Can Card Magic be More?

[Ben Long]

I've noticed a general trend of most card magic that is moving towards a purely aesthetic state. What I mean to say is that card magic seems to more and more be about demonstrating purely visual impossibilities than about true illusion.

Perhaps this is due to patter becoming nothing more than window dressing (I have heard it referred to as "mouth garbage" on more than one occasion).

Most notably, tricks such as those by Dan and Dave (Tivo, Queens, Subway) are more about what the spectator sees than they are about addressing the ideas and depth of other classic illusion. This is not to say that they aren't good strong effects, but simply that they seem to exist more as aesthetic entities.

My question is, can card magic still achieve the sort of magical depth that we see in effects like Paul Harris' Anything Deck or Classic Triumph routines? What gives an effect depth?

There are tricks such as Daniel Madison's Angle Zero that seem to have more depth in terms of questions that are raised when the magic occurs. Instead of someting cool to watch, the trick is treated as a physical anomaly, and therefore causes a deeper reaction.

In my opinion, a great deal of modern magic has cut out audience involvement and thus is less engaging.

I would love to hear thoughts, counterexamples, or anything else notable.

 

[KeenanG]

Most notably, tricks such as those by Dan and Dave (Tivo, Queens, Subway) are more about what the spectator sees than they are about addressing the ideas and depth of other classic illusion. This is not to say that they aren't good strong effects, but simply that they seem to exist more as aesthetic entities.

My question is, can card magic still achieve the sort of magical depth that we see in effects like Paul Harris' Anything Deck or Classic Triumph routines? What gives an effect depth?

There are tricks such as Daniel Madison's Angle Zero that seem to have more depth in terms of questions that are raised when the magic occurs. Instead of someting cool to watch, the trick is treated as a physical anomaly, and therefore causes a deeper reaction.

In my opinion, a great deal of modern magic has cut out audience involvement and thus is less engaging.

I would love to hear thoughts, counterexamples, or anything else notable.

Look at the card magic of Armando Lucero or Paul vigil, two very good friends, and watch their card magic. It will be some of the most amazing card magic you will see. They create wonder, and amazement that you don't see here.

Card magic, can, and still is, amazing, truely amazing. You just have to look for it and find the true masters of card magic.

 

[Mat La Vore]

In my opinion, a great deal of modern magic has cut out audience involvement and thus is less engaging.

I totally agree with you here. My favorite card effects are the ones that happen in the spectator's hands (2CM, Las Vegas Leaper, T&R Transpo.). Giving your spectator's some sense of control, and then still being able achieve what you want with your magic, just completely ups your credibility in the eyes of your audience, as well as engages them on a deeper level with what you are presenting.

This is something that is very important for me in choosing material for my repertoire. I want everything I do to be examinable, have strong angles, and have the magic happen with "borrowed" objects. This is not to say that this is how everyone's magic should be, but rather that this is all part of a style I am always after--that magic can happen with anything and that there is nothing to hide. I like the flavor and freedom that lends to my magic.

Also, I too notice a lot of card magic is leaning more toward "sit in awe and watch the magician." And there are plenty of really great effects in this "genre" of card magic, but I have to say, I think a lot of card magicians are leaning too much toward this style, and in doing so, are creating a bit of a divide between themselves and their spectators. Spectators love "feeling" the magic and being a part of it; to cut them out of that experience, I feel, is hurting what should be the most important part of the overall magic experience--a connection.

 

[Ben Long]

I totally agree with you here. My favorite card effects are the ones that happen in the spectator's hands (2CM, Las Vegas Leaper, T&R Transpo.). Giving your spectator's some sense of control, and then still being able achieve what you want with your magic, just completely ups your credibility in the eyes of your audience, as well as engages them on a deeper level with what you are presenting.

This is something that is very important for me in choosing material for my repertoire. I want everything I do to be examinable, have strong angles, and have the magic happen with "borrowed" objects. This is not to say that this is how everyone's magic should be, but rather that this is all part of a style I am always after--that magic can happen with anything and that there is nothing to hide. I like the flavor and freedom that lends to my magic.

Also, I too notice a lot of card magic is leaning more toward "sit in awe and watch the magician." And there are plenty of really great effects in this "genre" of card magic, but I have to say, I think a lot of card magicians are leaning too much toward this style, and in doing so, are creating a bit of a divide between themselves and their spectators. Spectators love "feeling" the magic and being a part of it; to cut them out of that experience, I feel, is hurting what should be the most important part of the overall magic experience--a connection.

Absolutely.

