What is a purist?

[jjtee]

I gotta say I do love a good debate. While I actually agree with you on all fronts, I think its good to play devil's advocate in many respects in order to advance how we think about magic. Without decent discussions on why we do things we'll never advance. Either way on with the show!

No one denies that the performer cannot enjoy sharing his gifts. The post I referenced claimed that the audience's enjoyment stemmed from them watching the performer pleasure himself, so to speak. That, I think, is a ridiculous argument.

Agreed on this idea. The only thing I can add to this is the generalisation of all purists being egotisitcal, or holding back the true potential of magic. While not a purist myself it would be hard to give reasons why they do what they do (apart from the ones given, concering impromptu(ness) magic and pocket space etc. I'll try and address this as I go along.

You seem to think that entertainment must stem from watching someone enjoy what they do...is this true? What of the actor in a Broadway play that just learned his mother had died? What of the actor who plays a very challenging, emotionally draining role? Do we see their pleasure or do we merely benefit from the work, the sacrifice, the make in order to transport us to the aesthetic response?

Hmm. Interesting. Since I am not a professional magician, nor have I performed professionally it would be hard for me to comment directly. We do benefit from their work (either the actor analogy or as a spectator), magic is a distinct field. It is an emotive entertainment process, abeit rather constrained in what emotions it can create. A card show tends to inspire awe and astonishment (thank you Paul Harris), escapology and dangerous stunts create fear suspense and morbid fascination, cardistry is amazement and admiration of art and skill. While we do benefit from these emotions stirred in us, the Magician (this is a huge generalisation, let us use "Street Magic" as a basis) tends to give a persona of happiness and enjoyment of their act. They may have to act on this, but one would not need to have to if it were indeed genuine.

Is magic fun? Always? As a professional, must it always be fun? Does it matter what you think/feel or is it your job to deliver? Does it matter if you are a professional? Do you have a responsibility to deliver simply because you have chosen to call yourself "magician?" Is a magician not an actor playing the role of the magician, in which case, does the audience ever see what we REALLY feel?

I did try and touch upon this, and in truth I didn't do so well. Yes at the end of the day magic is a career for many, a way to make money. It's not always fun (assumably) and I can imagine the tediousness of table hopping with the same "bag of tricks". The average Joe on this forum, even those that consider themselves "purists" tend to do magic as a hobby, one they enjoy. I suppose there are always exceptions to a rule (which I feel is my main point here).

A magician may or may not be an actor. Some have a persona, others act naturally and do a trick-as themselves simply doing a trick. A persona is the hardest thing to conceptualise in magic, where the real person stops and the magicians begin. In many respects I find it hard to tell when a magician is just acting. Again I think it's a mixture of both.

But - to the point -my quote concerns the impetus of the enjoyment. Does the performer make decisions based on their needs/concerns/pleasure or that of the audience? A purist, by definition, would ALWAYS place their concerns over that of the audience, even when they know a better method to exist.

I think the placing of a purists concerns over that of the specator is not the definition of a purist, but a consequence of being a purist (in some situations). As stated with previous posts, a multitude of reasons exist why people are purists, each quite satisfactory. Yes there are times when purists have to decide against an effect for a lesser one, but then again they would most likely perform an effect that is of a different nature that has the possibility of having equal or greater impact of the decided against trick. In this case they would be placing the concerns of the spectator over their own, choosing not to do one of their favoured tricks (which could be gaffed to a higher standard) to one they may not enjoy doing but the audience may prefer.

This notion of "gaffed card revelation" is very limited and does not take into account the larger meaning and use of gaffed cards. I wrote a post on this. I think that when you consider the more accurate meaning on the term (as it has been used throughout the history of magic) you see that you are trying to narrow down to such a minute type of usage as to be largely meaningless to the overall discussion.

It was an attempt at highlighting where the definition would fall through. An example where gaffs are not always as effective is still an example nonetheless. I am not denying that gaffs and props have a much wider use and variety. Again the point here is that it works both ways for purists and non purists. It could be easier to use a gaff, but it may not create the best reaction.

Ah, the hypothetical game. Let's play.

I love playing.

Given similar if not identical presentations, which is more deceptive: the three card monte with a servicible hype or a Skinner/Roger's type laydown where the cards can be shown SLOWLY and cleanly.

What about a coins across where the performer has to recount the coins from hand to hand repeatedly in order to get in the right positions or a simple visual flight across with no departures from the straight line of the effect?

We are not comparing color changes to deck changes, we are comparing the same effects...apples to apples. Are some color changing deck routines better than others? (More on that in a minute.)

