Bonjour, fellow warlocks, magicians, wizards, conjurers and rowdy hooligans. Whilst I would hardly say I'm new to these forums, it's certainly been a long time since I last posted, and then it was under a different name. I thought I'd make a clean start, and reintroduce myself with some jumbled thoughts, which will hopefully result in much raucous namecalling and other such kerfufflings.
A subject that I find especially interesting is that of whether visual magic is the way forward, or the bane of prestidigitators today. Certainly, 'visual' is the buzzword of the moment, with every other trick being billed with claims such as 'looks like trick photography' or 'spectators will scream when they see this'. Recently, I've been reassessing my outlook on magic, building my character, repertoire etc. from scratch, and a part of this is asking if there is a place for tricks such as the above in my routines. The idea of this post is to get you to do the same; question whether the magic you do is really suited to what you are doing. The most important thing to remember, however, is this: there is no right or wrong answer, as long as you are doing what you do for a reason. By all means VISUALLY TURNIP a spectators very own FAIRLY THOUGHT OF coin into a rabbit SIGNED BY THEM in a PREDICTED SEALED ENVELOPE if it tickles your pickle, but do it because that's the path you want to take the spectator down, not because it looks cool.
The Visual
I feel magic is an inherently beautiful art, or rather it has the potential to be beautiful. I remember watching a video of Lennart Green dealing cards onto a table, only to have them instantly vanish. Perhaps it is because it suggests something about the fragile nature of reality, making us doubt what we are seeing, or perhaps it is because it tells us something about futility; desperately dealing cards, only to have them cease to be before our very eyes, but it really was stunning. This, in my less-than-humble opinion, is magic at its finest. On the other hand, a coin-through-bottle routine, whilst certainly an equally visual and deceptive piece of magic, has no such beauty in my eyes. Whilst it confuses and tricks a spectator, there is no such questioning of reality, or deeper metaphoric behind such a routine (although this does depend on the magician. A good performer can make the worst trick into a miracle, just as a bad performer can turn the best trick into a disaster.) What we must ask ourselves is this: are we performing our visual tricks because they look impressive, and subsequently get a reaction from a spectator, or are we performing them because they express what we want our magic to express? Magic definitely has the power to leave an image in an audiences' mind for years to come, and I will definitely still remember Mr Green's invisible card deal when I am an old man, although I have yet to see a twisting card routine that has left such an impression, no matter how clean and visual the unruly cards' shenanigans were.
An Example
If you have not seen Derren Brown performing his routine 'Zamiel's Rose', I strongly suggest you go and youtube it right now. After telling us a story about a childhood sweetheart, he elegantly and sophisticatedly begins to pull a stream of cards from nowhere, one after the other. Quite simply, this looks as close to real magic as I can imagine. After this continues for a few minutes, one card suddenly explodes in a shower of rose petals, not only causing an emotional response from the viewer, but leaving a mental image that will be remembered for a long time to come. Whilst this routine is essentially eye candy, it is visual for the right reasons, and fits the suave, romantic image that is Derren.
The Non-Visual
Please note that this excludes mentalism. Whilst I have my own thoughts on whether or not mentalism should be at all visual or not, I shall save those for another day, lest I ruffle more feathers than necessary. This post is about magic.
There is certainly a place for a lack of visuals in magic too, though in my opinion, this is a lot more limited. There is a reason for this, and it is as follows: if I could do real magic, why couldn't you see it? If I could genuinely make one card change into another, why would I have to do it under my hand, rather than allowing the spectator to see the exact moment it changes? This is a sincere question, and if you have an answer for it, then by all means ignore what I am saying here. As I mentioned before, a trick is only as good as the performer that does it, and this post isn't asking you to scrap tricks because they don't fit my thoughts, it's only asking you to question why you do things. But I digress. The question remains; if you are performing magic, why can't the spectator visually see it happen? I personally feel that if a spectator doesn't actually see the magic happen, they will not truly believe it is magic. After all, unless they witness it, they only have our word for it being witchcraft, as opposed to plain old sneakery.
One routine that I think illustrates this point well is the classic card under box trick. Now if the spectator sits and unblinkingly stares at the box for the entire routine, this trick will not work for the simple and regrettable fact, mes chéris, that we cannot actually perform magic. If we could snap our fingers and genuinely make a card teleport to under a card box, why not ask the spectators to watch the box unfalteringly, or even hold the box? No, I am afraid the secret behind this trick is that the magician pops the card under its' snug little home simply when the spectator isn't looking. And no matter how fairly you perform this feat, in my experience, the spectator is going to realise this. They may still be amazed, but what you have done isn't magic, you have merely manipulated them. And this is perfectly fine, as long as it is because that is the route you want the spectators to take. Feel free to misdirect spectators all you want, and let them know that that is exactly what you are doing, and you will probably leave a longer lasting impression with them than if you spin some weak story about how the 'box is a transmitter for your teleportation device'. And of course, this doesn't just apply to misdirection, as the following example will hopefully illustrate.
