theory11 — Magic Tricks & the World's Finest Playing Cards
A MUST READ! The 5th dimension of magic
- Thread starter iamspade
- Start date
Well there are 10 theories of magic :
1. Production
2. Vanish
3. Transposition
4. Transformation
5. Multiplication
6. Penetration
7. Restoration
8. Suspension
9. Levitation
10. Mentalism
We can't actually do magic, so pretty much everything that we can appear to do falls into these categories..... sometimes loosely.
I see what you're trying to promote... maybe some creativity, but the magic industry doesn't exist without performers, so we needs to make the things we create performable.
I agree that the same old plots have been done and re-done, but once in a while a new method for an existing plot changes the game.
I often give myself a challenge and think of one of the 10 theories of magic, then randomly select one item that a spectator would have on them at most times. Aka Wallet, Gum, Phone, Money etc ....... then I try and structure a new effect and method for that. It's just a creativity challenge.
P.s. I don't really agree with the analogy you used, but I do agree with the theme of your post. I used to buy loads of new magic, grabbed books, dvd's, new gimmicks, old gimmicks, deck of cards... but i'm only really interested in card magic sleights now, because there are hardly any new tricks that really interest me or get me excited lately.
1. Production
2. Vanish
3. Transposition
4. Transformation
5. Multiplication
6. Penetration
7. Restoration
8. Suspension
9. Levitation
10. Mentalism
We can't actually do magic, so pretty much everything that we can appear to do falls into these categories..... sometimes loosely.
I see what you're trying to promote... maybe some creativity, but the magic industry doesn't exist without performers, so we needs to make the things we create performable.
I agree that the same old plots have been done and re-done, but once in a while a new method for an existing plot changes the game.
I often give myself a challenge and think of one of the 10 theories of magic, then randomly select one item that a spectator would have on them at most times. Aka Wallet, Gum, Phone, Money etc ....... then I try and structure a new effect and method for that. It's just a creativity challenge.
P.s. I don't really agree with the analogy you used, but I do agree with the theme of your post. I used to buy loads of new magic, grabbed books, dvd's, new gimmicks, old gimmicks, deck of cards... but i'm only really interested in card magic sleights now, because there are hardly any new tricks that really interest me or get me excited lately.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, if we really could do magic, like Harry Potter and his friends at Hogwarts, I think that these are the 10 things we would do plus maybe 2 or 3 other things. Think about it. I agree that we're stuck in a rut, but I don't think that we need to find a new "category" of effects. The list is complete, except for genuine prediction of the future, and brewing magical potions to make people fall in love and such. I can't think of anything done in a Harry Potter move that can't be duplicated off-screen by one method or another, aside from the killing curse and the storing of ones soul in various objects.
(If you're not familiar with Harry Potter you may get lost reading my next paragraph, but it should make some sense.)
For example, in the second movie, which I saw last night for the third or fourth time, McGonagle transforms an animal into a goblet. Granted, we can't do it the same way she did, but we still transform stuff. Also in the second movie, Hermionie puts a sleeping potion in some cupcakes and tells Harry to make sure two characters find them. Harry does this by causing the cupcakes to float in one of the halls. (If you had the right drugs, this effect could be replicated entirely, but I don't recommend it.) Even the effect of being petrified (turned stone stiff) can be duplicated off screen via hypnosis. (I'm no expert in hypnosis, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Another thing, Ron tries to make Draco barf up slugs, the curse backfires and hits Ron instead. The resultant effect is similar to the endless production of eggs from your mouth, and I'm sure we could do the exact same thing if we were willing to put slugs in our mouths. Even magically destroying stuff without repairing it, similar to the effect of the the Reducto charm, is possible and rather easy.
I don't think were stuck in a rut because were to narrowly focused on the type of effects we do, I think were stuck in a rut because we don't apply what we know to more things. I'm entirely guilty of this, along with most of the rest of the magic community. Marco Tempest is the only magician I can think of who is actively pushing the boundaries of what can be done by combining the principles of magic with technology.
(If you're not familiar with Harry Potter you may get lost reading my next paragraph, but it should make some sense.)
For example, in the second movie, which I saw last night for the third or fourth time, McGonagle transforms an animal into a goblet. Granted, we can't do it the same way she did, but we still transform stuff. Also in the second movie, Hermionie puts a sleeping potion in some cupcakes and tells Harry to make sure two characters find them. Harry does this by causing the cupcakes to float in one of the halls. (If you had the right drugs, this effect could be replicated entirely, but I don't recommend it.) Even the effect of being petrified (turned stone stiff) can be duplicated off screen via hypnosis. (I'm no expert in hypnosis, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Another thing, Ron tries to make Draco barf up slugs, the curse backfires and hits Ron instead. The resultant effect is similar to the endless production of eggs from your mouth, and I'm sure we could do the exact same thing if we were willing to put slugs in our mouths. Even magically destroying stuff without repairing it, similar to the effect of the the Reducto charm, is possible and rather easy.
