Spectacle or substance? how do you perform

[visualartist]

Basically I just wanted to discuss how and why we perform the way we do.
Some people like to think they perform with substance, where in fact its all spectacle.
Some try for substance and end up failing by thinking substance means becoming a form of dark and underground.
So how do you perform and why?
Do you simply go into the normal routine of "pick a card...check this out"?
Or do you meticulously prepare your routine to fit into something relatable and memorable with the audience?
And if you are a actual paid professional do you find an advantage or disadvantage in either form?

I hope this becomes a fruitful discussion and that this question can translate into anything outside of magic as well.

 

[TheatreHead]

Really glad to see you back man. Great thread.

For me, it really depends on a few factors.

-If I'm performing professionally in a walk around setting, it's purely spectacle. I'm make some tiny illusions to substantial things, but that's just for my character [You can't trust what you see, because the card you thought was the Jack of Hearts... is actually the Two of Spades]. In situations like walk around, you need to entertain as many guests as possible, so you just need to fly through your routines, which brings me to my next point.

-There is a cut off time with me when I consider performing for people. It's about 10 minutes. If I know that I'll have my audience for 10 minutes or more, I build substance as much as possible. Anything less than that is a bit of a stretch. Like, if I'm asked to perform a quick trick for someone's friend at a party, I won't bother prefacing that effect with questions about whether they believe in coincidence, fate, free will and all that, which are central themes to my longer routines. If I do know that I have them for an extended period of time, I feel comfortable being able to go full circle, by introducing the theme, doing effects according to the theme, and having a strong ending congruent with that theme.

-As for the Why There's two quotes that really changed my Magic. The first one is a quote from Derren Brown: "Who Cares?". I also read a similar lovely quote from Eric Mead: "What is the desired effect?".

I realized that the effect I was creating with my magic before adding any substance was simply entertainment. The reason for them caring is because I'd provide them with entertainment. Because other people said I was good. People were amused, puzzled, and entertained. But I didn't feel I was making a strong impact on them. Not that entertainment is bad, but there are a plethora of other fields that can elicit entertainment. Magic can do what other arts cannot: In can inspire wonder, amazement, thought.

When I perform my longer routines, my audience immediately cares, not because my friends said I was good, not because they know they're going to get entertained, but because the central theme and what I preface my performance with is a matter relevant to everyone. The control they have over their own lives. Everyone cares about the control they have over their lives. I challenge that and implicitly and explicitly state that they might not have as much control as they think. And that is the desired effect.

I consider one of my longer routines successful if my magic does more than simply entertain. If I cause my audience to consider things they'd never considered before, and think about things they've never thought about before, then in that performance, I reached my goal for my magic.


Did I mention how happy I am to see you back? We don't get many good threads like this.

 

[visualartist]

haha thanks man,real interesting response. I hope for more.
honestly i expected more responses than this. I thought we would have more thoughtful magicians than when I was here ages ago.
Maybe if I start a thread on what to buy or any new product id get a boatload of responses then.

 

[Jskwared]

I love posts like this that actually make me think. Honestly I don't have a whole lot of input, since I haven't been into performing magic long and don't have too much experience. I have, however, been constructing a couple of routines with a lot more thought into patter and such than normal for me. I've been debating over pretty much this issue; should I perform to entertain, or to try to make people "consider things they'd never considered before"?
Since I'm just starting to get the technical side of performing down, I hope to see other people's intelligent thoughts on this subject. To me anyway, this is more important than a thread on "what to buy or any new product".

 

[visualartist]

We also have got to think about what we do. We perform magic. Magic in of itself should be something filled with substance as it is. Every person grows up as a child watching films like Legend, the dark crystal, and pinocchio. They grow up with a form of magic in their minds and what it means to them. To some it means that there might still be some mystery left in the world.
And we can all have a piece of it for the price of an admission ticket.
In what way have others blended substance and spectacle? Films like The Matrix is the first thing to come to my mind. I trust no one can argue about that film blending both.

 

[Jacob L]

Going off what TheatreHead said, the way I perform varies a bit depending on the situation. I perform walk around magic on a bi-weekly basis at a restaurant, so I get tons of opportunities to try out new patter, performance styles, ect. I've found that depending on how my audience is reacting kind of determines how I perform, whether it be content or length. I usually open with a quick rubberband routine of CMH, 2 into 1, band through thumb, and then up the nose. If my audience is enjoying it and having fun, I then segue into a card routine. If they are kind of like "eh,ok..." Then after I snort I simply thank them for their time and walk away, they clearly were not enjoying it (as to whose fault that is...that's a whole new discussion.)