I am, in particular, drawn to the magic of Syd Segal. My personal favorite effect being Thank You Le Paul. Segal explains that the final change of the indifferent card to an ace.

"So far, the changes have escalated in their 'impossibility' with every phase. The first card was changed face down, the second face up, and now the third will be changed 'without even touching it...'The final Ace, in my experience, has the strongest affect on your laymen audience."

The idea that the magic can happen in the spectator's own hands is perhaps on of the most overlooked concepts in magic. Bringing them in is making the magic more real. Just because it is less visual does not make the effect less profound.

In fact, I feel that spectators can be more affected by what they necessarily don't see than what they do. That's why cards across routines work so well. It is not due to a visual discrepancy, but because of a mental one.

 

[Sean_Raf]

In fact, I feel that spectators can be more affected by what they necessarily don't see than what they do. That's why cards across routines work so well. It is not due to a visual discrepancy, but because of a mental one.

I agree, another example of this might be The Visitor - Larry Jennings. One card impossibly transposes from one half of the deck to the other, rather openly too; very nice effect, not the most visual by any means but yeah.

- Sean

 

[Ben Long]

A great deal of modern magic has become what I've heard Eugene Berger refer to as "stunt magic," wherein the effect becomes nothing more than a pleasant novelty with a deck of cards. Even with magicians like Ricky Jay, who openly admit to using sleight of hand, there is greater presentational value in what they perform due to the use of technique and patter.

In a lot of cases, visual directness can take away from the magical effect. I hate to use this example, but Criss Angel is a prime culprit, where the effects he performs are so outlandish that suspicion is immediately aroused. In, say, David Blaine's case, he uses less visual tricks to greater effect. Blaine is more convincing with the Two Card Monte than Angel is with slicing a quarter out of his arm.

 

[someone]

The part about the magic happening "in their hands"... That's why D&D's Card to Mouth is my favourite trick of theirs. And also why another one of my favourites to perform is "Card in Hand" on the Crash Course dvd from E.

 

[Ben Long]

The part about the magic happening "in their hands"... That's why D&D's Card to Mouth is my favourite trick of theirs. And also why another one of my favourites to perform is "Card in Hand" on the Crash Course dvd from E.

Actually, Hand to Mouth is a great opener in my opinion. I think that every safe point of contact you can manage to give your spectator exponentially boosts the effect of the trick. Every time they get a chance to be a part of the magic, it makes the overall experience more visceral.

 

[praetoritevong]

I agree Ben and Sean, with what you guys have been saying. I'd just like to throw out something else too, in terms of spectator involvement - that it doesn't necessarily have to be the spectator handles the cards literally, to count as spectator involvement; nonetheless, this is an important facet of magic. The first effect that came to mind when I read "spectator involvement" is Derren Brown's Zamiel's Rose. The spectator doesn't do anything but pick a card, and then watches for a little while what appears to be nothing more than a magician being very clever (and it is VERY clever). However, the kicker to the effect is amazing; in my opinion, the introduction into the effect, the story about the failed rose production, involves the audience just as much as any amount of physically handling the cards does. It draws them into the magician's world, they feel closer, but their involvement is in terms of their emotional hook, to the story and to the magician as a person who did something cute and sweet and human rather than just being someone who does cool things.

Just throwing that idea out there.

 

[Randomwrath]

Hmm reading this thread really made me think. I'm gunna sit down today and really make my act work to the best of its potential because of this thread. Thx very much guys.

 

[The Tumbleweed]

I think people are to busy searching for 'the' effect, when in reality, any effect they know can be the 'one'. I suggest everyone here go watch the beginner movie here on T11, it's very entertaining. By working on a few effects over and over, they are all you need. That's why I believe some card magic is not effective, because it is TOO IMPOSSIBLE and not engaging.
Just my .02

 

[neco]

i cant add anything but simple hits hard... its not the effect it self that makes it great but the presentation the patter and spectator management...

remember its not about us or what we do but what they see,think and feel... the magic is in their heads not in our hands.

thank you guys.... we should have more threads like this.... hehehe

-neco

 

[aznofspades]

Yea I agree with you.

I really wish that I hadn't bought the Trilogy and the System now, cuz as cool as some of the stuff is, it's just "look at me magic" instead of something engaging.

I'm trying to develop my patter so it's more than just a play by play of what I'm doing.

In Peter Harrison's Connected, he provides some of the best patter I've read because it draws the spectators in, and I'm trying to do that with the rest of my effects.

And Strong Magic, showed me how to build stuff into more, through presentation and other stuff.