Even if we compare like to like, I still believe it is a matter of preference on the individual spectator. Yes you could take a majority vote of what the best colour changing deck routine is, the fact remains that some will like other ones that do not rank so highly. Personal subjective preference.

Now I am not suggesting that sometimes sleights are not better. I often feel they are. However, is it not possible to look at a routine and see clearly whether it follows a straight line or if it departs in order to accomodate method? Can we not look at a routine and determine if it is clear, concise and understandable? I have seen color changing decks routines that are convoluted and confusing. Aren''t these be definition weaker routines than those that are clear and direct?

Agreed. Direct and concise are indeed the goals of all magicians (they should be!). I like to sum it up as "elegance", a phrase used by mathematicians I know that prefer one proof over another due to it being concise and direct.

If we agree that good magic consists of clear effects with simple processes that proceed in a direct and dramatically satisfying line, then I think we can see that some versions of tricks ARE better than others.

I think the idea of simplicity is wholly valid. But it must be taken from the specators point of view. If both tricks appear to be done in exactly the same method, I mean exactly the same in all moves and nuances, then I see no difference between a gaffed and purist attempt at the trick.

This is the most interesting part to me as it actually addresses my definition. While the alchohol example is fun, I cannot think of anything magic related which would apply. Note that I clarified my definition to read: Places their pleasure and concerns over that of the audience.

If someone KNOWS that there is a tool which will lead to a better effect and they choose not to use it, they are by definition placing their own concerns over that of the audience. Now, as most purists go, that concern is their own self satisfication - their pleasure.

So, let's go with this: What reason would a PURIST possibly have (akin to your alcohol example) for not using the method that would produce the strongest effect for the layperson?

Anything? (Let's avoid the obvious "he can't afford the gimmick" reasoning. We can assume that both methods are available to him, yet he would still choose the gaff free version...why?)

I was thinking about this for a while. Yes cost as you mentioned is one example, a valid one for whom magic is a hobby. But let me attempt a few more...

Let's say a trick is somehow dangerous, it could is some manner affect the specator in a negative way. In that case the purist would be forgiven for not choosing the gaffed option, even if it could produce a more spectacular effect, in the issue of safety. Say hypothetically a gaffed version of smash and stab existed where there involves no peeking, none of the other standard methods employed etc. There is the off chance (as with all smash and stab) that the gaff fails to work and the spike does not retract. Even though the more emotive performance would be to use the gaffed version and the specators hand (emotive purposes), the magician will have to settle for an ungaffed tried and tested method that may not play as well (as the method maybe familar, to say other magicians).

Or one could not incorporate fire into a routine, as the restaurant has the most ridiculous fire alarms installed, a drawing of fire will have to suffice


It's great fun chatting with you Brad!

 

[dragon521]

Unfortunately, my point is that the purist KNOWS that filet mignon is available, but for personal reasons, chooses to not share that with his audience. He offers an inferior effect because of his own self centered needs.

What if some spectators may only want to see slight of hand. Would a performer that uses gimmicks (that he believes achieve stronger effects) be cheating his/her audience?

 

[PjPinsonnault]

Out of curiosity, where are the self-described purists who made us aware of their forum presence on pages 1 and 2 but haven't joined the discussion since? Tumbleweed? Hijackedmagic? Wilfred?

Don't let this be a one-sided talk! Why not let us know why you made your choices?

I'm surprised this topic made it through the "new product weekend." Nicely played, everyone.

PJ

 

[Steerpike]

What if some spectators may only want to see slight of hand. Would a performer that uses gimmicks (that he believes achieve stronger effects) be cheating his/her audience?

If they can tell the difference, that means one of two things:

1. You're performing for magicians.

2. Your performing skills really suck.

 

[RC-Roi92]

well i decided to jump in.

In most cases I am a purist. Not because i feel that i get a better experience out of performing, but because for me it's more practical. This may be because 80% of my magic is card magic. As if i would like to do a nice routine, i would have to carry a couple of matching decks of cards on me, as most gimmicked or gaffed card effects demand a deck, or a huge setup that can't be done on an offbeat. So therefore I see my routine more streamlined if i would never have to change the deck. Now i agree that in a lot of cases gimmicked or gaffed effects are more effective than impromptu effect. Like the invisible deck, ultimate two card transpo, or distortion and others alike. But i feel that if i present my best impromptu effects the audience leaves amazed. As before said in this thread, that they have never seen two cards transpose then why do we have to bring in the doup' (if i do that effect i would use a duplicant). I will always go for the most straightforward effect i can find. So i wouldn't say that i was a purist, though I have spent hour upon hour infront of the mirror, getting that sleight down or getting a certain trick smooth. but we have to remember... the audience sees the effect not the method.