How I perform...hmmmm. I like to say I perform in a fun and friendly way, that gets people involved, and doesn't present the magic as a challenge, but rather as a way for all of us to have fun. I do my best to make the magic happen in their hands, because it's soooo much stronger that way. As for "spectacle or substance" I'm not really sure. Sure people like to say they are deep and work out every little kink in their act when they don't (guilty), but I don't think it's a bad thing to admit you don't do that, because that could give you the kick in the pants you need. I'm not sure what you mean by "substance" beyond "pick a card...here it is." TheareHead brought up his themes of fate, chance and all that, but does that seem "going too deep" like you said in your original post? I perform Anniversary Waltz whenever I can, because the reactions are great and it leaves them with something memorable. I've been testing out different types of presentations with the effect, and each one has garnered solid reactions. I think the whole "you were once on different paths of life" style goes pretty well, and that seems pretty deep too.

Why I perform. This will be two sections. One is why I perform, period. The other is why I perform the way I do.
I perform because I enjoy seeing the excitement in people's faces, or the astonishment one gets when they witness what just happened. I love seeing the reaction's and knowing "I did that." (Yes, I'm thinking of myself here.) I also love (always have) being in the limelight, having people watch me, know me, interacting with people. Magic is a great medium for that drive of mine, and I just have so much fun with it.

2. I perform the way I do because I want us all to have fun. I hate when people sit back after an effect and try to see how it's done or see how they were fooled rather than appreciate what just happened. I don't like magic being presented as a challenge of me vs. them, I like it to be me providing entertainment for everyone. They have fun and are amazed, and I get to bathe in the spotlight, it's clearly a win win for everybody.

 

[TheatreHead]

I perform Anniversary Waltz whenever I can, because the reactions are great and it leaves them with something memorable. I've been testing out different types of presentations with the effect, and each one has garnered solid reactions. I think the whole "you were once on different paths of life" style goes pretty well, and that seems pretty deep too.

This is great, because it's about the spectators themselves. It gives them a reason to care about the magic, apart from the fact that they're humoring you. It makes them genuinely care about the effect, and therefore the parts about themselves that they are associating with it. There's a lot of substance in that. One of the strengths of magic is that it involves the audience not on just on an intellectual level, but also an emotional level. (Like the Matrix).

You said before that you didn't like challenge magic, and I wholeheartedly agree. If magic is simply spectators trying to figure out your tricks, then they won't be able to appreciate the emotion and substance that can potentially be created when executed well.

 

[renome]

Magic can do what other arts cannot: In can inspire wonder, amazement, thought.

That's THE truth and the main reason I perform.

As for the thread question, I usually don't use a pre-learned patter because I like to improvise, both with my technical solutions and presentation. That's probably the case because I don't perform professionally, nor have I ever. I'm studying hard, trying to get through college and practicing magic is a great stress reliever for me, as well as a way to express some suppressed creativity (law school can suppress a lot of things in you). I enjoy performing and I usually keep a layed-back tone, serious, but relaxed. Of course that from time to time I like to go with substance, e.g. when I'm performing Stigmata or something like that, but since most of my focus are, besides cards, rubberbands, coins and some other ordinary objects, I just don't see CMH, Jacob's Ladder, a simple coin vanish or something similar as an adequate base for some ultra-amazing, reality-questioning epiphany. I'm not saying you couldn't pull it off, it's just that I don't see myself doing it in that manner.
To be clear, I'm not talking about card effects here, which I love the most because of that versatility when it comes to presentation of any, even the simplest effects.
Also, I would like to add that you don't need a profound and ambiguous patter to give your spectators that feeling of amazement and wonder, you don't even need a complicated routine! Just doing the ACR for instance: you do a DL, slowly put the card in the middle, square everything up, lift the deck to your head level, watch it carefully, slowly say something that's related to your previous patter (e.g. if you started with the "ambitious patter", you say something like: "now...let's try to...send some of my ambition to...amaze you...to your signed card..."), while constantly scrutinizing the deck like you're expecting it to grow a pair of legs and run from your hand, then you just make the top card pop with your thumb (kind of like a pop that you do with a Pinky count) to illustrate that the magic has happened and either tell them to check out the top card or slowly lift it up yourself.
What I'm trying to say is that I believe we should just act natural and present our effects in a way that gives that perfect balance of wonder and entertainment. Sure, I could make my eyes bleed and make them scream in wonder and horror, but what's the point of that?
Magic should always be entertaining and amazing, as it should also always install at least a tiny bit of wonder inside the spectators heads, while being enjoyable both to watch and to perform, and the means like sleights, gimmicks and presentation we use to accomplish that come second to the reactions, at least in my humble opinion.

