11th Theory of Magic - Technology

[JDENredden]

What do you all think of this? Ino this is going to be a bit controversial. It dosen't really fit in with the other Theories;

1. Production
2. Vanish
3. Transposition
4. Transformation
5. Multiplication
6. Penetration
7. Restoration
8. Suspension
9. Levitation
10. Mentalism

But it is worth a mention. In a way Technolgy is advancing magic and in some ways it is destroying it.

It advances magic because it opens up magic to other media such as Computers, Phones, iPods etc. It promotes a new way of thinking and creativity. Examples such as this GUY, Marco Tempast, this GUY, Andrew Mayne, Adam Grace, me and others.

Its not just in that sense, using technology to accomplish magic is everywhere. Criss Angel and David Blaine use Camera tricky or editing.

But it also is destroying magic, in the sense of Piracy. Magic Piracy is a big problem, artist hesitate to release magic and cardistry because of the fear of it being Pirated. With the invention of the internet and torrents, it has made getting magic for free alot easier.

What are your thoughts on the subject? This is somthing I have been debating in my head for awhile. I would love to here your thoughts.

Thanks,
JDEN

 

[praetoritevong]

I would simply like to add that while I'd agree that in some ways technology like the Internet allows some people to damage magic - and these are the same people who don't put effort into their magic, and don't practice - but I believe as a whole magic will always be strong enough to survive, and will not be destroyed per se to any extent. I realise this is arguing semantics to a certain extent, but I also do think it's important.

Allow me to illustrate my point by quoting the preface of Modern Coin Magic by J.B.Bobo, who in turn quotes Jean Hugard: "...there are few magicians today who are willing to spend the necessary time and practice obtaining that skill. Jean Hugard summarized his opinion on the subject well when he said, "There is an unfortunate trend among those who dabble in magic, and even those who rate themselves as magicians, to avoid anything that requires a little study and practice and to rely on tricks that work themselves, tricks 'that can be done five minutes after you receive them,' as we see advertised so often.""

Now, I know this strays slightly off topic from technology. But if we think about it, the people who take advantage of technology unethically, aren't these, by and large, the same people who don't practice them? Who are unwilling, as Hugard put, to put in the practice necessary for magic? Hugard also references the advertisement of tricks - another issue regarding technology is the ability to advertise and put magic effects on the market, and many do complain about the saturation of the market with mediocre, untested effects - essentially, referring to technology in the same context to which Hugard refers to advertising.

Well, Bobo was first published in 1952. That's 57 years ago. And he quotes Hugard, which, hence, logically must have been even older than 57 years ago.

So this was an issue that was around 57 years ago.

...And yet, here we are, you and I, still studying magic. We're still here. Magic's still here. And it's not being destroyed, it's not dying, but it sure as all hell is definitely still here.

Surely this should speak volumes for the tenacity and the heart of magic.

 

[JDENredden]

I would simply like to add that while I'd agree that in some ways technology like the Internet allows some people to damage magic - and these are the same people who don't put effort into their magic, and don't practice - but I believe as a whole magic will always be strong enough to survive, and will not be destroyed per se to any extent. I realise this is arguing semantics to a certain extent, but I also do think it's important.

Allow me to illustrate my point by quoting the preface of Modern Coin Magic by J.B.Bobo, who in turn quotes Jean Hugard: "...there are few magicians today who are willing to spend the necessary time and practice obtaining that skill. Jean Hugard summarized his opinion on the subject well when he said, "There is an unfortunate trend among those who dabble in magic, and even those who rate themselves as magicians, to avoid anything that requires a little study and practice and to rely on tricks that work themselves, tricks 'that can be done five minutes after you receive them,' as we see advertised so often.""

Now, I know this strays slightly off topic from technology. But if we think about it, the people who take advantage of technology unethically, aren't these, by and large, the same people who don't practice them? Who are unwilling, as Hugard put, to put in the practice necessary for magic? Hugard also references the advertisement of tricks - another issue regarding technology is the ability to advertise and put magic effects on the market, and many do complain about the saturation of the market with mediocre, untested effects - essentially, referring to technology in the same context to which Hugard refers to advertising.

Well, Bobo was first published in 1952. That's 57 years ago. And he quotes Hugard, which, hence, logically must have been even older than 57 years ago.

So this was an issue that was around 57 years ago.

...And yet, here we are, you and I, still studying magic. We're still here. Magic's still here. And it's not being destroyed, it's not dying, but it sure as all hell is definitely still here.

Surely this should speak volumes for the tenacity and the heart of magic.

I dont mean its actually corrupting magic, but rather its hindering magic. If you know what I mean.

