What do you think about guerilla street magic?
- Thread starter kingdamian1
- Start date
All of this is my personal opinion:
If I were a layman in a "street setting", I would prefer seeing a guy set up a show on the street and go over and see it rather than a random person walking up and trying to show me something.
Guerilla magic is still good in a scenario like a party, a convention, or even a school, where you know that people do interesting things & that you will be talking to strangers. But it's kind of creepy on the street. Imagine a dude walks up to you and goes "Hey, you wanna see a magic trick? You got any money? Lemme see that coin. Quick, sign your name on this coin". To me, that's weird. Where as if you know that he is already performing, it is totally acceptable. DB had a full on crew with him, so it was clear it was for a tv show, and after the first special, he was pretty well known (both for the special and for the stunts he did). But a lot of guerilla performers (and not all) today have their friend holding a phone behind them, and they're performing a trick that they saw off of the internet or wherever.
Don't get me wrong, some people still do it excellently. Take a look at David Bonfodini, he does it all the time. The difference here is that he can pull it off without coming off as a random creepy guy.
If someone can pull it off, it's great. But when they can't, it's very strange to a layman.
As a performer, I'd rather go for a more controlled performance where the spectator's know I'm performing before hand.
If I were a layman in a "street setting", I would prefer seeing a guy set up a show on the street and go over and see it rather than a random person walking up and trying to show me something.
Guerilla magic is still good in a scenario like a party, a convention, or even a school, where you know that people do interesting things & that you will be talking to strangers. But it's kind of creepy on the street. Imagine a dude walks up to you and goes "Hey, you wanna see a magic trick? You got any money? Lemme see that coin. Quick, sign your name on this coin". To me, that's weird. Where as if you know that he is already performing, it is totally acceptable. DB had a full on crew with him, so it was clear it was for a tv show, and after the first special, he was pretty well known (both for the special and for the stunts he did). But a lot of guerilla performers (and not all) today have their friend holding a phone behind them, and they're performing a trick that they saw off of the internet or wherever.
Don't get me wrong, some people still do it excellently. Take a look at David Bonfodini, he does it all the time. The difference here is that he can pull it off without coming off as a random creepy guy.
If someone can pull it off, it's great. But when they can't, it's very strange to a layman.
As a performer, I'd rather go for a more controlled performance where the spectator's know I'm performing before hand.
Great insight above! Yeah it depends on how you approach people. I usually go for the “stand aside and do cool moves and see if they are interested then ask” approach.
As long as it's good magic, and it's done in such a way that the audience is happy to have seen and experienced it, I have no problem with it. A random moment of astonishment or wonder is great for us.
The only time I do have a problem with it is when I can tell someone is obviously missing the social cues that show the audience isn't actually interested, and they still force the performance on them. That puts a sour taste in someone's mouth for all magicians when that happens. I don't know how often that does happen, but I have seen it so I know it does occur.
The only time I do have a problem with it is when I can tell someone is obviously missing the social cues that show the audience isn't actually interested, and they still force the performance on them. That puts a sour taste in someone's mouth for all magicians when that happens. I don't know how often that does happen, but I have seen it so I know it does occur.
Of course I PERSONALLY like it very much, because it got me into magic and for ME is the coolest form of magic (speaking for myself here).
Whether anyone else likes it or not, guerilla magic has or is in the process of becoming the face of 'modern' magic. And we gotta accept that. David Blaine brought nothing less of a revolution in the world of magic thru his 'specials' and those specials
1) increased the common man's attention towards magic.
2) led to more magicians being formed (50% good thing and 50% bad).
So whether fortunately or unfortunately, guerilla magic, if not ALREADY, is fast becoming the definition of magic (after the rabit-holding-magician).
So we gotta accept it, just like we gotta accept a whole lot of change right now because of technology! Those who like it, good for them, those who don't, well...no offence, but their views don't really matter, because change is the only constant factor in the world...and if one doesn't like change, they are in for a rough life.
But I don't see WHY anyone should hate guerilla-style magic, tbh. I mean, it is just another form of magic, which has modernised magic, popularised it and enlarged it into more of a commercial setting while RETAINING magic's awesomeness. Also, it does NOT drive stage magicians out of business, instead it prolly increases the sales of their tickets and interest in their work!
So it is good for everyone. No one here really loses out.
So I love the modern 'street-magic' (not speaking about busking. I guess, busking has its own special place in the western world but...erm, not so much ALL AROUND the world). The audience loves it. TV producers love it. Magicians (prolly) love it.
