Food for thought

[WitchDocIsIn]

I always see the idea that visual magic is the best bantered around amongst magicians.

Consider this: HP Lovecraft, the creator of some of the most cult-classicy stories ever, said (paraphrased), "Nothing you can show a reader will ever compare to what they can imagine is there."

What he is saying is that if you just give the seeds of the idea of a terrible monster and leave it at that, the reader will imagine something far worse than you could ever invent and put on the page.

Along that train of thought - Showing someone "visual" magic means they don't imagine anything, they just see it in front of them. Therefore, wouldn't it be more magical to simply plant the seeds of the idea of magic rather than try to show them?

 

[ProAma]

I agree but that won't capture their attention or interest unless for some reason all the variables in that persons life at the given moment add up by some possibility of them giving you the time of day. This only applies to walk around though. When it comes to stage I fully agree.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Why won't it capture their attention?

I perform strolling, parlor, and stage using pretty much the same material all around, just scaled differently.

 

[Justin.Morris]

Interesting. The visuals are stimulating, but leave less to be pondered. Perhaps this is why stage illusions have been so interesting to audiences for many years.
However, I wonder if that also allows room for skepticism. [With regards to covering a visual moment] Would you say Wild Levitation is better then say a well executed Balduccic type levitation (read: without cover)? I've done both of these levitation successfully with great response in the moment, but with regards to the audience afterthoughts, would they be more impressed with the former or latter?
Another thought is that perhaps we should be thinking of using this to our advantage where we use cover to misdirect from method and to amplify the 'magical moment'.

I wonder if there is a correlation with giving the audience a sense of control and their response too. Let them touch, let them choose, let them see. We can give them a sense of being in control without them actually seeing a visual moment, but I wonder if the visual actually enhances?

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

I don't think there's ever a general rule of "This trick will always get better reactions than that trick".

The reaction comes from how it is performed.

The impetus for this thread was people discussing openers and insisting it must be quick and visual. I generally open with a bit of conversation, and then my first effect for casual or strolling performances is one where a volunteer will feel an imaginary object in their hand. It is not visual, though it is fairly quick.

By all accounts, this should not work at all and people shouldn't get hooked by it - but they do get hooked and I usually find that it really gets people excited and engaged for my style of magic.

Regarding the amount of control relating to the reaction - I think that directly depends on the routine and how it's presented. It's just as easy to slow the pacing of a routine by giving too many choices as it is to remove their engagement by not offering enough.