A new paradigm of magic and lying to Magicians

[Wyattsb]

How would total exposure of magic affect the art? Not only to amateur magicians but to laymen, what if the spectators knew what we were all up to? Magicians would be forced to create new and abstract techniques of a totally different kind to achieve the impossible. Those numbers of people who could perform magic would drop way down to a spare few, would this benefit the art? An example of this can be seen in ourselves, we see someone do a trick, and most of the time if we don't know exactly how its done, we can at least recognise the style of the technique used. what if laymen had that knowledge, we would only be left with those rare magic effects that completely and totally fool us. Would this be a good thing?

For the second idea I will use Mark, as he is a perfect example. He is commonly accused of using camera tricks and such to achieve his effects, what if hypothetically, he has been? Magicians believe him, laymen don't. Say he had been lying to us the whole time, provided he hadn't released anything, taking advantage of the inexplicable trust between magicians, doing what he can to make us believe him. Really all we're doing is believing in the impossible, which is all what we strive to achieve in others. Should the method used really ethically matter when the ultimate goal is to make them believe?

[Mark]

Those are some very deep questions in only those couple of sentences. Let me answer them one by one..

How would total exposure of magic affect the art? Not only to amateur magicians but to laymen, what if the spectators knew what we were all up to?

As magic is an art fully relying on secrecy, total exposure would affect it to the extreme. With total exposure, it would merely be trick entertainment, often even less so than juggling and other arts as in a lot of magic there are no physical skills involved (think of self-working and gimmicked tricks).

Magicians would be forced to create new and abstract techniques of a totally different kind to achieve the impossible. Those numbers of people who could perform magic would drop way down to a spare few, would this benefit the art? An example of this can be seen in ourselves, we see someone do a trick, and most of the time if we don't know exactly how its done, we can at least recognise the style of the technique used. what if laymen had that knowledge, we would only be left with those rare magic effects that completely and totally fool us. Would this be a good thing?

Yes and no. Basically this would only keep a very small part of the art alive while the rest will be destroyed.

First off, it will not just be about different kinds of techniques because if the effect still looks slightly similar, laymen will think you used a method similar to what they are aware of. Same counts for any new and creative effect that could be reproduced with the methods they know. This means most effects, even new ones, cannot be presented as magic anymore.

Secondly, there are a whole lot of great magicians who fully rely on other people's tricks, who work their asses off unlike many of the creative-minded magicians and magic inventors, and who fully deserve a spot in the art (like plenty of singers and comedians who don't write and perform their own material yet have made it their own and get famous with it).

In the end, it would only leave extremely creative magicians, or magic inventors who have others perform their creations. But even for those it will be difficult if laymen are fully aware of all the classic methods as they will be able to reconstruct each and every trick and illusion with their knowledge.

Should the method used really ethically matter when the ultimate goal is to make them believe?

I suppose Criss Angel would be a better example for this, using camera tricks and lying to other magicians the whole time.

Thing is that magicians don't see themselves or their colleagues as liars, but as manipulators. The only lies are when we merely confirm what the spectators think they already see, or if our spectators are slightly confused and want to get their minds around the situation, that we help them out. But if you start talking about things that are of nobody's worries (for instance saying "no camera tricks or stooges" while it clearly involved both), it is getting extremely unethical, not just lying for absolutely no reason but also ruining magic in general for throwing around methods no layman would ever have thought about on their own.

Of course people are getting more aware with technology anyways, but still a lot of them aren't and to actually provide those with actual methods is just not done. So in case you would want to fool whoever, just don't say you use video editing and what not. It's part of the magician's job to work around questions like that without lying in unethical manners. A good example would be Derren Brown's lottery prediction, even though Derren did flat-out lie for no reason here and there, also because the whole act was extremely flawed.

[OliveroG]

We must also consider the fact that the secret of the effect is not what makes it magic, the combination between the presentation, technique (This includes not only sleight of hand but audience management techniques, theatrical techniques, communication techniques and so on) and other factors is what creates that atmosphere where we don't really care about the effect, but to be amazed (Ascanio theory), consider for example Dani Daortiz, he uses the classical sleights in card magic (top change, palm, passes, classic controls, DL), and the BOLDEST solutions to known cardmagic problems, and he still fools the hell out of everyone, why? because he knows how to combine all the above in order to engage an audience into not caring about anything but the magic, even if they're magicians.

This particular scenario is repeated among magicians in the magic conventions, because in those very particular situations when we have the chance to see so much magic, we prefer to shut down the analytic mind in order to feel again what is to be a layman, this is the exact same feeling a layman have when he DECIDES (leaded by you) to accept magic and not to try to catch the method behind it.

That being said, i think that if everyone knew the secret behind everything, magic would still exist, but it will be limited only to the people who really took time and effort to explore not only the sleight of hand, but to actually study magic itself, and everything that goes with it. If we are able to shut the analytic mind of out audience, they'll feel magic no matter what.

[Wyattsb]

I suppose Criss Angel would be a better example for this, using camera tricks and lying to other magicians the whole time.

That makes sense, but I used you specifically because you don't use camera tricks and such, and we believe you, while Criss Angel does use them, and we don't believe him. I wanted an example of someone who did use these techniques, and we did believe them, so I went hypothetical.

On the subject of stooges, is there a difference between me flat out pre organising something for a sepctator to think of and how they will react when I 'read' their mind, and giving him a torn corner of a card to sneak into someone's pocket for a more powerful reveal when I 'tear' it off later. In both cases still only one person knows the secret, the experience isn't detracted for the rest of the audience any more in either situation.

---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ----------

Originally Posted by OliveroG

We must also consider the fact that the secret of the effect is not what makes it magic, the combination between the presentation, technique (This includes not only sleight of hand but audience management techniques, theatrical techniques, communication techniques and so on) and other factors is what creates that atmosphere where we don't really care about the effect, but to be amazed (Ascanio theory).

An excellent point, perhaps magicians would may even be purely rewarded not on the impossibility of the effect, but entirely on their performance skills, much more so than they are now, an interesting idea. I guess like what Mark was saying , the no technical skill stuff.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Wyattsb

On the subject of stooges, is there a difference between me flat out pre organising something for a sepctator to think of and how they will react when I 'read' their mind, and giving him a torn corner of a card to sneak into someone's pocket for a more powerful reveal when I 'tear' it off later. In both cases still only one person knows the secret, the experience isn't detracted for the rest of the audience any more in either situation.

Actually, using stooges to fool a bigger crowd with is fine (so not like Criss Angel having all spectators be stooges). However, if you "read" someone's mind, you will have to make it seem as if anyone could have been selected and it will usually help the act a lot to ask the selected person whether you know them or have met them before or not.

On top of that, they have to be good actors (proven by many, including Criss Angel and some hypnotists) as stooges rarely give a spot-on reaction, both timing-wise and reaction-wise, and therefore can easily destroy the effect. Then again, if the effect would not look nearly as magical or would be a whole lot riskier without any stooge at all, you might as well use them nonetheless.

Of course, using a stooge to sneak anything into someone's pocket always is more than fine.. and a lot safer if you consider the above factors.