An Example
I'm going to use another example by the fine Mr Brown, at the risk of sounding like I'm completely up Derren's arse (I am). His routine 'smoke', also on youtube, is an excellent piece of mental magic in which a thought of card disappears from the deck, only to reappear in place of a cigarette Derren was smoking seconds before. Now Derren could tell the spectator that he is going to magically make their card vanish, and although this would still befuddle spectators, they would probably feel like they had seen a puzzle to solve ('where did the card go? He must have done something with it.') Instead, however, Derren makes the spectator feel manipulated and question their own reality ('He must have made me think of a certain card. But how? He must have actually influenced my thoughts. Did I even really see the card in the deck, or was that his influence too?') The second scenario leaves a much darker and unnerving impression, and is overall a more powerful piece of magic than if we had actually seen the card vanish from the deck. The surprise production of the card not only resolves the trick, but further cements the confusion and feeling of manipulation in a way that simply pulling the card from thin air, or some other more visual production wouldn't have.
Final Thoughts
I've waffled enough. Whether what I've said makes any sense at all, or is the usual sort of meaningless ramblings that one comes up with at 2 in the morning is questionable, but hopefully I've given some food for thought. Although I touched on presentation a bit more than I meant to, the point I hopefully got across was that both visual and non visual tricks may have a place in your magic, as long as you are using them intentionally for their visuals, and not simply because it looks impossible. Remember, magic is much more than what you simply see. Of course there are exceptions to everything I've said here, which some infuriated young scallywag will almost certainly call me out on. I'll just leave you with one final example to ponder, and to form your own answers about, which hopefully you will subsequently apply to the rest of your magic, you artistic wee things you.
Imagine watching two different ambitious card routines. In the first, your card, the ace of spades, is fairly displayed going into the middle of the deck. Although you don't see any sleights or deceptive moves, the top card is turned over to be revealed as your card. In the second, the ace of spades is again fairly lost in the deck. The top card is turned over, but it is the queen of hearts. As the magician snaps his fingers, the queen is visibly seen to turn into the ace of spades, your card. As an audience member, what would you think when you saw these two routines? Which would appear more magical, and which would make you assume you missed some clever sleight? Which would leave a longer impression, or make you doubt what you saw more? Think about these questions genuinely, and see how it fits with your own style of performing, regardless of what it is you are trying to show the spectator.
A subject that I find especially interesting is that of whether visual magic is the way forward, or the bane of prestidigitators today. Certainly, 'visual' is the buzzword of the moment, with every other trick being billed with claims such as 'looks like trick photography' or 'spectators will scream when they see this'. Recently, I've been reassessing my outlook on magic, building my character, repertoire etc. from scratch, and a part of this is asking if there is a place for tricks such as the above in my routines. The idea of this post is to get you to do the same; question whether the magic you do is really suited to what you are doing. The most important thing to remember, however, is this: there is no right or wrong answer, as long as you are doing what you do for a reason. By all means VISUALLY TURNIP a spectators very own FAIRLY THOUGHT OF coin into a rabbit SIGNED BY THEM in a PREDICTED SEALED ENVELOPE if it tickles your pickle, but do it because that's the path you want to take the spectator down, not because it looks cool.
The Visual
I feel magic is an inherently beautiful art, or rather it has the potential to be beautiful. I remember watching a video of Lennart Green dealing cards onto a table, only to have them instantly vanish. Perhaps it is because it suggests something about the fragile nature of reality, making us doubt what we are seeing, or perhaps it is because it tells us something about futility; desperately dealing cards, only to have them cease to be before our very eyes, but it really was stunning. This, in my less-than-humble opinion, is magic at its finest. On the other hand, a coin-through-bottle routine, whilst certainly an equally visual and deceptive piece of magic, has no such beauty in my eyes. Whilst it confuses and tricks a spectator, there is no such questioning of reality, or deeper metaphoric behind such a routine (although this does depend on the magician. A good performer can make the worst trick into a miracle, just as a bad performer can turn the best trick into a disaster.) What we must ask ourselves is this: are we performing our visual tricks because they look impressive, and subsequently get a reaction from a spectator, or are we performing them because they express what we want our magic to express? Magic definitely has the power to leave an image in an audiences' mind for years to come, and I will definitely still remember Mr Green's invisible card deal when I am an old man, although I have yet to see a twisting card routine that has left such an impression, no matter how clean and visual the unruly cards' shenanigans were.
