Artists VS Viewers

[WitchDocIsIn]

"every magician should have multiple tricks that are no longer than 30 seconds"

Oops. Good thing I'm not a magician, then.

Personally I do think everything a performer does should be aimed at evoking a particular response. Never do anything thoughtlessly - always have a point to it. Sometimes that point will be to break the tension with laughter, or slow the pacing of the show a bit to prepare for a serious routine, or evoke thoughtful silence for a moment or two - whatever. Shows need texture and every word, movement, and gesture should be used purposely to build that texture and guide the audience through the experience.

 

[RealityOne]

I am not going to have some inauthentic story about metal bending being a metaphor for "x" and trying to draw out some forced emotional "hook"

Completely agree. Most efforts at evoking feeling or emotion are exactly what you are describing and is why magic that evokes emotion gets a really bad rap.

how they describe it after will normally be (to borrow a phrase) the moment of astonishment, not the story that went with it

My experience is different. People have come up to me after shows and their recollection is a merger of presentation and effect. It typically goes "I loved it when you were talking about [insert presentation] and [insert effect] happened." I used to get into arguments on the Magic Cafe with children's show performers who argue that the quality of the magic doesn't matter as long as you are "silly." If you have strong magic, the right presentation can make it stronger.

I think it can also depend on the situation you are performing, if you are working walk-around at an event long presentation don't always work, and a more intimate show, even a parlor situation you have the space to expand the presentation at times

I think that probably is the key to our different approaches. I do mostly parlor, not walk around. Most of my routines are 6 to 9 minutes. I agree that walk around requires shorter pieces which have less presentation and are more difficult to use in evoking emotion.

I also don't think every presentation needs a specific "emotion" you are trying to convey, a generalized one even personal to you that the audience can interpret their own way also works well

I define emotion broadly -- humor, amusement, disbelief, thoughtfulness, pity, revulsion, fear, reflectiveness, joy, sadness, etc. If you can feel it or think it, I classify it as an emotion. The goal of a parlor show, in my opinion, is to develop presentations of magic that reflect the variety of emotions that we experience in life. This is the concept of "reflective magic" discussed in Robert Neale's and David Parr's The Magic Mirror. When you define emotion broadly, even the childlike joy of astonishment is an emotion. So, under my definition of emotion, every effect /presentation conveys an emotion. I agree that every effect doesn't need to have a POWERFUL emotion (love, sadness, grief, etc.) but every effect, whether we plan it that way or not, does convey an emotion. I agree that an effect can convey multiple emotions which the audience can interpret in their own way. To take it back to @MohanaMisra's original analogy, a painting can be interpreted at many levels.

Good thing I'm not a magician, then

I resent that.

Personally I do think everything a performer does should be aimed at evoking a particular response. Never do anything thoughtlessly - always have a point to it. Sometimes that point will be to break the tension with laughter, or slow the pacing of the show a bit to prepare for a serious routine, or evoke thoughtful silence for a moment or two - whatever. Shows need texture and every word, movement, and gesture should be used purposely to build that texture and guide the audience through the experience.

This. Exactly.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

I resent that.

I meant because I don't know if I have anything that takes less than 30 seconds to perform. My shortest routine in my show is usually my opener and those usually take about 2-3 minutes.

 

[MohanaMisra]

Fun Fact:- When I started learning magic, I had no idea there was this much to it.

Thanks Theory XI

 

[RealityOne]

I meant because I don't know if I have anything that takes less than 30 seconds to perform. My shortest routine in my show is usually my opener and those usually take about 2-3 minutes.

I know. I forgot to put the smilie after the post to show I was feigning being insulted.

 

[Liderc]

Oops. Good thing I'm not a magician, then.

Personally I do think everything a performer does should be aimed at evoking a particular response. Never do anything thoughtlessly - always have a point to it. Sometimes that point will be to break the tension with laughter, or slow the pacing of the show a bit to prepare for a serious routine, or evoke thoughtful silence for a moment or two - whatever. Shows need texture and every word, movement, and gesture should be used purposely to build that texture and guide the audience through the experience.

agreed, "Light and shade" tension and release, however you need to describe it, and not only "words" need to achieve it, again as an example, look at Blaine and others who take a minimalists approach to the performance, but that is not saying they are only giving it 50% or going through the motions they are using their entire "self" and the other person, as well as outside factors to create these moments, that come across as authentic because they are not "forced" (pun) they are arrived at

and that particular response could be as simple as pure astonishment, or a deeper connection.

 

[Liderc]

I meant because I don't know if I have anything that takes less than 30 seconds to perform. My shortest routine in my show is usually my opener and those usually take about 2-3 minutes.

I would say it also depends on the situation, performance venue etc

but we can take that further, how many "moments" are there and how much space between actual "magic" or I should really say "moments"

how many mentalists have we seen where the speak for 30 minutes and it ends up being an underwhelming "reveal"

how many magicians have we seen perform where the "patter" goes on forever and it the same as above

 

[Liderc]

My experience is different. People have come up to me after shows and their recollection is a merger of presentation and effect. It typically goes "I loved it when you were talking about [insert presentation] and [insert effect] happened." I used to get into arguments on the Magic Cafe with children's show performers who argue that the quality of the magic doesn't matter as long as you are "silly." If you have strong magic, the right presentation can make it stronger.