I don't think were stuck in a rut because were to narrowly focused on the type of effects we do, I think were stuck in a rut because we don't apply what we know to more things. I'm entirely guilty of this, along with most of the rest of the magic community. Marco Tempest is the only magician I can think of who is actively pushing the boundaries of what can be done by combining the principles of magic with technology.
LIES what many people fail to understand is that to a magician sure there are a finite amount of things we can do but to a spectator a small change in patter or presentation turns one core effect into multiple.
I don't see the point of this thread/article.
"A must read"? "The fifth dimension of magic"?
Man, you're giving yourself way too much credit.
You really think that you're the first one who thought about the art being stuck? You're trying to encourage the creativity with what, rambling about the things that you don't like or/and are wrong? All I could see in your post is negativity.
If you really feel how you wrote you feel, do something about it. More specifically, do something about it other than crying about how everything is wrong and stuck in place.
You're talking about forcing a mysterious new category of effects into magic, then as an example you name an effect that fits into a few of those categories. You're making no sense.
What you're forgetting is the fact that the spectators don't systemize the effects they've seen or heard about. I can perform a sandwich effect followed with a card to pocket effect and I can asssure you that they won't say: "man, this trick is essentially the same thing as the last one, except that the card ended up in your shoe, you're sooo stuck in the same category".
Perhaps pulling out a genuine Mac and installing Windows 8 on it with the snap of the fingers would be original enough for you? Which category would that fall into? None? Did I just revolutionized the art?
The purpose of magic is entertainment and amazement. Professionals practice a lifetime and they still can't master even half of the sleights that are used in magic (I'm not talking only about card magic).
Sorry if I sound too harsh, but I believe that you're just a hipster magician.
Either do something about the art if you don't like it the way it is or don't, but threads like this won't make any differece. Just recently a video game analogy was used on this very forums to describe essentially the same thing (atlhough the reasoning was different), so even this annoying cries about boring ol' magic are all the same.
So, what I would suggest to you or anyone else that feels similar and can't think of a way to revolutionize the art: work on being a better performer; Keep entertaining and amazing your audiences.
There's not much else you can do, except annoy the forums.
Cheers!
"A must read"? "The fifth dimension of magic"?
Man, you're giving yourself way too much credit.
You really think that you're the first one who thought about the art being stuck? You're trying to encourage the creativity with what, rambling about the things that you don't like or/and are wrong? All I could see in your post is negativity.
If you really feel how you wrote you feel, do something about it. More specifically, do something about it other than crying about how everything is wrong and stuck in place.
You're talking about forcing a mysterious new category of effects into magic, then as an example you name an effect that fits into a few of those categories. You're making no sense.
What you're forgetting is the fact that the spectators don't systemize the effects they've seen or heard about. I can perform a sandwich effect followed with a card to pocket effect and I can asssure you that they won't say: "man, this trick is essentially the same thing as the last one, except that the card ended up in your shoe, you're sooo stuck in the same category".
Perhaps pulling out a genuine Mac and installing Windows 8 on it with the snap of the fingers would be original enough for you? Which category would that fall into? None? Did I just revolutionized the art?
The purpose of magic is entertainment and amazement. Professionals practice a lifetime and they still can't master even half of the sleights that are used in magic (I'm not talking only about card magic).
Sorry if I sound too harsh, but I believe that you're just a hipster magician.
Either do something about the art if you don't like it the way it is or don't, but threads like this won't make any differece. Just recently a video game analogy was used on this very forums to describe essentially the same thing (atlhough the reasoning was different), so even this annoying cries about boring ol' magic are all the same.
So, what I would suggest to you or anyone else that feels similar and can't think of a way to revolutionize the art: work on being a better performer; Keep entertaining and amazing your audiences.
There's not much else you can do, except annoy the forums.
Cheers!
Last edited by a moderator:
Preach.
I do find it slightly disheartening that you think you're the smartest guy in the room writing this 'article' but didn't do the research or even been in magic long enough to know that magicians have long ago compartmentalised magic into 10 theories of magic. The reason every magic trick fits into those categories, is that anything outside the 'box' is normal. The only reason they are magic is because we cannot ordinarily do them. Given in the future most of those theories may become obsolete as, Transformations become the norm.
You also regrettably decline to give us an example of said out of the box and innovative thinking.
Another thing what exactly is the '5th Dimension of Magic'? Seem to have missed that point in your article.
Sorry to sound so harsh, but your article is disastrously flawed. Your intentions are good (I hope), but the execution not so.
J.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I'll try to be succinct and polite.
