your post gives me the impression that you view magic as something that is intrinsically interesting and that despite your best efforts to trivialize it (I'm doing it because I can, spectators don't care if what I say doesn't make sense) you think your spectators have to enjoy it. It seems that magic to you is an "us" (magicians) and "them" (spectators). I strongly differ with that view.
Magic should not be about what the magician can do (and the audience can't). Nobody likes a show off. Magic shouldn't be about fooling the audience because you know the method and they don't. Nobody likes being a fool. Magic should be about inviting the audience to enjoy a performance that is internally consistent -- that is, what you say corresponds in a realistic way with what you do. When you give a presentation that is not in any way beliveable or entertaining, the audience is not only insulted by the presentation (he thinks we should belive that baloney?) but the magic itself becomes lessened because there is neither belief or suspension of disbelief.
Now, sometimes a card trick is just a card trick. There is fun in that and I understand what @Rev is saying that you don't need a justification for why you are doing what you are doing with the cards (one of my favorites is Bannon's routine from Six.Impossible.Things which I present with no justification other than let's share something fun).
As for motivation, I think @Rev is talking about every move having reason. Doing a palm while squaring the deck after a shuffle, doing a control while closing the deck after the spread, using a shuffle control when it makes sense to shuffle. This concept is very strong in much of Roberto Giobbi's handling. No unnecessary touching of the deck, no extranious or suspicious moves -- rather the sleights are done under the cover of a perfectly normal action (e.g. performing a Gambler's Cop or the first fold of a Mercury Card Fold while handing the deck to a spectator.
That is not at all what I am saying. If one chooses to have an effect for the sake of fun (which I do) it can be justified in its use. And I'd ask for you not to assume again my character as a magician as "I am a magician your not so deal with it" mentality. I love performing for people as a shared experience. I feel that having a reason to do something besides a trivial effect generally makes for stronger magic but there is nothing wrong with magic for the sake of fun.that fun can still be it's own justification.
That's exactly what I mean. Motivation of movement is still justification. Done in a way that no one will question it. Which is different than how one justifies the effect. Which can be justified by deep themes and patter or by a simple this is something fun. What matters is the experience that is shared by the audience and magician. If it is positive and gets the response desired and you enjoy doing it then it has achieved its goal
I think what makes magic perfect is magic with purpose. If magic can be meaningful and relatable to your spectator then they will truly care about what you are showing them. Relatable magic performances are more engaging and more magical because your spectator will be focused the conversation and learning something related to their life, instead of focusing on not allowing you to deceive them. Of course you should make sure all other aspects of performance are near perfection but I feel what really makes magic special is having purposeful presentation.