Naturalness vs. Visualness

First of all i should say that i am always thinking about magic and what is effective, what is good, what is bad etc. And my views change every now and then. So i will never say something is this way or that way. I just give my current opinion. So feel free to disagree with anything and/or everthing. You won't hurt my feelings.

Actually the reason i'm posting this is because i'm really not sure how i feel about it and i want your opinions.

The title doesn't perfectly illustrate what i mean (in fact you probably think it means something completely different) so i'm going to give you an example of exactly what i mean now:

If i was going to really transfer a coin from one hand to the other (not in a magic sense but in an everyday "i need this coin in my other hand" sense) i would pay just about 0 attention to the action. I would probably be holding in one hand and grab it with the other hand without really thinking much about it at all. I might toss it into my other hand if i was putting it into my pocket or something. BUT i certainly would not do anything that looked like a retention pass.

Just imagine, i'm buying a burrito and the burrito guy (for lack of a better term) hands me a quarter in return. I take it from him with my right hand at which point i draw attention to my left hand and open my left hand and slowly place the coin into my fist which i then close and put in my pocket.
Is it just me or would that look very strange? (well that is essentially what a retention pass looks like)

ON THE OTHER HAND. The retention pass can look VERY GOOD. At least in the sense that it really does look like the coin goes into your other hand.

ON THE OTHER HAND (that's three hands for those of you counting) if i was going to make the coin vanish right after placing it into my hand (and i would argue that i/you/anyone would make it vanish right after a retention pass, or why else would i be drawing so much attetion to it) then wouldn't it be more natural to not have transfered it at all and to rather have just openly closed our hand around it? Now i realize that you can use you're good 'ol motivation stick (i.e. wand) or roll up your sleeves, or some other suitable action, while transfering the coin to motivate it but then why draw attention to the transfer? (as in the retention pass)

Alright, so if you're not as thoroghly confused as i am by now i'd like to know your opinion. Keep in mind that this was the only example i could think of and is not meant to be a disscusion on "retention vanish vs. more natural false transfer". I don't know if there are any other similar scenarios to talk about (with cards perhaps?) but if you can think of any others please bring them up because otherwise this will just be a disscusion of wheter or not a retention vanish is actually good magic.

P.S.
(you may have noticed that i use parenthases a lot. thats because when i'm writing i have a lot of asides and thats an easy way to slip them in. if it bugs you i'm sorry)
 
Sep 1, 2007
662
2
I don't usually participate in these theory/essay style topics, but this is an interesting and thought-provoking topic - what a refreshing change for these forums!

There's an awful lot to be said for doing the sleights without drawing attention to them. I think we tend to draw attention to things like false transfers (or the worst offender, double lifts!) because we're so bloody proud of them! We fall in love with the idea that we can make something look other than what it actually is and dammit, after all that hard work we want our audiences to appreciate it!

Watching David Regal perform card magic was a total revelation to me; he fooled me each and every single time and when I made it to the explanations section, I was even more astonished, because I knew every sleight that he used. The key to it was that he accomplished all the dirty work without drawing attention to it; unloading, switching, reversing all while he was setting up the premise for the effect. It didn't weaken the effect; on the contrary, it strengthened it.

I guess it boils down to the old principle of misdirection: what you consider important, so will your audience. Suffice it to say, I try and follow Mr. Regal's example in this area.

Cheers,
David.
 
Oct 29, 2009
971
0
Just around
I don't usually participate in these theory/essay style topics, but this is an interesting and thought-provoking topic - what a refreshing change for these forums!

There's an awful lot to be said for doing the sleights without drawing attention to them. I think we tend to draw attention to things like false transfers (or the worst offender, double lifts!) because we're so bloody proud of them! We fall in love with the idea that we can make something look other than what it actually is and dammit, after all that hard work we want our audiences to appreciate it!

Watching David Regal perform card magic was a total revelation to me; he fooled me each and every single time and when I made it to the explanations section, I was even more astonished, because I knew every sleight that he used. The key to it was that he accomplished all the dirty work without drawing attention to it; unloading, switching, reversing all while he was setting up the premise for the effect. It didn't weaken the effect; on the contrary, it strengthened it.

I guess it boils down to the old principle of misdirection: what you consider important, so will your audience. Suffice it to say, I try and follow Mr. Regal's example in this area.

Cheers,
David.
I know what your talking about. When I saw him live, he would talk throughout his routine, and wouldn't really call attention to any sleights. He did an interesting take on the ACR, and whenever he did a double, he wouldn't look at his hand until it was already turned over.