You can compare it with 2 kinds of carpenters, one who uses power tools and one who uses hand tools. The one who uses power tools gets the job done fast. But the one who uses hand tools takes his time and makes it. Therefore making it one of a kind and a beautiful piece. Whilst the one using power tools can make 50 chairs in that time which takes the hand tools one to make a single chair. This isn't the same as saying that the people getting the hand made one are less happy about it.


Rói

(first post woo! )

 

[Brad Henderson]

First, I apologize for being out of touch. My mother passed and have been attending to that. However, I have been occupying my mind by checking in and I do appreciate the diversion and all who have joined in. I am particularly grateful that we have managed to stay focused on the topic withouth letting things get personal.

I'll try and continue some of the thoughts that have been brought up since my last visit.

First, JJTee gets it when he writes :
I think the placing of a purists concerns over that of the specator is not the definition of a purist, but a consequence of being a purist (in some situations).

I do not think many people set out with the goal of plaving their needs and concerns over that of the audience, however it sometimes ends up being the result. This is NOT limited to purists. How many times do we see a magician use a line in his act that gets NO reactions except for his own self-satisfied giggle? I know of one "professional" performer who says frankly, "I do that one for me!"

While I personally find that type of choice counter productive if not stupid, I do respect his choice. Here why: I do not have to agree with your choices, but as long as I know that these are conscious choices made with intention then I will respect your right as an artist to make them. I may not like them. I may not like your work. But I will honor it.

The problem is that many people don't make choices. Or worse, they make choices without understanding what the consequences really are. This "pro" I spoke of makes a choice to say something stupid in his act for his own pleasure. While I think that is an incredibly dumb thing to do, he has taken on the responsibility that goes with it.

I know that some people who call themselves "purists" as they have been generally defined have not considered the ramifications of their actions. Some have, and like my friend the method fiend have happily come to grips with the fact that they do it for their own pleasure.

Here's the problem with being a purist that some are beginning to tumble to: The audience does not/cannot know the difference. All the ever see is the result. They do not see behind the curtain - the only people who care are the magician and other magicians (as Steer rightly points out.)

However, there is something that he failed to point out. Magicians are just as easily fooled as real people. How many times has someone offered a stunning sleight of hand trick only to have it dismissed as gimmicked (this has happened in numerous competitions.) Equally, gaffed items and stooges have been passed off as the real thing in from of qualified experts.

The point is - the method on its own is irrelevant. It is unimportant. Because even the handful of people who could know often don't - unless you tell them - in which case it's not about magic at all, it's "look how skillful I am." That's not magic, that's juggling.

Now, gragon asks what if someone only wants to see sleight of hand? Well, that's an interesting question. In my years making a living as a magician, I have had people ask for sleight of hand show based on what they think it is. But they are basing it on their imaginations of what it looks like in front of the curtain. They have no idea what's going on backstage, and in truth, they really don't care. They want what "sleight of hand looks like". They want what they saw when they went to Ricky Jay's show and heard it called sleight of hand. They want what they saw when they went to the Tower Bar and heard it called sleight of hand.

Chances are they did not get pure sleight of hand. But that's no matter, sleight of hand is both a backstage and front of house idea. The audience only cares about the front of the house. They will never know that you are using a gaff and not a pass - unless you tell them. In which case, there is no magic - only look how skillful I am. That's not magic, that's juggling.

Finally, JJ brings up the issue of acting as a performer. We are all acting when we perform. Our characters are what the audience sees. It may be who we are, it may be someone different. But when we put a card in the deck and pretend we do not know where it is, we are acting. When we turn over the wrong card and pretend to have made a mistake, we are acting. When we wave our hand over a card and pretend the shadow causes it to change, we are acting.

It's ALL acting.

As to emotions that magic can engender - well, the problem is most magicians only go for laughter and applause. Some wonder. Occasionally they try for suspense. But the entire range of human emotion is fair game. Magic is an art - WHEN PERFORMED ARTFULLY. Most magicians are happy with "the adventures of the props in the performer's hands." (Burger) Some want to "say" something. Some what to convey a feelingful response. There is powerful, emotional magic being performed in the world. You won't see it sold on a DVD, because that's not where it can live. But it is there. And I hope each of you have the moment of experiencing it. You will never forget it.