 

[Jacob L]

This is great, because it's about the spectators themselves. It gives them a reason to care about the magic, apart from the fact that they're humoring you. It makes them genuinely care about the effect, and therefore the parts about themselves that they are associating with it. There's a lot of substance in that. One of the strengths of magic is that it involves the audience not on just on an intellectual level, but also an emotional level. (Like the Matrix).

You said before that you didn't like challenge magic, and I wholeheartedly agree. If magic is simply spectators trying to figure out your tricks, then they won't be able to appreciate the emotion and substance that can potentially be created when executed well.

Thank you, that's why I love this effect. I did it for two adults that I've known for a while, and the wife looked like she was about to cry after the card's "merged." That was an amazing moment.

When people say "I think I saw that....do it again." I immediately deny them because I know what their motive is, I even call them out on it sometimes. If you're just looking for something, there's no fun.

I like renome's points about how some effects just don't really need a deep patter. CMH can go in many directions (soft spot, illusion, secret combination, whatever) but it doesn't need something as profound as Derren Brown's "Enigma."

 

[TheatreHead]

You don't need deep patter or presentation at all, it's true. I've experimented with the invisible deck:

Me: Name a card
Spectator: 4 of diamonds
Me: *takes deck out of box, spread to the only face down card, gesture spectator to take the card*
Spectator: *lost for words*

You can perform it like this, which is fine, but depending on what your goal and aim is in magic, you may choose to perform it differently.

 

[Hastur]

Magic can do what other arts cannot: In can inspire wonder, amazement, thought.

That's THE truth and the main reason I perform.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. What? Which? Who? Whither, whether, whence?

What?

Look, I like magic. I love magic, and I love how it can make people think and feel, but saying that it's the only art that can inspire "wonder, amazement, thought"? To me that bespeaks narrow horizons. Literature, painting, sculpture, film, music - all of these are just as capable of inspiring thought and wonder as magic, and for you to say otherwise amazes me. Let's not get too proud of ourselves, shall we?

 

[renome]

He wasn't speaking generally, that wonder, amazement and thought reffer to situations the spectators question the very basics of what they believe in, when they really believe that they just witnessed pure magic, even if just for a moment.
I see your point and I also enjoy a good book, piano solo or chinese traditional music, but the amazement and thought they provoke isn't the same kind of amazement and thought magic makes me feel, whether I perform or just observe. The way I see it, each form of art generates different forms of satisfaction, sometimes only slightly different, but still different.
But I think we digress too much.

 

[TheatreHead]

Renome covered it for me.
I wasn't specific enough.

There's a different sense of wonder that magic produces, a one of not knowing. For a brief second in time when the audiences mind is scrambling to try and rationalize and make sense of what they've just seen, and try to make it fit in with their view of the world, that's the sensation I meant that magic produces that none other art can.

Just read the foreword of AoA volume 1, that's pretty much what I was going for.

 

[Jacob L]

That's what I'm saying, we don't have to have some deep and meaningful patter for every effect. Sure you can present the ID in many many many different ways, but the core of the effect is something impossible, and that's the main point. Magic is magic, if presented in the right way. I doubt our audiences sit there and wonder "I wonder how many times he's ran over this type of presentation." or "I don't think he was deep enough." They are there to be entertained and feel a sense of amazement and question reality for a little bit. That kind of experience is the one I want to give.

 

[visualartist]

That's what I'm saying, we don't have to have some deep and meaningful patter for every effect. Sure you can present the ID in many many many different ways, but the core of the effect is something impossible, and that's the main point. Magic is magic, if presented in the right way. I doubt our audiences sit there and wonder "I wonder how many times he's ran over this type of presentation." or "I don't think he was deep enough." They are there to be entertained and feel a sense of amazement and question reality for a little bit. That kind of experience is the one I want to give.