JDEN

 

[praetoritevong]

Yeah, absolutely I know what you mean JDEN. It's just that many people seem to be fond of saying that magic is dying or being destroyed when they mean exactly what you said, that it simply negatively affects magic.

Nice topic, should be interesting to read.

 

[lunatic core]

Those are all "whats" or catagories of effects. Technology is a "how". Pretty much any effect created by the technology, or shown via technology fits into the original 10. Camera edits are still just levitation for instance.

 

[tally-ho]

i believe it was doug mckenzie in a roundtable talked about how he uses technology that is brand new to help him with magic. i am always on the lookout for cool new electronics and technology like the sheet that scientists are making that will turn stuff invisible. imagine what kind of tricks you could do with that. technology can be great for magic.

 

[LeeAsher]

1. Production
2. Vanish
3. Transposition
4. Transformation
5. Multiplication
6. Penetration
7. Restoration
8. Suspension
9. Levitation
10. Mentalism

Guys, sorry to rain on your parade -- but this is something that's been bothering me for a while. I've seen this all over the boards. What's listed above are NOT theories. They are classifications of effects.

Do you want to read more about the classifications of effects and who classified them?

Click this link here.

If you want to be taken seriously by the academia of magic, you need to learn the proper terminology.

It's a lack of education that hinders magic.

Asher
.
.
.

 

[lunatic core]

Great link. Everytime I get reminded of Penn & Tellers 7 principals of magic I get a huge smile on my face.

 

[indiana508]

Ya great link thaks LEE =)

 

[Steerpike]

But it also is destroying magic, in the sense of Piracy.

If the proliferation of information can destroy magic, it wasn't very good to begin with.

 

[nexusmagic]

would this be a better list of theories
1. Misdirection
2. Human cognition
3. Perception
4. Body Language
5. Human vision system
6. Senses

I can't think of others right at the moment but I think this is better theories then what is listed.

 

[JDENredden]

Ino,

Thats why I said it dosent fit in with the other theories, which now arnt even the right ones :s.

JDEN

 

[D ICE R]

I believe that it is advancing creativity, however I don't personally think it is moving in the right direction. Well that may be a little strong however it is defiantly not something I can see myself preforming. I will use any form of technology to help me achieve the desired effect. However using it as the focal point of a presentation is just not something I will feel comfortable with. To me it seems like the audience perceive these effects as a clever trick even though they have no idea how the mechanics are done they will come to the assumption that you have something either knowledge or an extra piece of technology to assist you.

That in my opinion causes a huge void in the experience of the spectator. For example lets use that new effect (the name escapes me at the moment.) where a spectator thinks of a song and their ringtone changes to it. I can imagine that it would get great reactions however when they are explaining it later, the idea that some extra for of technology was used to change the ringtone and discredit the fact that they had the song in mind and the magician figured it out. Lets use the same idea but by using an impression pad. It would play exactly the same to the audience however the climax would be much weaker, yet when they are recreating the effect to their friends they could not rationalise how it could be done.

I suppose that this is an outgrowth of the to perfect theory, as the piece will be dismissed as nothing more than a device, a mod for the phone or what have you. So in my eyes the audience will dismiss this as trickery and not a very good form of it. To quote Bob Cassidy "Your reputation is made not on what you can do, but on what people believe you can." And to take this in a slightly different direction

"Your reputation should not be made on what your phone can do"


David

 

[JDENredden]

I believe that it is advancing creativity, however I don't personally think it is moving in the right direction. Well that may be a little strong however it is defiantly not something I can see myself preforming. I will use any form of technology to help me achieve the desired effect. However using it as the focal point of a presentation is just not something I will feel comfortable with. To me it seems like the audience perceive these effects as a clever trick even though they have no idea how the mechanics are done they will come to the assumption that you have something either knowledge or an extra piece of technology to assist you.

That in my opinion causes a huge void in the experience of the spectator. For example lets use that new effect (the name escapes me at the moment.) where a spectator thinks of a song and their ringtone changes to it. I can imagine that it would get great reactions however when they are explaining it later, the idea that some extra for of technology was used to change the ringtone and discredit the fact that they had the song in mind and the magician figured it out. Lets use the same idea but by using an impression pad. It would play exactly the same to the audience however the climax would be much weaker, yet when they are recreating the effect to their friends they could not rationalise how it could be done.