I wrote an article in college arguing with my 3D first person games were pretty much Pac-Man from a first-person perspective. Really consider that: You are in a labyrinth being chased by enemies. The online element has changed that somewhat, but not enough. World of Warcraft is a graphical implementation of MUDs, MUSHes, and even Nethack style games. These were online, networked roleplaying games that existed entirely as text on a screen.
Fifteen years ago, video games had evolved to include the Nintendo Entertainment system (directional pad plus four control buttons) and the Sega Master System. Don Bluth had long since explored full motion video in his Laserdisk based Dragon's Lair and Space Ace series. Your concept of video games, while understandable, is based on faulty assumptions, incomplete knowledge and thoroughly inaccurate chronology.
What does this have to do with magic?
Would 3D Realms have had as much of a foundation to work with in Wolfenstein 3D without Pac-man to prove early intelligence for their villains? Would a card through a window have had as much of a foundation to work with if people hadn't been stuffing things in agricultural goods first?
There is also a LOT to be found in "inert" magic that has been dusted over for no good reason - save that it wasn't flashy enough. Just as you seem to know nothing of Nethack or TELNET MUD software, there are tomes of magic you have also likely learned nothing about.
Please learn. Please step away from the flash and blow some dust off some old books. You might find yourself more than pleasantly surprised.
I feel like the 10 core categories pretty well covers it. I don't know what there is that could be done the WOULDN'T fall into one of those categories. Also, the same old effects have been done over and over time and time again for one good reason - they are proven to work, and if it works, its going in my show.
Music has been composed for centuries using the same scales. Stories written in three acts are as old as Greek tragedy, and still used to this day. In visual arts, things like how to draw things in perspective have not really changed since artists really got a handle on vanishing points and such.
All arts have limits. A poem can do things a novel cannot, and vice versa.
All arts have limits. A poem can do things a novel cannot, and vice versa.
If you have the EMC 2011 DVD's, the second DVD in the panel discussion discusses just exactly this. Well not exactly this, but creativity. A talk between, Gaeten Bloom, Marco Tempest, Eric Mead, Lu Chen, and David Berglas on creativity? Now, that talk was amazing. It inspired me to keep a notepad next to my bed so when I wake up in the middle of the night I can record my thought. (If you saw the panel, you know what I'm talking about) Of course when i wake up it's just a bunch or jargon, but then we take this jargon and piece it together one day.
I too talk to people in my local magic shop. One day I asked Simon Lovell, "What's more to do in magic? Are there more plots and categories?" He simply said "Yes, of course. We just haven't discovered them yet."
And hell, we went from being burned alive to performing for kids and corporate events, so we must've done something right, right?
I too talk to people in my local magic shop. One day I asked Simon Lovell, "What's more to do in magic? Are there more plots and categories?" He simply said "Yes, of course. We just haven't discovered them yet."
And hell, we went from being burned alive to performing for kids and corporate events, so we must've done something right, right?
If you have the imagination and the knowledge to move yourself beyond then, yes, do it. The creation of something new and wonderful is something I hold in higher regard than nearly anything else. If you can live up to your promises then - yes - you should without hesitation or concern for any of us.
But, I do say creation.
You came out swinging with tasteless self-promotion as a subtext. Plus, I don't know if you've been around these parts long, but threads like this shows up so often that they have become just another cliche.
My last note: rallying against so much as you have is self-defeating. Would you understand those principles if you hadn't studied what came before? You even bragged that you did your studying. If that study is what gets a person ahead then why, at the same time, discourage others from also learning about what came before? That knowledge is important.
That knowledge is very important.
I admire creation. I despise the desperate acts of destruction, as if your work can only exist if your audience dislikes other forms of magic. If your best is what you say it is then please don't screw it up acting like some neophyte who can only gain acceptance through insulting others.
If you have an original effect, promote it, build a career on it, don't write about how everything else sucks and how you're the messiah of a new age.
Considering the effect you mentioned, it would fall into the category of a vanish, and optionally restoration (since I presume you would restore that shadow), and everyone knows that's sooo mainstream! Also, even from that one-sentence explanation of an effect I can see a lot of presentational problems and could ask a lot of technical questions, but I won't because I just don't care.
Remember, the key is in creating something that will amaze and entertain the spectators as much as possible, not fool a couple of magicians and try to convince them to buy your method (I'm guessing now, although somehow I have a feeling you want to publish your effects).
A couple of months back, I watched an interview with Teller where he talked about a magician who showed him cups 'n balls and upon asking him where does he think the balls are, he said "ok, I'll bite, one's under each cup". What amazed him is that there was, in fact, a ball under each cup, so although to a spectator that's nothing special, to a magician that saw him doing the steals just a moment ago that's a complete fooler.
I hope you get the moral of the story and if you succeed in any way with your ideas I'll be the first one to congratulate you, but don't get ahead of yourself.
Nothing comes without a lot of hard work and passion.