an argument at the Cafe... an argument with a children's performer... I am shocked

this is why I always have a lot of issues with "comedy magicians" a lot of them seem to try and apologize for their magic with comedy, it is one thing to not take yourself seriously (if that is your goal) but another to do so in a mocking manner towards "magic" and other "magicians/performers"... for lack of a better word (still learning English grammar apologies)


yeah, everyone's background and approach to performance is different, and that is what makes us unique, the fact that we can get varied responses means we are interpreting the magic how we feel/see it, and that should also be a goal, to use music again, artists that cover songs and reinterpret their own way is what makes it more authentic to them, you don't see a musician to see the same song being done the same way, but how they "perform it" especially live where there is room to expand and improve and use the experiences


Yes, Agree with the walk-around/parlor thing, my approach to my parlor acts are different from my walk-around and close-up, but I (personally) still take a more minimalists approach to it

me trying to force something like the ambitious card with a script about the genocide of my people doesn't really work

 

[RealityOne]

an argument at the Cafe... an argument with a children's performer... I am shocked

I see you've visited the Green Monster.

a lot of them seem to try and apologize for their magic

Agreed. When I was reading Fitzke's Showmanship for Magicians he seemed to be apologizing for magic by saying you needed scantily clad women in sequined outfits and music to make magic interesting. Every time I see a bad stage show, I blame him.

me trying to force something like the ambitious card with a script about the genocide of my people doesn't really work

One of my theories about magic and meaning is the idea of "too little effect and too much meaning." Many of the magic effects used to present meaning just aren't that strong. The effect is too little to sustain the meaning. Many of the presentations are weighed down by horrible attempts at emotion ("think of someone you know who died") or levels of emotion that outweigh the magic of the effect -- essentially too much meaning.

As an example of having the presentation be less to match the effect - I do Eric Ross's Election. One volunteer is given a red deck and the other is given a blue deck. The each put the deck behind their back, select a card from the deck and turn that card face up and lose it in the deck. If the couple is younger, I talk about the compatibility tests you can take. If they are older and have been married a long time, I talk about the secrets that make a marriage work. Then I ask, "do you think you are more alike or more different" or "is it better to be more alike or more different?" After hearing their answers (it is best where they disagree on the answer), I ask them to find the card they have turned over. The cards match. I then give my opinion that it helps to be alike in some ways but different in others. I remind them that one has a red deck and another has a blue deck and then ask them to look at the back of their card and then show the audience. The person with a blue deck has a red card and the person with the red deck has a blue card. The audience reaction is "oh that's cool that the backs of their cards are different" followed by an "wait...what? how?"

The other example is Lettie's Feather in Walt Anthony's Tales of Enchantment. The routine is a PK Touches routine using a feather. The presentation is about a mother and her young son separated in the Holocaust and how the feather reminds the mother of the son. PK Touches (when done well) is a powerful effect, incorporating the feather and the story provides it with a powerful context.

yeah, everyone's background and approach to performance is different, and that is what makes us unique, the fact that we can get varied responses means we are interpreting the magic how we feel/see it, and that should also be a goal,

I think we are both seeking the same goal and both using our individual strengths to get there. I think our discussions are really a perfect answer to the original question. Both approaches work when the performer is committed to focusing on strong magic and strong presentation regardless of how many words are used in the presentation.

 

[Liderc]

Yes, Stopped by the Cafe a couple of times, and it was Mostly Lorayne trying to sell every book he has ever written, the "established members" complaining about the "young magicians" and everyone using ******* for everything...

RE: your "Election" presentation, yes, to me, at times, a lot of "patter" or whatever you want to call it can get pure patronizing to the audience, yours is not too much, not patronizing, is conveying a certain path you want them to walk down with the audience and done in an authentic way, "connection" between people

though, myself, I stay away from "audiences performing the magic" is this instance and your routine/presentation it makes sense in an authentic/believable way

One of my theories about magic and meaning is the idea of "too little effect and too much meaning." Many of the magic effects used to present meaning just aren't that strong. The effect is too little to sustain the meaning. Many of the presentations are weighed down by horrible attempts at emotion ("think of someone you know who died") or levels of emotion that outweigh the magic of the effect -- essentially too much meaning.

yes, agreed 100%

I think we are both seeking the same goal and both using our individual strengths to get there. I think our discussions are really a perfect answer to the original question. Both approaches work when the performer is committed to focusing on strong magic and strong presentation regardless of how many words are used in the presentation.

100% this, yes, agreed

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

but we can take that further, how many "moments" are there and how much space between actual "magic" or I should really say "moments"

Depends on the routine, depends on the show. I also do story telling performances, with no magic at all, so I can hold a room with just words.

I've been thinking about my first solo show a lot lately so a couple examples from that. I opened with a 2.5 minute long recital of classic piece of literature, using Tarot cards as visuals to go along with the story. At the end, I simply put the cards into my jacket pocket. No trick at all.

I performed a living dead test that opened with, "In some cultures it's believed that a photograph captures someone's soul. In western culture we think that's crazy or superstitious. But what if there's something to it? Try this ... from your seats, if you'd like, close your eyes and imagine you're in a big room with a table in front of you. Now imagine there's a picture of the person you care most about on that table. And now ... imagine taking a big pair of scissors and just ... stabbing" *slaps fist into other hand* "that photo .. over" *smack* "and over" *smack* "again. Now I can tell by the expressions I can see the audience that maybe some of you realize pictures may hold more than they seem to. Let's take it a step further, with these ..." That routine is about 5 minutes long and, depending on how they respond to the imagining, two magical moments about 4 minutes apart.

The finale for that show had me talking about an interesting thing from history for 5 minutes, followed by a 2 minute routine which had one moment of shock/astonishment.

My shows are written to be kind of dark, theatrical, and thought provoking. As one reviewer said, "It's like a magic show but for intelligent adults."

I wouldn't say there's no rules. I would say, instead, that it's important to learn the rules so one can understand how to break them effectively.