I suppose that this is an outgrowth of the to perfect theory, as the piece will be dismissed as nothing more than a device, a mod for the phone or what have you. So in my eyes the audience will dismiss this as trickery and not a very good form of it. To quote Bob Cassidy "Your reputation is made not on what you can do, but on what people believe you can." And to take this in a slightly different direction

"Your reputation should not be made on what your phone can do"


David

This is the sort of things I have been debating in my head. A technology driven piece of magic should be used sparingly. Its a very slippery slope, for it to be passed of as a piece of magic it all relies on the patter and performance. I have several technology based effects, which I dont use often, only in the right circumstances. It also comes down to how you present your self as an artist. A mentalistic performer doing a magic trick with you phone would be viewed differently then a con-man or cheat doing the same effect. Much like if a cardician during a card magic performance randomly pulls out his phone and does a tech based effect. I believe tech magic is only good for an impromptu, spur of the moment, all round type of magician.

JDEN

 

[lunatic core]

Well you are supposed to be using thier phone, and the selection is supposed to seem like thiers. Using a borrowed phone is the same as using a borrowed pack of cards or borrowed money. You take and give back the "props", and I think the effect is brilliant. They WILL think about you when using that phone, and probably will talk about it on that phone. Ringtone is an amazing concept that overshadows it's minor flaws.

 

[D ICE R]

This is the sort of things I have been debating in my head. A technology driven piece of magic should be used sparingly. Its a very slippery slope, for it to be passed of as a piece of magic it all relies on the patter and performance. I have several technology based effects, which I dont use often, only in the right circumstances. It also comes down to how you present your self as an artist. A mentalistic performer doing a magic trick with you phone would be viewed differently then a con-man or cheat doing the same effect. Much like if a cardician during a card magic performance randomly pulls out his phone and does a tech based effect. I believe tech magic is only good for an impromptu, spur of the moment, all round type of magician.

JDEN

I can see your point about using a piece of tech magic as a spur of a moment type piece. However this can create a huge gap in the practicality of an effect. I cannot remember who said it but 'To create true magic you must be willing to go further than anyone else, yet play it off like it was off the cuff.' This is how I see technology driven magic, this meaning that if you have done something amazing in an impromptu type environment how are you going to back it up later when you are thrown into it later (when you don't have the gimmick or you have to use someone else's phone). Even in my stage type shows I try to use my props in a way that is as natural as possible so for me to have a phone or camera on stage is fine but only if they are used for their intended purposes. That is not to say they are not gimmicked but they appear to be normal.

 

[D ICE R]

I am not saying that Ringtone it is not amazing concept or the reactions are weak. But I see the rational audience member knowing that there is some form of device used to change the ring tone. If they question that I believe that they can question the whole effect. I am primarily a mentalist so it is far to magic based for me anyway.

 

[JDENredden]

I can see your point about using a piece of tech magic as a spur of a moment type piece. However this can create a huge gap in the practicality of an effect. I cannot remember who said it but 'To create true magic you must be willing to go further than anyone else, yet play it off like it was off the cuff.' This is how I see technology driven magic, this meaning that if you have done something amazing in an impromptu type environment how are you going to back it up later when you are thrown into it later (when you don't have the gimmick or you have to use someone else's phone). Even in my stage type shows I try to use my props in a way that is as natural as possible so for me to have a phone or camera on stage is fine but only if they are used for their intended purposes. That is not to say they are not gimmicked but they appear to be normal.

Well for me I do tech magic on my iPhone, something I have on me all the time. And the way I have designed the tricks I do with it (iPhone iMagic), they can be done of the fly with a 2 second set-up. Only to have them examine the it after. So for me I can back up the tech magic I do. This is why I am apposed to gimmicks, I like doing magic on the fly with no hesitation. I dont have time to switch in and out gimmicks. Gimmicks or Gaffs are only useful in select environments. If I was approached to do a trick (that was accomplished with the use of a gimmick) I would say ''Well that was a bad trick, here let me show you something better) I would then go into another effect which betters the previous trick.

JDEN

 

[D ICE R]

The problem I see with that 2 second set up is that it is on your phone. If someone has an iPhone and you do something with yours what is really stopping them from pulling out theirs and asking you to repeat that effect or something similar. This than instantly makes them think your phone is gaffed and discredits the whole effect. Much the same way we are so bent up on doing routine's with borrowed decks of cards. Although with a little time misdirection you could switch their phone for yours and then switch them back.

 

[JDENredden]

The problem I see with that 2 second set up is that it is on your phone. If someone has an iPhone and you do something with yours what is really stopping them from pulling out theirs and asking you to repeat that effect or something similar. This than instantly makes them think your phone is gaffed and discredits the whole effect. Much the same way we are so bent up on doing routine's with borrowed decks of cards. Although with a little time misdirection you could switch their phone for yours and then switch them back.

You could switch out they're phone. But the iPhone iMagic is designed you dont need to, with a little more misdirection you can do the same effects with they're iPhone.

JDEN