Thanks, that was a really deep post. MOUTH GARBAGE!

 

[Ben Long]

One thing to consider is that people are always engaged with the question of how. I'm trying to engage my audiences with the question of
why.

I want them to wonder what it means for them to wonder. Try and make the magic more introspective.

I can't for the life of me remember who said it, but someone once said that anything that a spectator is shown in nothing in comparison to what happens inside their head. So in performing magic don't just consider what they see, but also what they should think. How has their perception changed as a result of your magic?

If you want to do your ambitious card routine fast, do it fast, but have a reason to do it that fast that engages the spectator in a way that they wouldn't otherwise be engaged. Extend the trick beyond the point that it simply exists as a stunt. Create real magic.

 

[Namie Ihara]

OMG I cant believe there are people that still think like that,what are you guys..50.You Old School Magicians have to realize that not only is magic changing but so are people.Everything has to change as people change is obvious.

Have you gone to the movies lately? Have you watched the Tv?Have you heard the Radio?Its all different now.The kids don't care about all the "Mouthgarbage"(great word XD) they want to see the action.I would rather see a magician like Dan Buck than some 50 year old fart that talks and talks.And Your comment about a fast Ambitious brings up a good point.

I saw an Old School magician performing the ACR and he took forever to make the card rise.He was lying through his teeth trying to insult the audience with his MouthGarbage.And The fastest and best ACR ive seen is Brian Tudor's.His ACR is direct and straight to the point.Just like the movies.

 

[Randomwrath]

For everyone with a copy of Derren Brown's Tricks of the Mind, I must direct you to the 'magic' chapter. It's full of the 'why' rather than the 'how' and very entertaining. For the less fortunate among you that have yet to purchase this book, get it.

 

[aznofspades]

omg I Cant Believe There Are People That Still Think Like That,what Are You Guys..50.you Old School Magicians Have To Realize That Not Only Is Magic Changing But So Are People.everything Has To Change As People Change Is Obvious.

[We weren't even talking about that. We're talking about making card magic more powerful for the SPECTATOR (not for the other magicians). That doesn't mean that we're adding tons of patter and making it boring.


Have You Gone To The Movies Lately?

Why so serious?

Have You Watched The Tv?

I'm rich, Bi-atch!

Have You Heard The Radio?

Now I Mean You Crank That Soulja Boy?

Its All Different Now.the Kids Don't Care About All The "mouthgarbage"(great Word Xd)

[color="darkred"Once and for all I want a solid definition of "mouthgarbage" Does it refer to all patter or just unnecessary patter? And how do you decide what's unnecessary
[/color]

They Want To See The Action.i Would Rather See A Magician Like Dan Buck Than Some 50 Year Old Fart That Talks And Talks.

[color="darkred"]The Bucks respect old school magicians like Lennart Green and Jerry Andrus. [/color]

And Your Comment About A Fast Ambitious Brings Up A Good Point.

I Saw An Old School Magician Performing The Acr And He Took Forever To Make The Card Rise.

He was building suspense?

He Was Lying Through His Teeth Trying To Insult The Audience With His Mouthgarbage.

Who was it? I want to see a video so I don't have to just take your word for it.

And The Fastest And Best Acr Ive Seen Is Brian Tudor's.his Acr Is Direct And Straight To The Point.just Like The Movies.

Brian Tudor's ACR has absolutely no spectator involvement. Although this works for a camera, it would be boring to actual laymen.

Word Count!

 

[OwnerM]

This is a great thread. Plenty of real discussion, except for what BrianGener....ah sorry, Namie Ihara said....

I have to agree that magic has to involve the audience. I don't think I'm going to say more than what's been already said, but part of the misdirection is to get the audience to be distracted from the "how" of the trick.

Derren Brown does this in an excellent way in his latest stuff: His patter focuses in on the "how" so much, it distracts you from it. This way, you watch the effect, you hear the his "how" patter and it leaves you not wondering how it was done, but wondering if you can do it too. He draws you into the effect like that. That's very involving.

On this very site, and I don't mean to pander, but the best patter I've heard was from "Believe", in one of the variations he has of the effect. There's one that I love how Joel Paschall draws the audience into challenging someone's perspectives by a simple change.

 

[Deechristopher]

Please tell me Ihara isn't brianationX in disguise

The writing is different, but the wording is the same.... What of this enigma?

D.

 

[FOO:L]

Please tell me Ihara isn't brianationX in disguise

The writing is different, but the wording is the same.... What of this enigma?

D.

i was thinking the exact same thing. come out come out brianation!