I don't think it is doing anything that wrong.
So for me, it'd be really interesting to read the views of someone who actually hates or dislikes THE modern guerilla-magic.
Guerrilla magic is not new. It's been around for centuries.
Also I am afraid you're wrong about busking. For a very long time busking was the most common form of magic. In India, China, and Egypt it's still very common to see magicians doing street performances for tips. Watch Penn & Teller's Magic and Mystery Tour.
You do make a good point about this being the new face of magic, though. I don't think it is right now, but you are quite possibly correct that in five or ten years that shift will happen. Magic is more popular, and more accessible than its ever been. I hadn't thought about it before but you're right - there's a solid chance that moving forward the introduction to live magic will quite possibly be in a guerilla sense.
That's both good and bad. While magic is certainly more common than ever, it's still not actually common. The first magician a person sees live is still the ambassador to magic for that person. If that magician sucks, and that's more likely now than I think it ever has been, that puts a sour taste in the audience's mouth and they'll be less likely to engage in seeing magic in the future.
On the other hand, because there are more opportunities, there are more chances for magic to be redeemed. So that's good.
The reason I said it's more likely for a magician to suck, is because of that accessibility I mentioned previously. It's very easy now to decide to learn a magic trick, learn it poorly, and then subject people to that trick. There's no filter of having to learn from a person directly, or being forced to learn from a magic shop where the owner can kind of meter what you purchase.
Because of that lack of filter, it's up to each and every one of us to do our very best at all times. You never know when you'll be the one who will redeem magic in the eyes of someone who saw a bad magician before and thinks magic sucks. Further, you never know when someone has seen a great magician, and it's up to you to maintain that magic is awesome.
Also I am afraid you're wrong about busking. For a very long time busking was the most common form of magic. In India, China, and Egypt it's still very common to see magicians doing street performances for tips. Watch Penn & Teller's Magic and Mystery Tour.
You do make a good point about this being the new face of magic, though. I don't think it is right now, but you are quite possibly correct that in five or ten years that shift will happen. Magic is more popular, and more accessible than its ever been. I hadn't thought about it before but you're right - there's a solid chance that moving forward the introduction to live magic will quite possibly be in a guerilla sense.
That's both good and bad. While magic is certainly more common than ever, it's still not actually common. The first magician a person sees live is still the ambassador to magic for that person. If that magician sucks, and that's more likely now than I think it ever has been, that puts a sour taste in the audience's mouth and they'll be less likely to engage in seeing magic in the future.
On the other hand, because there are more opportunities, there are more chances for magic to be redeemed. So that's good.
The reason I said it's more likely for a magician to suck, is because of that accessibility I mentioned previously. It's very easy now to decide to learn a magic trick, learn it poorly, and then subject people to that trick. There's no filter of having to learn from a person directly, or being forced to learn from a magic shop where the owner can kind of meter what you purchase.
Because of that lack of filter, it's up to each and every one of us to do our very best at all times. You never know when you'll be the one who will redeem magic in the eyes of someone who saw a bad magician before and thinks magic sucks. Further, you never know when someone has seen a great magician, and it's up to you to maintain that magic is awesome.
"If you liked that one, I can do a great torn and restored banana..."
How about this one:
Oh wait, that was an orangutang not a gorilla.
Oh wait, that was an orangutang not a gorilla.
You guys would love Modern Coin Magic by J.B. Bonobo.
Of course busking still 'happens' everywhere in the world. But
a) It does not have the same level of 'liking' and quantity of audience everywhere.
b) Refer to point 'a'.
Because the buskers here are, well...SO stereotypical, that we would rather go and watch an repeat telecast of the world's cringiest show than there performance because, well...it's boring. Very. Much. So.
Buskers are DEFINITELY held in a higher regard in non-Indian-and Indian-subcontinental-countries.
However, the thing that interested me is...
You are saying the kind of street magic we know today, or a style VERY SIMILAR to it, actually existed decades before?
Cool!
Good thought.
Discrimination needs to stop!
We need to chimpion the cause of chimpanzees too!
I don't claim to be a scholar on ancient magic, to be clear. The studying I've done does tell me something though, and it's pretty interesting to me.
Back in early days of humans, shamans would use techniques similar to what we use, in order to enhance their rituals. Palming things, sneaking them into places, etc. Think psychic surgery more so than cups and balls. The sneaky techniques enhanced the chances that the ritual would work - placebo. Move on down the line of history and all forms of holy men took up the practice. You can find plans and such for temples in Greece and Rome that had magic effects built into the very building (The Secrets of Magic, Gibson), and oracles and such.