An Example
If you have not seen Derren Brown performing his routine 'Zamiel's Rose', I strongly suggest you go and youtube it right now. After telling us a story about a childhood sweetheart, he elegantly and sophisticatedly begins to pull a stream of cards from nowhere, one after the other. Quite simply, this looks as close to real magic as I can imagine. After this continues for a few minutes, one card suddenly explodes in a shower of rose petals, not only causing an emotional response from the viewer, but leaving a mental image that will be remembered for a long time to come. Whilst this routine is essentially eye candy, it is visual for the right reasons, and fits the suave, romantic image that is Derren.
The Non-Visual
Please note that this excludes mentalism. Whilst I have my own thoughts on whether or not mentalism should be at all visual or not, I shall save those for another day, lest I ruffle more feathers than necessary. This post is about magic.
There is certainly a place for a lack of visuals in magic too, though in my opinion, this is a lot more limited. There is a reason for this, and it is as follows: if I could do real magic, why couldn't you see it? If I could genuinely make one card change into another, why would I have to do it under my hand, rather than allowing the spectator to see the exact moment it changes? This is a sincere question, and if you have an answer for it, then by all means ignore what I am saying here. As I mentioned before, a trick is only as good as the performer that does it, and this post isn't asking you to scrap tricks because they don't fit my thoughts, it's only asking you to question why you do things. But I digress. The question remains; if you are performing magic, why can't the spectator visually see it happen? I personally feel that if a spectator doesn't actually see the magic happen, they will not truly believe it is magic. After all, unless they witness it, they only have our word for it being witchcraft, as opposed to plain old sneakery.
One routine that I think illustrates this point well is the classic card under box trick. Now if the spectator sits and unblinkingly stares at the box for the entire routine, this trick will not work for the simple and regrettable fact, mes chéris, that we cannot actually perform magic. If we could snap our fingers and genuinely make a card teleport to under a card box, why not ask the spectators to watch the box unfalteringly, or even hold the box? No, I am afraid the secret behind this trick is that the magician pops the card under its' snug little home simply when the spectator isn't looking. And no matter how fairly you perform this feat, in my experience, the spectator is going to realise this. They may still be amazed, but what you have done isn't magic, you have merely manipulated them. And this is perfectly fine, as long as it is because that is the route you want the spectators to take. Feel free to misdirect spectators all you want, and let them know that that is exactly what you are doing, and you will probably leave a longer lasting impression with them than if you spin some weak story about how the 'box is a transmitter for your teleportation device'. And of course, this doesn't just apply to misdirection, as the following example will hopefully illustrate.
An Example
I'm going to use another example by the fine Mr Brown, at the risk of sounding like I'm completely up Derren's arse (I am). His routine 'smoke', also on youtube, is an excellent piece of mental magic in which a thought of card disappears from the deck, only to reappear in place of a cigarette Derren was smoking seconds before. Now Derren could tell the spectator that he is going to magically make their card vanish, and although this would still befuddle spectators, they would probably feel like they had seen a puzzle to solve ('where did the card go? He must have done something with it.') Instead, however, Derren makes the spectator feel manipulated and question their own reality ('He must have made me think of a certain card. But how? He must have actually influenced my thoughts. Did I even really see the card in the deck, or was that his influence too?') The second scenario leaves a much darker and unnerving impression, and is overall a more powerful piece of magic than if we had actually seen the card vanish from the deck. The surprise production of the card not only resolves the trick, but further cements the confusion and feeling of manipulation in a way that simply pulling the card from thin air, or some other more visual production wouldn't have.
Final Thoughts
I've waffled enough. Whether what I've said makes any sense at all, or is the usual sort of meaningless ramblings that one comes up with at 2 in the morning is questionable, but hopefully I've given some food for thought. Although I touched on presentation a bit more than I meant to, the point I hopefully got across was that both visual and non visual tricks may have a place in your magic, as long as you are using them intentionally for their visuals, and not simply because it looks impossible. Remember, magic is much more than what you simply see. Of course there are exceptions to everything I've said here, which some infuriated young scallywag will almost certainly call me out on. I'll just leave you with one final example to ponder, and to form your own answers about, which hopefully you will subsequently apply to the rest of your magic, you artistic wee things you.
Imagine watching two different ambitious card routines. In the first, your card, the ace of spades, is fairly displayed going into the middle of the deck. Although you don't see any sleights or deceptive moves, the top card is turned over to be revealed as your card. In the second, the ace of spades is again fairly lost in the deck. The top card is turned over, but it is the queen of hearts. As the magician snaps his fingers, the queen is visibly seen to turn into the ace of spades, your card. As an audience member, what would you think when you saw these two routines? Which would appear more magical, and which would make you assume you missed some clever sleight? Which would leave a longer impression, or make you doubt what you saw more? Think about these questions genuinely, and see how it fits with your own style of performing, regardless of what it is you are trying to show the spectator.