You assume that an effect with substance has to have a long script then?
And,so you think they can feel a sense of amazement and question reality from a magician simply showing a card effect or random trick?
I've seen alot of spectator reactions from the magicians who stare at their hands or just go into a trick after another and i never see a spectator go beyond "wow that was cool".
The spectacle we perform isn't an automatic substitute for substance. we have to work at that.
For example, two films that are great examples of spectacle and only one with actual substance.
Transformers and inception.
Transformers, you get crazy spectacle and lots of "woah!!!" moments. But does that automatically make people question their reality and have a GENUINE sense of amazement?
Inception on the other hand generally stayed in most people's head as something to think and actually wonder about how our psych works and what we can do in our minds. And it was a heck of a spectacle as well.

So by default is magic really filled with substance? Or does the magician have to make that effort on his own part for it to really be a genuine sense of amazement? Do we overestimate ourselves and our spectators reactions as more than just "that was cool" moments?

 

[RickEverhart]

For me it entirely depends on the mood I am in and what type of audience I am performing for. If is a non paid performance and people are casually sitting around at a party or something and want me to perform, then I will do a few quick things in more of a "hey check this out type attitude". I definitely don't stand up and start going into full blow script as if I were doing a stage show or small private close up show in a living room.

If I see that everyone is biting on it and wanting more and more, then by all means I slowly slip into character a bit more and bring out the more dramatic and longer routines. If I see that some of the people could care less that I am showing some magic, I just stop after the first two or three things and go back into just hang out mode and do NOT perform. I hate magicians that FORCE their magic on people because they want to.

Nice thread by the way. Not sure if I answered your question but those were just some ideas that came to mind while reading.

 

[Jacob L]

You assume that an effect with substance has to have a long script then?
And,so you think they can feel a sense of amazement and question reality from a magician simply showing a card effect or random trick?
I've seen alot of spectator reactions from the magicians who stare at their hands or just go into a trick after another and i never see a spectator go beyond "wow that was cool".
The spectacle we perform isn't an automatic substitute for substance. we have to work at that.
For example, two films that are great examples of spectacle and only one with actual substance.
Transformers and inception.
Transformers, you get crazy spectacle and lots of "woah!!!" moments. But does that automatically make people question their reality and have a GENUINE sense of amazement?
Inception on the other hand generally stayed in most people's head as something to think and actually wonder about how our psych works and what we can do in our minds. And it was a heck of a spectacle as well.

So by default is magic really filled with substance? Or does the magician have to make that effort on his own part for it to really be a genuine sense of amazement? Do we overestimate ourselves and our spectators reactions as more than just "that was cool" moments?

I guess I did, because to me it seems that to connect, it takes a little bit. I'm not saying that we need to talk for 5 minutes before we do anything, but I doubt many people could walk up to a group of strangers, and in 5 seconds develop some sort of intimate connection with them to get them emotionally involved in the effect (of course there are exceptions to this).

Sorry if my "magic is magic" quote got taken the wrong way, I guess I should have elaborated. Of course if someone presents a card trick as exactly what it is, a trick you won't get the best reactions. My go to card effect is Joker's Wild. I ask them if they know what a wild card is, like in uno or go fish or whatever they play, that gets them hooked and sets a realistic setting (unlike, "the cards have strange properties" or some out of the ball park rationale). When the joker changes into the selections, people's eyes widen, they stare, they give a little yell "What?!" they laugh, they turn away in amazement. I feel like it's the way I presented the effect (notice in my other post, I did say "If presented in the right way") is what garners those reactions. The magician makes the effect, not the other way around.

 

[Steerpike]

Don't want to see this buried.

For me, any performance has to pass two basic question similar to those Theater brought up. "What am I looking at and why am I looking at it?" If I cannot answer either of those questions from the audience's perspective, I don't use the effect or that particular presentation of it. Even if it's something as simple as a visual metaphor incidental to the script, that's still a motivation for the audience to see it.

 

[visualartist]

Don't want to see this buried.

For me, any performance has to pass two basic question similar to those Theater brought up. "What am I looking at and why am I looking at it?" If I cannot answer either of those questions from the audience's perspective, I don't use the effect or that particular presentation of it. Even if it's something as simple as a visual metaphor incidental to the script, that's still a motivation for the audience to see it.

