Move Monkey as a Pejorative?

[eostresh]

Okay so I just got the "Groove Electric Switch" download and really fell in love with this move. It just really "feels good" to practice. That said, I really don't have a lot of use for it in my repertoire right now. I'm sure over time I will slowly start adding it in here and there but, for the moment, I'm enjoying the pure mechanics of this move. So this all just reminded me that for a long time now I have freely admitted to being a "Move Monkey." Earnest Earick's "Apologia" in "By Forces Unseen" really spoke to me on a gut level. I love the mechanics of sleight of hand card magic!

Now I realize that to many people the term "Move Monkey" is somewhat of a pejorative term. I assume their reasoning is that people who spend too much time practicing moves never devote enough of themselves to learning the performance and theatrical aspects of the magical arts. I guess I just never saw the two on a continuum, but rather, two separate aspects of the same craft. Thus, there is the study of the mechanical side of magic, the sleight of hand and magical gimmicks you use to create the illusion, and the study of the theatrical side of magic, the character, scripting, and timing used to create entertainment out of the sleights and props you use. A magician can be poor at both, or good at one and not the other, but he/she could also be good at both. So when I hear magicians say things like, "You should spend more time studying theater and less time worrying about the sleights," I cringe a bit and think...."Why shouldn't a magician do both?"

So how many other "out of the closet Move Monkey's" are there? Furthermore, do any of you feel that your performance suffers from the time you spend studying the moves?

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

A 'move monkey' is someone that worries more about using difficult sleight of hand, rather than what may be the best to use in that instance. I, personally, adore learning difficult sleight of hand but I rarely use it in performance. In my regular performances I use the sleights that get the job done deceptively and easily. I think the most difficult thing I use regularly (as in, performing for laymen instead of jamming with magicians) is a strike second deal.

The problem I think you'll run into is that people who spend all their time learning the sleights without studying the performance don't think their performance suffers for it. By all means, learn difficult sleight of hand. The more skilled you are, the better you'll be able to do things more deceptively. But don't forget simplicity and performance. Some of the best performances I've seen, the most captivating and engaging, were done with the most simplistic sleights. Look at David Berglas. He basically doesn't use sleight of hand and he's a living legend.

The mechanics of the trick are only the beginning. Weaving an engaging performance is the hard part. You only have so much time to devote to learning how to perform. Sleights need some time, performance needs time. The more time you devote to sleights, the less you'll have to devote to performance.

 

[Geraint2k2]

Chris Kenner gave a great talk about this at the session.....About move monkeys and flourishing.

He said that it's things like this that move the art forward. Having great skill and being commercial are two different things.

Being a successful commercial magician isn't what everyone is aiming for. That's not the most important end target. Some people are happy to do enough to get by, but I personally take pleasure in overcoming challenging sleights and practicing them.

I'm a move monkey, but I think there is a difference between a performer and a performance, and putting on a show is different for everyone. Some people wear make-up and a costume to do card tricks .......... and I think that's wrong, but they are 'performers' and i'm certainly not that.

I don't do one anti-faro, manfred shuffle, one handed bottom palm, diagonal palm shift or groove electric switch when showing people my effects, but I love to practice them. There's nothing wrong with skill.

"Those who don't do it and those who can't do it are the same"
- Chris Kenner

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

I do agree that success is different for each person. As I said, I like learning difficult sleights and I think practicing very difficult moves has made my simple sleights more deceptive. Basically, it's like Aaron Fisher says about strength. By being far stronger than necessary, it becomes easier to do things that require little strength to do. By developing skills far beyond what's necessary, the easier things become even easier.

The problem I see arises when people think that those skills are all that's necessary to be good magicians. Those who are executing amazing sleight of hand with no real performance skill are giving a negative view to magic in general. Due to the limited number of magic performances people will see in their lives, every magician is an ambassador of magic. One bad performance may be 50% or more of the live magic any person sees in their life.

Now, as I said, there's nothing wrong with wanting to learn difficult sleight of hand and nothing more. I think that's just fine. My issue comes in when people do that then call themselves magicians. They're not magicians, they're mechanics. Their skill is admirable and I enjoy watching it (for a few minutes at least) but it's not magic.

 

[Austin Fields]

I think this is a great topic first off. Everyone has a different view of 'move monkeys' - but I think everyone also has slightly different definitions. So really quick I'll define mine; any person who has a fascination with difficult sleight of hand, with little regard to the efficiency or economy of the sleight.

I don't think it's derogatory at all. Now, I agree with Christopher that I do get tweaked when people that are only move monkeys reference themselves as fellow magicians. Magic is a performance art, thus to do magic, you have to perform it. I have a side of me that very much enjoys sleight of hand, also a side of me that enjoys the history of the art, reading etc. I think being a move monkey isn't a bad thing at all, it's just a dimension or branch of being a magician. People just happen to be solely historians, solely move monkeys, solely flourishers, which is great and normally (to paraphrase Garaint) advances that branch of the art much quicker than those who attempt to be proficient on all counts.

The downside being that people can get far too out of hand with the idea and mistake the 'branch' as the purpose of the art itself. As we've seen recently with the rise of the 'creators' generation, who (without the historic knowledge) have re-invented the wheel thousands of times and counting.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

There's certainly a dearth of desire to learn history lately. Well, I can't say definitively that it's a new thing, so I should retract that part of the statement. Maybe people have always lacked knowledge of magic history and it's just more evident to me now because I care now. However, I do feel like there's definitely been more emphasis on creating for the purpose of selling in the last few years. As I learn and think about magic history, it seems like in years gone by people cared more about creating a secret and keeping it than creating something to sell. It seems to me that a hundred years ago, a magician would search out one unique effect and work on it until they were known as the one that does that trick. They'd then keep that secret until they retired or died. I like that, personally.

It's just a personal opinion, but I'd like to see magicians stop worrying about creating the next big seller and worry about learning how to create truly magical experiences for their spectators. But that's veering wildly off topic here.

I support the idea of learning difficult sleight of hand. I've worked on sleights for over a year before showing anyone, and I find that to be very satisfying. The only problem I have with it is when people think that learning those crazy difficult sleights is enough. As long as you balance it with solid performance skills, I say go for it!

To add something more than simply repeating myself, there's a book titled Magic by William Goldman. It's about a guy that's a brilliant technician, but sucks as a performer until something happens. Don't want to give away the plot, it's a pretty decent book. I recommend it to magicians because it gives an insight into what a lot of people do wrong.

Spectators don't care about how hard a move is. They shouldn't even realize it is hard. The whole point is to seem like you're not doing anything (or, to make it seem like you're trying very hard to do something completely different). The most magical things I've seen were magical because it seemed so impossible. There were no moments where the performer could have been doing a sleight or whatever.