Finally, there is one fatal flaw with the idea that "I only use sleight of hand." Anyone care to guess what it is?

Thanks for the discussion.

Brad



f

 

[joelpaschall]

purist

Hello everyone this thread has intrigued me since the moment it started and I've really been thinking about it. The following is something I wrote trying to get my thoughts out. It's long, sorry. Please read carefully before you respond…step away from the keyboard!
You are a magician. Not sometimes. All of the time! If someone asks you to see “that trick” (you know the one I’m talking about!) Are you prepared?
“What? You don’t have a fifty cent piece?”, “I thought you were magician, can’t you just make them appear?”
“I have a quarter can you do it with that?”
These are things that people say and perhaps we think nothing of it; however as a magician you should always be just as amazing on one performance as you are on your next! Allow me to share a memory with you. One time I performed the invisible deck for one of my guests. He was impressed and the next week the guy came back and brought his friends! Again I shared some magic, some really strong stuff and it went over really well. At the end of my performance the person that I amazed the week before, commented on how wonderful he thought it was and asked if I could show his friend, “that one you did last time”. I was unprepared I had forgotten my invisible deck! My brain began to race, I was scarred. Quickly regaining my composure, I smiled and said “sure”! I had the gentleman think of any card and I then revealed it in a very direct manner. BAM!! New guy loved it! Mr. Invisible deck was also amazed; he said to his friend “see man that’s the one I told you about wasn’t that AWESOME!!!” The lesson I learned that night was one I still carry with me to this very day and one I will now pass on to you. Mr. Invisible deck thought that the trick I performed was the exact same trick as the week before… interesting. The effect was the same (or so it appeared) to understand this is to understand effect and perception. It’s funny, when you use gimmicks your audience will credit the effect to sleight of hand and if you use sleight of hand they will assume the trick is accomplished with trick props of some kind. Never under estimate your audience, understand that there is a very fine line and at times the method you choose can threaten and even kill an effect for a spectator. Whether you use a gimmick or a pure method it is always about effect. If it had gone any other way, if I had not been well versed in the art of deception those guests would have left somewhat disappointed, at least not as amazed or as happy as they did. As a magician it is your job to go above and beyond your spectators expectations. This requires intense dedication and study, but never for your own satisfaction. For one purpose, you love magic! To do it is only part. To share it, to see a persons eye’s and know that they look at Magic with a new perspective and with respect, they see what you see! I love gimmicks I use them from time to time and sometimes I find a gimmick/effect that really kills and then people want to see that trick all of the time. The fact is you won’t always be prepared, however you must always be ready! This is where pure method will come into play. But there is one rule. Never compromise the effect. This will be challenging but not impossible. New doors will open because you are not limited to gaffs or solely pure methods, you rely on effect. You are a purist you strip away the unnecessary working only with the basic structural concepts in magic and can apply them to any and all aspects of the art. Sometimes you will paint with just your hands sometimes you will use props but you must never forget where your canvass is… Until next time my friends

JP

 

[MikeGoyke]

Hello everyone this thread has intrigued me since the moment it started and I've really been thinking about it. The following is something I wrote trying to get my thoughts out. It's long, sorry. Please read carefully before you respond…step away from the keyboard!
You are a magician. Not sometimes. All of the time! If someone asks you to see “that trick” (you know the one I’m talking about!) Are you prepared?
“What? You don’t have a fifty cent piece?”, “I thought you were magician, can’t you just make them appear?”
“I have a quarter can you do it with that?”
These are things that people say and perhaps we think nothing of it; however as a magician you should always be just as amazing on one performance as you are on your next! Allow me to share a memory with you. One time I performed the invisible deck for one of my guests. He was impressed and the next week the guy came back and brought his friends! Again I shared some magic, some really strong stuff and it went over really well. At the end of my performance the person that I amazed the week before, commented on how wonderful he thought it was and asked if I could show his friend, “that one you did last time”. I was unprepared I had forgotten my invisible deck! My brain began to race, I was scarred. Quickly regaining my composure, I smiled and said “sure”! I had the gentleman think of any card and I then revealed it in a very direct manner. BAM!! New guy loved it! Mr. Invisible deck was also amazed; he said to his friend “see man that’s the one I told you about wasn’t that AWESOME!!!” The lesson I learned that night was one I still carry with me to this very day and one I will now pass on to you. Mr. Invisible deck thought that the trick I performed was the exact same trick as the week before… interesting. The effect was the same (or so it appeared) to understand this is to understand effect and perception. It’s funny, when you use gimmicks your audience will credit the effect to sleight of hand and if you use sleight of hand they will assume the trick is accomplished with trick props of some kind. Never under estimate your audience, understand that there is a very fine line and at times the method you choose can threaten and even kill an effect for a spectator. Whether you use a gimmick or a pure method it is always about effect. If it had gone any other way, if I had not been well versed in the art of deception those guests would have left somewhat disappointed, at least not as amazed or as happy as they did. As a magician it is your job to go above and beyond your spectators expectations. This requires intense dedication and study, but never for your own satisfaction. For one purpose, you love magic! To do it is only part. To share it, to see a persons eye’s and know that they look at Magic with a new perspective and with respect, they see what you see! I love gimmicks I use them from time to time and sometimes I find a gimmick/effect that really kills and then people want to see that trick all of the time. The fact is you won’t always be prepared, however you must always be ready! This is where pure method will come into play. But there is one rule. Never compromise the effect. This will be challenging but not impossible. New doors will open because you are not limited to gaffs or solely pure methods, you rely on effect. You are a purist you strip away the unnecessary working only with the basic structural concepts in magic and can apply them to any and all aspects of the art. Sometimes you will paint with just your hands sometimes you will use props but you must never forget where your canvass is… Until next time my friends