So even at base level, when you are at the point of asking them "hey wanna see something", substance is automatically required then? From the audience perspective I mean. Like in a movie if they see a vin diesel they expect spectacle not character acting.
If they see morgan freeman, people automatically expect a great performance and character.
So which I think means, what the audience thinks of you and magic is what they expect from you?
If they see a kid in skater clothes fiddling a deck of cards they would just expect a spectacle, not even worth noting. Especially delivering a boring line like " wanna see a trick?"
But if you approach and take presence in the room and you say something along the lines of " I have something special for you..."
or anything like that then it should instantly make it personal and set you apart from any pedestrian magician then? The promise of substance is there before the trick is even introduced

 

[RealityOne]

There are (at least) three different schools of thought in presenting magic. The first is the Fitzke school of thought, which thinks magic needs to be dressed up to be entertaining. The second is the Paul Harris school which thinks that showing a little piece of strange is enough. The third is the Burger/Haas/Neale/McBride school which thinks magic can have a stronger meaning.

I see Fitzke as being wrong. Magic is strong enough on it's own to be entertaining.

I see no problem with the Harris idea but think that magic can be even more powerful with the right presentation. To me the spectacle presentation often ends up with meaningless say-do-see patter. It can easily become a challenge or be perceived as the magician showing off because there is nothing to focus on but the actions of the magician and the resulting effect.

To me, magic itself has a deeper meaning. It challenges our assumptions of what is real and what is possible. As magicians we understandably focus on the method (and keeping it secret or not flashing or not being caught) or the physical effect (which often results in the say-do-see patter) rather than the meaning. What does the fact that someone can do something that seems impossible mean to your spectator in their life?

Take the invisible deck. It can easily be presented as the spectator imagines a card and it is reversed in the deck. Impossible? For a moment, then the spectator shrugs it off as a "neat trick" or worse starts to focus on the method because there isn't anything else for them to focus on. Sometimes you have to ask "why?" Why do you do the effect? I'm not satisfied with "because I can." If that is the answer, then the presentation tends to be perceived as "look what I can do."

Think harder about the effect. How does the card get reversed? Was it something you did based on a prediction or premonition? Was it something that happened because the spectator imagined it? More importantly, what does it mean? Is magic just a throw-away, something to be used for a moment of strange and then tossed away or does magic have something more? I think that a lot of magic can relate to things people think about or feel in their lives. Magic is something people can relate to their lives.

How about this for an example of presentation to use with Invisible Deck / Brainwave Deck:

"Think about where you are right now in your life. You've gotten there based on decisions you've made as well as some decisions that were made for you. On a daily basis you can make decisions that affect your life. But did you ever think about the decisions that you didn't make? Who your parents are, where you were born even your physical characteristics. We try to convince ourselves that we have free choice in life, but the truth is the choices we can make are limited by the choices that have been made for us. Imagine a blue deck of cards. Now you have a free choice, to choose one card that you would like to have reversed in the deck. But it really isn't a completely free choice, it must be a blue card. I'm going to limit your choice some more by asking your friend here to choose a color, red or black. Black. Now you get to choose clubs or spades. Spades. Sometimes your choices are limited by things beyond your control - I choose a blue deck. Sometimes you choices are limited by prior choices - you've chosen your friend and they chose to limit you to the black cards. Sometimes our choices are limited by prior we've made - you've chosen the spades. Now your free choice is limited to 13 cards. Which of the 13 cards do you choose? The King. Sometimes in life we feel that our choices have lead us exactly where we want to be, but other times we feel like we've been taken down a path that we cannot control and we don't like the choices we are faced with. I believe we are free to change the effect of the choices we've made as well as the choices that have been made for us. Do you want to change your choice to any other card? The 10 of Diamonds. What about the color of the back of the card? Donyounwant to change it to red? You do. [I pull out a blue deck as I take the cards out of the case, I say] Imagine having your choice become real, imagine the 10 of Diamonds being reversed in this deck [show reversed 10D in a Brainwave Deck]. Did you imagine the color of the back? You choose red, right?" [Have spectator turn over card to see red back].

The presentation isn't too longwinded, isn't preachy, isn't corny and it gives a context to the effect. It also provides a strong emphasis that their choice of a card was truly free with out the usual "you can choose any card, I didn't influence you, it was a free choice wasn't it" blather.

Most spectators will choose a different card when presented with the option. If they don't, change the patter to make it meaningful to them.

The spectators will remember the effect as "the one about making choices where the card I chose ended up reversed in the deck with a red back." That type of recollection shows that the patter and the effect truly work together. When that happens, you give the spectator a stonger magical experience because the spectators can relate to how choices are made in our lives and they see something impossible happen on two levels: first, the card the choose appeared reversed with a different back in the deck and second, they did something that is often impossible in real life by breaking out of the idea that our choices are limited by things beyond our control.