We're All Liars

[magicman384]

I believe once we get to a certain point in magic, we can't seem to reach the disbelief as we did when we started, or even before we started. I think We should take a step back, and look at the big picture. Not all the little things, and cleanitude (yay! new word!), but how it looks to a person who has never seen magic, or has only seen it a couple of times.

Great Topic Steerpike.

 

[magicman384]

lol why u laughing? I mean why not study the people who are on top? so u can get on top aswell and not on the bottom u want to be on top. He has a tv show and a big big big big stage show so why not study?

So why not listen to him? More then to the guys at the lecture? who worked under him, not even on tv, just behind on some seasons of Mind freak. Listen to the star.

Please guys ask yourself, who should i listen to and study? People performing smal gigs and having lectures? Or a guy who have a tv show, a stage show and who has allot of money?

Is that sarcasm? Or Am I that non humorical (Yay! another new word! I'm on a roll)

 

[ThrallMind]

lol why u laughing? I mean why not study the people who are on top? so u can get on top aswell and not on the bottom u want to be on top. He has a tv show and a big big big big stage show so why not study?

Because there is nothing to study. Criss, ages ago, had an awesome stage show. ANYONE could have been the Criss Angel we know today. He got lucky as being the one picked to have the show.

So why not listen to him? More then to the guys at the lecture? who worked under him, not even on tv, just behind on some seasons of Mind freak. Listen to the star.

Buddy, people didn't really work "under" him. He worked under them. They made the effects to show which caused him to be famous. They directed him on what to do. He listened to them.

Please guys ask yourself, who should i listen to and study? People performing smal gigs and having lectures? Or a guy who have a tv show, a stage show and who has allot of money?

Ever notice there's ONE guy with a TV show and many who lecture? You tell me which has a higher success rate.

Criss couldn't lecture. It has nothing to do with him being busy. He couldn't teach anything, since nothing is his material.

Magicians who have lectures and "small" gigs as you call them are much better off then Criss. If they get a TV show and it is taken away, they are still respected. If Criss has his show taken away...he's nothing.

And you are telling me skill is based on if you have a TV show or not?

Enough of the stuff about Criss. As Doug said, back to the topic at hand. We are all liars.

-ThrallMind

 

[JetEyeNight]

Hey Steerpike, great thread! I could not agree with you more...

Many magicians/illusionists are so obsessed with demanding that every effect they perform must impromptu without a gimmick, for the simple fact they can end clean, that they actually avoid performing great effects, and miss out on so many magical moments they could have had, only if they had the courage to work on their presentation, instead of letting the effects speak for themselves. If they only would work on their presentation a bit more, they wouldn't have to worry about ending clean because people would be in such awe about the magic they performed. True magic comes from great showmanship, it shouldn't matter whether or you end clean.

Now I'm not saying that ending clean isn't nice, because it's awesome when you have an effect where you end clean. But ending clean shouldn't deter you from performing a multitude of great effects. Work on your showmanship, then you won't need to worry about ending clean. When you have the confidence, people will believe your lies.

A note on THREAD:

This is not a magic trick. It might be an illusion, but people will take it for a sideshow act. This was my biggest complaint about this effect. It's funny, when Wayne brought up the guy from Guiness World Records who can shoot milk from his nose, that's who I thought about the first time I saw the effect.

 

[Chase]

Ummmm. I believe part of Ben and Steerpike's point is if you work hard enough on your presentation/plot/motivations you should be able to end clean on 90% of what you do. Even if the "instructions" don't lead you there.

My two cents worth on lying would be this: We are all liars. Including the spectators.
My favorite pet stage routine is a bank night effect in which I never touch the props. It's all handled by spectators. What I love about it is that the method is ONE HALF TRUTH that I tell early in the routine. The rest of the effect relies on the fact that SPECTATORS WILL EFFECTIVELY LIE TO THEMSELVES if you let them. However, in order to lead them down that path you must spend the required time creating, testing, and sharpening presentation.

Awesome topic Steerpike.

(Another great example of a trick that is all presentation is the "Pot Noodle" trick by Steve Bedwell. Look it up. He'll kick your @$$ with a prop you all know well.)

 

[Chase]

Also, as an aside, if you take Thread and add a voodoo doll, a story about shamanistic healing, and some altered handling, it becomes a magic trick. A GOOD one.

 

[magicman384]

" An average person lies 4 times, during a ten minute conversation"

Something that kind of has to do with this topic.

 

[ThrallMind]

Also, as an aside, if you take Thread and add a voodoo doll, a story about shamanistic healing, and some altered handling, it becomes a magic trick. A GOOD one.

Agreed. Thread alone though...

I shall have to check out pot noodle.

-ThrallMind

 

[Steerpike]

Ummmm. I believe part of Ben and Steerpike's point is if you work hard enough on your presentation/plot/motivations you should be able to end clean on 90% of what you do. Even if the "instructions" don't lead you there

Not really, no.

No one has figured out just yet what I'm getting at. You're dancing around the message, but always keeping it just out of reach.

 

[ThrallMind]

Not really, no.

No one has figured out just yet what I'm getting at. You're dancing around the message, but always keeping it just out of reach.

Talking about using gimmicks and having to lie so there is a reason a spec cannot inspect a prop or a deck?

