Hey guys so this thread is thrown more towards the more experienced performers and the cognitive thinkers out here.
So basically what I'm inquiring about is: how do you deal with spectators that have caught you out?
Before you answer, let me explain what I mean by my question. I am not referring to spectators who have just seen a bad flash or a terribly practiced effect but I am referring to the spectator with a little more knowledge of magic than your average laymen. I have never performed a trick that I have not perfected or an effect that is not sure-fire but yet I've still had questions about my effects that generally would not come from a typical laymen, I will provide an example with a Kevin James philosophical stand point, if a spectator can reconstruct the most complicated methods from the tiniest bit of evidence then they deserve to know, for which I share the same view.
Now back to my question, I would usually answer the spectator depending on the situation, i.e. the type of spectator. If the spectator calls me out on a card control for example, I'll usually just brush it off and avoid it but then again, if the spectator is genuine and if they some how thought that I controlled the card even among the most complicated false shuffles in existence, then I have no problem confirming their theories as I feel they deserve to know.
Again I pose my question thusly: How do you tackle a situation whereby a spectator has reconstructed a complicated method to an effect you've performed even though you performed it flawlessly?
What are your thoughts and theories on this subject? Hope to hear from you soon!
So basically what I'm inquiring about is: how do you deal with spectators that have caught you out?
Before you answer, let me explain what I mean by my question. I am not referring to spectators who have just seen a bad flash or a terribly practiced effect but I am referring to the spectator with a little more knowledge of magic than your average laymen. I have never performed a trick that I have not perfected or an effect that is not sure-fire but yet I've still had questions about my effects that generally would not come from a typical laymen, I will provide an example with a Kevin James philosophical stand point, if a spectator can reconstruct the most complicated methods from the tiniest bit of evidence then they deserve to know, for which I share the same view.
Now back to my question, I would usually answer the spectator depending on the situation, i.e. the type of spectator. If the spectator calls me out on a card control for example, I'll usually just brush it off and avoid it but then again, if the spectator is genuine and if they some how thought that I controlled the card even among the most complicated false shuffles in existence, then I have no problem confirming their theories as I feel they deserve to know.
Again I pose my question thusly: How do you tackle a situation whereby a spectator has reconstructed a complicated method to an effect you've performed even though you performed it flawlessly?
What are your thoughts and theories on this subject? Hope to hear from you soon!