-
Featured Tricks
NotarizedPHOENIXCandymanMagic 101Distancia -
Card Tricks
TNTDispositionPetroleumOmegaDouble Agent -
Coin Tricks
Perfect CentsMiRAGEALCHEMYCoinONETRIFECTA -
Cardistry
SpringThumb PropulsionFlickNB3Monument -
theory11 Artists
Blake Vogt Spidey Mathieu Bich Calen Morelli Jonathan Bayme Apollo Robbins Chris Kenner Dan Sperry Dan White Dimitri Arleri Ekaterina Jason England Justin Willman Luke Jermay Tom Isaacson Wayne Houchin Christen Gerhart Andy Nyman Dan & Dave Steve CohenMeet Our Artists
Can Card Magic be More?
- Thread starter Ben Long
- Start date
I don't even know where to start, but you REALLY have a lot to learn. And I don't just mean about magic.
Your cup is too full, young grasshopper.
I think explaining why somethng is happening is usually far more important than explaining how something is happening.
A lot of old school magicians use insulting patter to try and explain why something is happening, I find it painful to watch.
I have a great deal of respect to magicians from the past, we owe a lot to them and T11 wouldn't be here without them. However, I find many of their presentations to be very dated and ineffective on a modern audience.
While modern audiences may not be interested in bizarre and absurd explanations of how something is happening they certainly appreciate well thought out and engaging presentations. A good example of this is Control, Wayne Houchin offers no explanation of how he is achieving it but still draws everyone in and creates a very powerful and memorable experience for his spectators.
A lot of old school magicians use insulting patter to try and explain why something is happening, I find it painful to watch.
I have a great deal of respect to magicians from the past, we owe a lot to them and T11 wouldn't be here without them. However, I find many of their presentations to be very dated and ineffective on a modern audience.
While modern audiences may not be interested in bizarre and absurd explanations of how something is happening they certainly appreciate well thought out and engaging presentations. A good example of this is Control, Wayne Houchin offers no explanation of how he is achieving it but still draws everyone in and creates a very powerful and memorable experience for his spectators.
wow There is someone that actually knows what he is talking about.For a second I thought This site was filled with Old Folks that like to ruin good tricks by insulting their audiences intelligence.
3rd time lucky:
Namie, I think you need to re-evaluate your stance on 'old magicians'.
It's getting as tiring as someone elses view on it and not ever constructively argued.
Rabid
Brian Tudor would hate me. My routines are filled with what he, and you, would call "mouth-garbage." I wouldn't view it as such — my routines are crammed with geeky information or situations to which people can relate (and that serve as verbal metaphors to the magic). That is my style, because that is me. I don't know that I'll have a single ripple of effect on the magic world. But that doesn't matter: I look to my left, and see a coworker who thought one of my routines was so cool that they taped their signed card to their monitor. I'm confident that I get awesome reactions.
No matter what's coming in the future, the new wave of magic will have parts of the old with parts of the new. Magic without meaning is wankery. Magic that isn't done for the spectators' sake is a waste of their (and your) time. Magic with bad patter will be bad magic; magic with good patter will amaze, astound and leave spectators dazzled.
I shudder to think of the state of the world if Tudor-style magic was the wave of the future. Don't get me wrong — he has tremendous skills and could pwn me six ways to Sunday. But I don't feel mystified watching him. I feel like I watched a juggler, not a cardist.
I'm glad you think so. Now, try doing that in your posts, instead of bashing, name-calling and acting like a sophomoric wheeze.
Seriously, brothaman. Try acting like you're a part of the community, not a pariah.
My mistake, brothaboy. Review everything you've written, and you'll see why I'm simultaneously laughing and smacking my forehead.
It doesn't matter what your actual gender is — you are conducting yourself immaturely. Since you aren't refuting or discussing anything else, I accept your apology.
Please tell me Ihara isn't brianationX in disguise
The writing is different, but the wording is the same.... What of this enigma?
D.
Damn, you're right! We are foiled again.
On another and totally unrelated note, I just got The Classic Magic of Larry Jennings and it is quite frankly phenomenal. There are effects buried in there that delve so deep into a spectator's consciousness that they come out the other side. And while the magic isn't necessarily visually mind-numbing, it is very direct and appears very straightforward to a lay audience. It's not about shock value, but about subtle closeup illusion.
To clarify, I have always considered the term "closeup" to refer to a very specific category of magic. For instance, I would not consider a single effect on this site or at E to be closeup. To me closeup is a genre that brings depth to its illusions not just from the proximity to the spectator, but through the means which the spectator perceives the magic. As mentioned earlier, a great deal of modern magic seems to rely too much on shock value, which has its merits. Visual magic is certainly powerful but the extent to which something is seen does not define it to be good magic. True closeup magic seems to tap into something more intrinsic in humans. It is not reliant on visual discrepancies, but instead relies on the spectator's state of mind.
That doesn't mean one must necessarily meticulously describe a sequence of events as the magic happens. The most obvious counterexample is Raymond Joseph Teller (of Penn and Teller). He never speaks, yet this belies the true depth of what he shows to his audiences. Words really don't have anything to do with depth, though it is a presentational matter.
As I initially stated, it is a matter of engaging the audience. How you choose to do that is up to you. But I would try to stray from the approach that the magician is a television.
Because the magician is a person.
Um, OK.
You haven't really justified any of your arguments rationally here. I understand if it's a matter of opinion. Some people like "Shoot 'Em Up," some people like "There Will Be Blood." The former is visually engaging and fun to watch, but it doesn't engage like the latter. There's no real emotional hook in the first. And I honestly don't think that anyone can claim that Daniel Day-Louis is speaking in "mouthgarbage" (I hate that word--very obnoxious). Something can be straightforward without being blindingly visual. Straightforward doesn't just mean that something is fast. In magic, it represents that what seems to be happening is.
Don't get me wrong. Fast can be great. Just look up Paul Daniel's Chop Cup on youtube. It's good because it's fast.
In his book the Paper Engine, Aaron Fisher cites Lee Asher as saying that there different types of performers; diamonds and pearls. Both are beautiful, but in different ways (I paraphrase).
You argue that there is only one right way, which is not true. One needs to remember what they are trying to achieve.
This is by no means to say that one can't have both. They've just got to do it right.
Last edited by a moderator: