Just as a question to get everyone thinking, What do you focus on more? The entertainment value of the trick/routine, or the "fooled you" factor? and Why?
What do you focus on?
- Thread starter drew.dickelman
- Start date
I'm just going to take a wild guess and assume that the "fooled you" factor is something to do with how impossible a trick looks, or some similar thing.
This, and questions like this are a false dilemma; it's not an either/or thing. Both must be present in sufficient quantities or you'll be boring, or not really magic. Or both.
I've seen plenty of impressive looking tricks made tedious by people that can't present them. I've seen engaging, fun presentations of things that didn't look impossible.
I aim for both - if it's not entertaining, people won't stay to the end and put money in the hat. If it isn't really magical looking, they won't put much in the hat.
This, and questions like this are a false dilemma; it's not an either/or thing. Both must be present in sufficient quantities or you'll be boring, or not really magic. Or both.
I've seen plenty of impressive looking tricks made tedious by people that can't present them. I've seen engaging, fun presentations of things that didn't look impossible.
I aim for both - if it's not entertaining, people won't stay to the end and put money in the hat. If it isn't really magical looking, they won't put much in the hat.
I hate when magic is presented as a "magician vs. spectator" approach. I aim to entertain with impossible looking effects. However, it's hard to perform straight up miracles ALL the time, and that's fine. I try to just present my magic in a way for everyone to have fun and witness something incredible.
I knew what the fooled you factor was, i just wanted to offer a chance for him to rephrase it. Id hate to think there is anyone on this forum that thinks it's possible to compare the entertainment value of magic, to some sort of smug 'I fooled you' goal.
Unfortunately, I have encountered people who expect magic to be all about the "Oh my gosh! How did they do that! Holy Crap!" Factor while not accepting the whole piece and recognizing the full entertainment value. I think the fooled you factor should come second to the entertainment value itself. I do think the trick should be tricky, but I think what matters more is the presentation and entertainment involved.
I have seen very, very simple tricks turned into amazingly entertaining masterpieces. Early on in David Copperfield's career, he performed a moving, emotional, linking rings trick. Let's be honest. Linking rings are not the most fooling trick out there. But DC took the trick, and made it very, very entertaining.
The question I asked was to spark discussion. I definitely do not think magic boils down to a "gotcha" experience.
I posted a question in the past where I asked people whether they preferred the use of gimmicks or sleight of hand. What sparked me to post that question was an encounter with a magician at a magic shop who greatly preferred gimmicks to sleight of hand. However, people responded to the question thinking that you can't use one or the other. I personally agree with these sentiments, because I use a combination of sleight of hand and gimmicks in my magic. But not everyone does. Franz Harary is one example of a person who does not do sleight of hand.
In posting these questions, I try to spark discussion, and see what other people think. I hope that people understand that these are meant to better learn about the different perspectives that people have on certain topics.
I have seen very, very simple tricks turned into amazingly entertaining masterpieces. Early on in David Copperfield's career, he performed a moving, emotional, linking rings trick. Let's be honest. Linking rings are not the most fooling trick out there. But DC took the trick, and made it very, very entertaining.
The question I asked was to spark discussion. I definitely do not think magic boils down to a "gotcha" experience.
I posted a question in the past where I asked people whether they preferred the use of gimmicks or sleight of hand. What sparked me to post that question was an encounter with a magician at a magic shop who greatly preferred gimmicks to sleight of hand. However, people responded to the question thinking that you can't use one or the other. I personally agree with these sentiments, because I use a combination of sleight of hand and gimmicks in my magic. But not everyone does. Franz Harary is one example of a person who does not do sleight of hand.
In posting these questions, I try to spark discussion, and see what other people think. I hope that people understand that these are meant to better learn about the different perspectives that people have on certain topics.
Personal Enjoyment
I personally perform mentalism, or that is at least my favorite to perform, but the reason that I perform is mostly for personal enjoyment. I like having fun while I perform because it just gives me an "awesome like" goal. I would say that I perform more for my personal fool factor, if that really means anything.
I personally perform mentalism, or that is at least my favorite to perform, but the reason that I perform is mostly for personal enjoyment. I like having fun while I perform because it just gives me an "awesome like" goal. I would say that I perform more for my personal fool factor, if that really means anything.
As of right now I have enough effects to perform a short stage/parlor show. I'm trying to focus on making my effects related more to myself and making it fun and entertaining to watch. No one wants to see another mundane magician perform. You have to set yourself apart from the rest of them. That's what I think is most important. Making yourself stand out and being entertaining while doing so.
Clearly there is a distinct difference in comparison between a person who stands and tries to "fool" his / her audience and a magician who "entertains" the crowd.
I'm in agreement with Butterfield that there needs to be a good mixture of both ingredients to best suit your performance.
For example: I am doing a portion of a stage show tonight for 175 magicians and their families. When selecting my effects I knew I was not going to be able to find effects that "fooled" many of the magicians so I aimed more for the entertainment value. I want the magicians and their families going home saying, "Rick was outstanding. He was so funny, engaging, professional, blah blah blah. Wow some of those effects were great." You get the point.
Making an emotional connection is imperative!
I'm in agreement with Butterfield that there needs to be a good mixture of both ingredients to best suit your performance.
For example: I am doing a portion of a stage show tonight for 175 magicians and their families. When selecting my effects I knew I was not going to be able to find effects that "fooled" many of the magicians so I aimed more for the entertainment value. I want the magicians and their families going home saying, "Rick was outstanding. He was so funny, engaging, professional, blah blah blah. Wow some of those effects were great." You get the point.
Making an emotional connection is imperative!