JP

That Post deserves a slow clap that turns into a thunderous applause, that was really great.

 

[adjones]

That Post deserves a slow clap that turns into a thunderous applause, that was really great.

Ditto. I read it earlier, and was going to say something similar, but was afraid I'd be accused of "being in love with Joel" again.

 

[Brad Henderson]

Thanks for jumping in, Joel.

As you point out, a self confessed purist has limited themselves in what is possible. Someone like you has taken the time to study all possible resources, and as such, can be far more prepared than the person who limits himself to only a few tools. You are right when you say the effect is everything. That is why it is so important to focus on that and always offer the best method that leads to the strongest effect. If it's a gimmicked pack, you use a gimmicked pack; if it's sleight of hand, you use a sleight.

Sometimes, we will have limitations thrust upon us (when we are without a prop, for example). So it seems silly to me to willingly add more limitations than needed! The purist adds limitations for no other reason than their own desires to add them!

As to the difference in effect: Would you have garnered the same result had the tricks been presented in reverse order? Would the trick have garnered the same result had you not benefited from the level of expectation set by the person who was clearly blown away by the invisible deck? And should we use the audience's inability to remember details as an excuse for not offering the best available. Again, if we know there is a cleaner, more impactful method, should we not use it OR should we limit ourselves and the experience of our audience members based on something only WE care about? (I realize this is not what you are advocating, but I fear some people may read it that way.) As you say, it is ALWAYS about the effect. The method should be chosen because it enhances the effect and no other reason. (As Maurice Fogel said, "If you have to carry and 8 foot sheet of glass, you carry an 8 foot sheet of glass.")

For the sake of an interesting discussion, I would like to explore one of the points you raise. A lot of people believe that a magician should be the servant of the people - prepared to stop everything and perform as soon as his string is pulled. Some people believe that we should let the audience dictate what we perform ("do the one where...") and I have seen magicians even allow the spectator to dictate how it is performed ("ok, let me shuffle the cards now...")

I would contend that this attitude does not place the magician into a role of power. As others have pointed out, most people get into magic to compensate for a lack of social skills. (I know I did.) Consequently, most magicians let the other person "be in charge."

One of the great revelations I had as a performer was realizing that I was in charge. That I was the master of my art, and that it was ok for me to set the terms of the performance. Of course, I set the terms not for my own gratification, but because I know what it takes to deliver the best show possible.

Let's change some nouns and see how we would feel: Would you have walked up to Picasso and demanded he draw something for you right now? After all, he's an artist, that's what artists are supposed to be able to do. Would you walk up to Geoffrey Rush and tell him to do that bit from Shine again? Would you walk up to your dentist friend at a party and open your mouth to show him that weird pump that just developed?

I am not suggesting all performances need to be paid performances. After all, Picasso regularly gave away impromptu sketches as gifts. But, if we respect our art, if we respect ourselves, what/who should dictate the terms of engagement?

Is there anything wrong with a magician telling an audience member who asks "do that one where..." that "oh, that was something very special. I did that just for you. I hope you enjoyed it." When we repeat the trick, do we not take away from the "specialness?"

Afterall, isn't magic SUPPOSED to be special? Once we become trick monkeys with a menu of choices delivered on command, do we not turn our art into a mere commodity?

Just some things to ponder....


Brad Henderson