Comments on: Magician Fooler?

By: Tony Chang

Tony Chang — Fri, 06 May 2011 19:54:36 +0000

test

By: gryph0n

gryph0n — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:08:17 +0000

What if you tell a magician that you are going to perform a magician fooler to him, but in fact you don't, you just use a simple principle and he has no idea how it's done because he pays attention to catch a secret move or smth….could we call that a magician fooler fooler?

By: Chad Rees

Chad Rees — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:22:01 +0000

I want to also add that calling ourselves magicians is, in my mind, dumb. I dont think there is anything wrong with calling ourselves slight of hand artists. Why bother trying to hide what we are doing by calling it "MAGIC" do we as "magicians" really believe that laymen then we are doing magic.

I have to think if you ask someone to define magic, they would say slight of hand in a matter of words. So why continue to fool ourselves just come out with it.

When people ask us "how did you do that" you might as well say, "fuck you" instead of "by magic". What would be so wrong with saying, "with slight of hand"?

By: Chad Rees

Chad Rees — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:16:07 +0000

I have to agree with your last statement, I don't think we should be showcasing our magic as superpowers. Because if we really has superpowers why would we ever touch a deck of cards. So it is not a bad thing when we fool a laymen or even a magician and they are impressed or "puzzled" as to how we accomplished that.

I think the only people who really think we are doing real magic are the same people who believe we sold our soul to the devil and they just don't use common logic for anything.

Anyways, more funny videos!

By: MichaelFeldman

MichaelFeldman — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:47:58 +0000

Agreed.
….except…. since all of our audiences already know that when we say "magic" we really mean "sleight of hand," I think we can just as easily call ourselves magicians and it means the same thing (and doesn't take as long to say

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:59:41 +0000

I have seen some effects that gets the "that's impossible" response rather than the "how do you do that" response. Isn't that what we should be striving for and should try to construct? Maybe the way routines are constructed should be thought about outside of the effect? What I'm trying to say that I find routines and effects where the layperson is not aware that what you are showing is even an effect until the effect happens at the very end. Better description of this is let's say you have started an intriguing conversation and using your cards to demonstrate your point but at the end it becomes an effect (pick whatever plot in card magic that may be applicable). So, maybe the question should be less about the actual effect and instead how the effect should have been presented or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass (which is quite magical in it's own right). What do you guys feel?

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:17:06 +0000

I agree but without that option do you, claim super powers, extreme dexterity, avoid the question, have a prepared answer, recite that a magician never reveals his secrets, perform logical follow up demonstration of what ever you claim to use till they don't say, "how do you do that." I don't feel a "fuck you" response cuts it unless you don't mind jerking around your spectator.

By: liquidsn

liquidsn — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:35:00 +0000

isn't anything less than telling them the real method a "fuck you"?

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:26:44 +0000

I agree with by saying "by magic" might as well be a "fuck you" but how would you respond to something that couldn't be explained via sleight of hand, like bending a signed coin.

I suppose calling it sleight of hand would make you look amazingly skilled but I think calling it sleight of hand can weaken interest by suggesting limits in a way.

I don't feel we can just say its magic but I don't feel we can just say sleight of hand either…

By: MichaelFeldman

MichaelFeldman — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:08:16 +0000

So about the second question regarding laymen.

I know a number of magicians who claim that if we admit to using sleight of hand, we defeat the purpose of calling it "magic." These magicians claim that we tell the laymen that the only explanation is magic.

I think this is both simplistic and ineffective when performing for laymen. The only 3 magicians I know who have really been successfully claiming that their work is true magic are John Edward, Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller. Do we really want to be any of them?

Moreover, I think lay audiences feel insulted if we deny sleight of hand. Most of our audiences aren't stupid, and they know the things are impossible. They know they are entertained by our presentations and our skill. If they thought we were really performing magic, I think the interaction would be quite different.

Also, if magicians feel they must deny any use of sleight of hand, I think you den yourself many very interesting plot and presentational ploys. There are some great presentations based on sleight of hand or audience perception, or even talking honestly about how people are fooled (see most of Penn and Teller's act).

Anyway, there is my 4 cents for now.