I have often been called a move monkey; I learn hard moves and I work hard on making them clean. I learn hard moves for, seemingly, the sake of learning hard moves. On several occasions, this had led to discussions with people who are firmly set in the point of view that what you're performing doesnt rely on method at all, because the spectators dont care about the method. These people often insist that it is perfectly OK to double undercut for every top control or something similar. After all, magic is only about presentation, right?
I consistently tell people that in any given situation, we can use hundreds of different moves; there are hundreds of top controls to pick from. But we shouldnt look to use just any top control, we should look to use the perfect control for that given situation. Magic is very situational, and there is a perfect move for each and every situation. In order to be able to use and find this perfect move, I must learn hard things. It's not about doing hard things for the sake of doing hard things in performance... Its about doing hard things in order to preserve the illusion and make it look as perfect as possible.
I was recently re-reading (for about the millionth time...) Strong Magic (Darwin Ortiz,) and it reminded me of this discussion I often have to have with people. It actually basically talks about this exact issue. Let me quote it for a minute:
The last part is essentially saying that what control and what not that you use IS important because it setups up the trick, makes it flow nicely, clarifies the effect. Makes it a cohesive part of a larger trick. The first part is fairly self-explanitory.
I'd just like to repeat part of it to make it extremely clear: Remember, your job is the make things as easy as possible for your audience, not make things as easy as possible for yourself.
This is just a little food for thought for those of you who lack the dedication to work hard and strive for perfection in your magic. Work for it. You owe it to your spectators.
Cheers,
Lucas
I consistently tell people that in any given situation, we can use hundreds of different moves; there are hundreds of top controls to pick from. But we shouldnt look to use just any top control, we should look to use the perfect control for that given situation. Magic is very situational, and there is a perfect move for each and every situation. In order to be able to use and find this perfect move, I must learn hard things. It's not about doing hard things for the sake of doing hard things in performance... Its about doing hard things in order to preserve the illusion and make it look as perfect as possible.
I was recently re-reading (for about the millionth time...) Strong Magic (Darwin Ortiz,) and it reminded me of this discussion I often have to have with people. It actually basically talks about this exact issue. Let me quote it for a minute:
(Pg. 48)
The third reason for indirect procedures is that they often make an effect much easier. Unfortunately, they may also make the effect no longer worth performing. This is an uncomfortable fact that many magicians refuse to face. I recently read an article on presentation in a magic magazine. Along with some generally good advice, the author makes this statement: "Forget complicated magical methods, and seek the easiest way to accomplish the trick." The problem is that very often the complicated method is the easiest way to accomplish the trick.
[...]
In his version, the aces are palmed across, so the packets never touch. Magicians who are afraid of palming devised version in which the aces had to be continually gathered up only to be dealt out again for no good reason. The magician's job became easier, but the effect became less clear. Remember, your job is the make things as easy as possible for your audience, not make things as easy as possible for yourself.
[...]
(Pg 51)
A typical example is the magician who says, "It doesn't matter how you control the selected card. The audience doesn't care how you control the card. They're only interested in how you reveal it."
The fallacy in this attitude becomes obvious when you realize that the expository phase [set up phase] and the magical phase are exactly analogous to the setup and punchline in a joke. It's the punchline that gets the laugh, but it's not the punchline that's funny; it's the entire jokes that's funny.
To put it another way, the setup determines how funny the punchline will me. Imagine a comic who stood before an audience and only recited punchlines. Do you really think he's get lots of laughs? Do you think it doesn't matter what he says during the setup because the audience is only interested in the punchline? Not only is the setup necessary, the setup must be done just a certain way for the joke to work.
The last part is essentially saying that what control and what not that you use IS important because it setups up the trick, makes it flow nicely, clarifies the effect. Makes it a cohesive part of a larger trick. The first part is fairly self-explanitory.
I'd just like to repeat part of it to make it extremely clear: Remember, your job is the make things as easy as possible for your audience, not make things as easy as possible for yourself.
This is just a little food for thought for those of you who lack the dedication to work hard and strive for perfection in your magic. Work for it. You owe it to your spectators.
Cheers,
Lucas