-ThrallMind

 

[Steerpike]

Talking about using gimmicks and having to lie so there is a reason a spec cannot inspect a prop or a deck?

-ThrallMind

Good guess, but no.

 

[FadedTemp]

If you really want to bypass a mere trick and make it truly magical for your audiences, being clean or dirty at the end of an effect shouldn't matter. You want the magic to happen within the mind of the spectator and to truly make it feel magical you don't want to go around telling them what is really happening. I feel that deception is an important key to make magic exactly what it should be and I think of it in and odd way.

I see you as the performer as the canvas, the effect is the paint and until real deception hits home all you're doing is throwing paint on what was a blank canvas, sure that may be appealing to some people but that's not the true goal you had in mind is it? You wanted to create something majestic and astonishing - add deception and I feel you've begun to paint a real picture... just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[aznofspades]

I think there is a similar subject about motivation and layers of deception in a magic trick in Darwin Ortiz's Designing Miracles.

I think what Steerpike is saying is that we should use are words the same way we would use a convincer to add a layer of deception to a magic trick.

such as-
miscalling a card
creating motivated misdirection
highlighting a condition

In regards to ending clean, it shouldn't matter. The trick should be convincing, your audience control should be good enough, so that they don't suspect the props. They have seen an effect without a cause.

The only way Thread could be considered a magic trick, is if on the thread, in tiny letters, it said "Was your card the 7 of Hearts?" lol

 

[praetoritevong]

This kind of relates to an opinion I share about the way the majority of magic books are written. I assume there are various instructional videos presented the same way. I've always disagreed with the way effects are usually explained in two distinct sections: methods and presentations. First you see what you actually do to make an effect work. You learn about the sleights and gaffs and modus operandi to make an effect possible. Once you learn its mechanics, then you get taught about the effect's presentation. Here is the context of the effect, this is what you say. ...I disagree with this line of thinking, because I feel it sends the wrong message. People will often spend hours, days, weeks on the method alone-- just reading exactly how to physically do the magic. Once they feel it looks perfect, they'll merely glance over the presentation, get its gist, and figure it's good enough to perform. Ultimately, it inspires halfassed storylines that no one will believe because no one ever put the work into making the presentation part of the deception.

I feel that what you say is just as important (moreso actually) than the moves you execute to make an effect possible. Words should be treated like tools-- just like gimmicked cards and gaffed coins and flash paper. The words should be used to construct vivid images in people's heads to emphasise key moments in an effect. Not only will it make the effect more dynamic, it will literally force spectators into believing they saw something more than they really did. For example...

Derren Brown: Re-gifting

Watch this clip, and think about what you remember. You remember Simon Pegg only talking to Derren over the phone once before. You remember Derren using subliminal messaging by scattering "BMX" throughout his patter. You remember hearing Derren (apparently) using basic NLP techniques to anchor a thought. Then you see the reveal and Simon is dually impressed and confused. Then you remember him insisting he never wanted anything else despite what a piece of paper said in his wallet. You remember Derren apparently exchanging Simon Pegg's desires for another gift.

That's the power of words.

This entire clip has so many layers of deception, and full credit should be given to its presentation. The FULL method to this piece (in my opinion) is nothing more than a simple billet switch. This is a prime example of how words and lies and patter should be used as a technique in magic. It shouldn't be separated on its own and merely labled presentation, because more times than not-- the words you say will leave a stronger impact on an audience than the moves you do. More attention should be given to presentation. It needs to be looked at with the same intensity as the physical method to an effect, because that is what it is. Part of the method.

So with that... I lie like a rug...

RS.

It's interesting because Andy Nyman does very similar things (which pretty much figures considering what he does) - I have his Get Nyman DVDs and they're filled with deceptions - rewriting the history of his performance, referencing the methods of previous tricks in current ones, etc. He does so many sneaky things you can't help but just laugh when you see it, it's absolutely fantastic material.

 

[visualartist]

*hands you a drink*

See, this is exactly the problem. The same effects are being revamped with new handling. New methdology, when the effect, in essence, is the same in the end.

Magic has switched from a performance art which bring pleasure, to something more selfish. Now, an effect is judged by the method, and by how it fools other magicians. Not by how it entertains spectators.

-ThrallMind

That is so true.
What ive noticed that alot of magicians here think that spectators know about effects or that because there are hundreds of videos of one effect being done that every laymen has seen it.
Sometimes we need to step away from these forums and other magicians and look at the people on the outside and just realize that it is so easy to lie to them.
They dont know about gimmicks or how far your actually willing to go to do an effect..they dont even know what your gonna do!
Stop being scared people.Dont be weak.
Magic isnt supposed to be easy.its not just some hobby.Its something that has
been around for thousand of years and takes years to fully master.

 

[Sean_Raf]

I know it's not neccessarily addressing your post Steerpike, but I think this is part of the reason magician's are afraid to lie.

http://forums.theory11.com/showthread.php?t=15024

Because if people started throwing lies amongst the truth in their routines, they wouldn't know the exact truth of the methodology. Heaven forbid they be fooled by something.

Everything has to be so clean they don't have to lie and so the method becomes more convoluted and so complicated in itself, that the effect gets lost and the only ones who understand the effect are magicians themselves.

I'm useless at expressing my thoughts in words... perhaps they're better off inside my brain.

- Sean

 

[4757joshua2]

I Aznofspades as hit the nail on the proverbial head.