Continuing forward, until 400 ACE magic was directly linked with the occult and witchcraft. From 400 to the 1800s it was also linked with carnivals and circuses, until Houdin brought it onto the stage and into the parlor and made it respectable.
Now, I don't know specifically how much people were approaching random strangers, but there are references to magicians performing miracles for random passersby in a lot of the books I've read that talk about magic before this century. Not to mention, Paul Harris has been doing his wandering mystic thing for ages - he was a massive influence on Blaine's decision to focus his show like that.
Back in early days of humans, shamans would use techniques similar to what we use, in order to enhance their rituals. Palming things, sneaking them into places, etc. Think psychic surgery more so than cups and balls. The sneaky techniques enhanced the chances that the ritual would work - placebo. Move on down the line of history and all forms of holy men took up the practice. You can find plans and such for temples in Greece and Rome that had magic effects built into the very building (The Secrets of Magic, Gibson), and oracles and such.
Continuing forward, until 400 ACE magic was directly linked with the occult and witchcraft. From 400 to the 1800s it was also linked with carnivals and circuses, until Houdin brought it onto the stage and into the parlor and made it respectable.
Now, I don't know specifically how much people were approaching random strangers, but there are references to magicians performing miracles for random passersby in a lot of the books I've read that talk about magic before this century. Not to mention, Paul Harris has been doing his wandering mystic thing for ages - he was a massive influence on Blaine's decision to focus his show like that.
Hmmm...
As much as Blaine is viewed as the pioneer of modern guerilla (am dropping the joke abt gorilla guys...come on, it's a serious discussion, let us stop monkeying around) magic...I think his actual big contribution was fulming the audience's reaction rather than just his own hands.
I think that has become the staple for modern streer magic, atleast on TV.
Of course, this kind of street magic must have existed before sometime, I mean...there's nothing really new under the sun.
As was stated before, sometimes random people approaching you on the street is kinda creepy.
What I tend to do is look for people with fussing children, and walk slowly as I make my approach. What tends to happen is the parents are so grateful someone is distracting their kid that even if the kid doesn't want to see a trick the parent will goad them into it, resulting in a very easy transition from random person on the street to magician performing.
Of course, my young age might have something to do with this, but I am over six feet tall, so I don't think who you are or what you look like is a problem. Just my opinion.
What I tend to do is look for people with fussing children, and walk slowly as I make my approach. What tends to happen is the parents are so grateful someone is distracting their kid that even if the kid doesn't want to see a trick the parent will goad them into it, resulting in a very easy transition from random person on the street to magician performing.
Of course, my young age might have something to do with this, but I am over six feet tall, so I don't think who you are or what you look like is a problem. Just my opinion.
I'll be honest - when I first read this, I had a big ol' "double you tee eff mate" moment. If I had a child that was fussing, and a dude that's over 6 feet tall approached me, I'd be very cautious about that situation and I'd probably tell you to bugger off. But I thought, maybe I'm unusual in this. Maybe I'm being overly defensive - because I'll also be honest about myself, I'm a hermit and I don't trust strangers.
So I posted on FB about it, asking my friends who are parents, what they would do if they were in public with a fussy kid and a tall man approached them and asked to do a trick for their child.
The responses somewhat surprised me, but not a lot. About 1/4 of them said they'd be wary but let it happen just in case it cheered the kid up (Evenly split women and men). About 1/4 of them felt "shanky" about the idea - ie: very cautious, looking for a scam, borderline openly hostile (Mostly women, one man who is a former martial arts instructor). 1/4 said they'd prefer someone not interrupt a possible teaching moment with a distraction. The other 1/4 said they would take it on a case by case basis. So pretty evenly distributed, with what seems like a slight bias towards "OK, but I'll be watching you carefully".
Food for thought, and a lesson for me to be at least a bit less paranoid.
As I stated, I think part of my success with this method is the fact that I'm still on the young side (haven't graduated high school yet). That being said, I most certainly don't make a point of approaching every kid out there to show tricks, instead it depends on the family. If there is a kid throwing a temper tantrum I'm not going to approach because his parents would likely not be welcoming as a result. What I meant by "fussy" was pretty tame, I was referring to that kid who's bored out of his mind and annoyed while in line for something, and his parents are getting exasperated by his constant pleas for attention.
Hope that clears up what I was trying to say.