Back to the OP, I see what you saying and it's a valid point. Directness and naturalness is always a good thing. If the audience thinks that something happened even if they didn't see anything, it's just as bad as if they had seen it.

BTW, I use parenthesis a lot too:D
 
Sep 1, 2007
662
2
That example of the double lift is a perfect example of what we're talking about here. Rather than convincing them that you're turning over a single card rather than a double, just turning the card over THEN directing attention to its face means that no one in your audience is in a position to question the double in the first place; the question never arises until the dirty work is done.

Scarecrow - the ACR he did, was it the "puppy trick" by any chance? Love that presentation, but I think it only really suits his character.

Cheers,
David.
 
Sep 24, 2007
417
1
We could do both- retention vanish, but do it casually without looking at your hands. That way, its great to people who don't look at your hands, but still OK to those who do.
 
Oct 29, 2009
971
0
Just around
Scarecrow - the ACR he did, was it the "puppy trick" by any chance? Love that presentation, but I think it only really suits his character.

Cheers,
David.
Haha, yea. He was teasing the guy he had up there so bad, I couldn't help but laugh:D. I do think it really only fits his character too, but it's quite an interesting presentation, a very entertaining.
 
Good topic my friend. I never really thought of this before.

It depends on the audience, especially with coins. If they see a coin in one hand and you don't draw any attention to a retention vanish, they might go, "Hey, I thought the coin was in the other hand.

I guess as long as you don't put TOO much attention to the vanish like "Watch THIS. It goes into my hand...and now it's GONE." So I think naturalness wins.
 
May 8, 2008
1,081
0
Cumbria, UK
Naturalness. If you do something that they pay attention to, it is a link in the chain if events that can be reconstructed. If, however, they see the move but don't believe it to be of import, the chain is broken. If you don't draw attention to the transferal of a coin, nobody will remember it later, and then the coin has actually vanished. Watch Derren Brown perform some of his card 'conjuring' stuff and you'll see exactly what I mean.
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
Magic occurs in a person's mind, not their eyes. You can reach into your pocket or a bowl of change and pretend to pick up a coin and - if you are natural - the audience will be deceived when this non-existant coin vanishes. The key here is being natural. If the audiece jumps to 'you never had a coin' then you failed being natural.

People pick up coins all the time. We know what it looks like when they do it and we know what it feels like when we do it. We don't look at the cashier's other hand when they give us change.

Why?

Because they are natural - in technique and context.

So why do people look at the magician's other hand?

Because they are not.

And that includes both technique and context.

John Carney discusses this theory in his lecture. He uses the analogy of passing salt at the dinner table. How do you pass the salt? You grab it and pass it. You don't raise it, look at it, place it in the other hand, point to it ... You get the idea.

Technique without naturalness will never produce magic. They may not know what happened, but they know something happened and when it happened.

Naturalness without 'technique' (apart from being natural) can produce magic - anyone who has even been nailed by the non-coin coin vanish can attest to this.
 
i am really liking these answers. Shodan, which dvds are you talking about? the premise power participation (i think thats what they're called) dvds or a different set?

I really like your example of the double lift by the way. I have also been debating with myself on whether i should continue doing the vernon pushoff and flip it over or just flip the thing over. I feel like when i do the vernon pushoff i am drawing attention to something that should just be happening in the peripheral (like you said). And it probably is just my ego that keeps me doing it. I am proud that i can make it look like i am pushing over one card when its really two so i want to show it off. hmmmm im going to have to think about this.
 
Sep 1, 2007
662
2
I think that just about anything which you can do without thought can be delivered as a natural technique. Your vernon push-off lift may be a pretty technical move, but if you execute it flawlessly and it is a natural movement in YOUR hands, then why not?

The "naturalness" is simply you not attaching an inappropriate level of significance to the move.

The DVD set I was referring to was his "Tricks", "More Tricks" and "Enough With The Tricks Already!" set - this was my first look at Mr. Regal's work. I've studied the Premise DVD also and was very impressed - haven't got round to watching power or participation yet though.

Cheers,
David.
 
Sep 1, 2007
662
2
A decision I all but guarantee you wouldn't regret! I have so many favourites from those DVDs, and the teaching and performance tips are if anything more interesting and useful than the rest!

Plus, you get to see him perform, which is entertaining and educational at the same time.

Cheers,
David.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results