Once again to everyone, sorry for the lack of updates. For the last 2 weeks I had to take on a 2nd job. It is very demanding. Take a look.
Now on to a real topic that always bothered me. Sleight of hand vs Gimmicks. Magic has an inherent problem when it comes to effect/method. If the trick is done well the method should not be obvious to the laymen. So it begs to ask the question, does that mean that you can do ANYTHING as long as the effect stays the same?
Case and point. You can’t palm cards worth shit because you don’t practice. Is it okay for you to put double stick tape onto your palm and perform the effect as long as the effect looks the same?
Where is the line between putting effort into the art and short cuts. Now I guess calling Gimmicks a “short cut” is very negative but sometimes I really do feel that way.
A long time ago I was arguing with a magician about this subject. He told me that since the audience never knows the method, you can use as much gimmicks as you want because it will make it easier on you as a performer. Now that bothered me. I said back to him that even though the laymen never knows your method, it is still upon you to put some fucking effort into your craft and hone the skills.
He told me that doing that is masturbatory and just impressing yourself as a move monkey.
That hit me pretty hard. What he said was true. If they never know the method and the EFFECT is the same weither you do only sleight of hand or use only gimmicks, then does it make a difference what you do in your method?
I thought about it for a while and then it hit me a week later. This sounds really fucked up, but some how child labor came into mind. Think about buying a pair of jeans. Lets say that you get the same product if you had Americans working in a shop making minimum wage and also the same thing by giving it to some kid in India making only 1 dollar a day. Now, the END product is the same but the METHOD is different. The only difference here is that the clothing company can go public and tell everyone that they are legit like American Apparel. In magic, we can’t. The secret can’t be given away. So to me it’s more of a ethics question. Which is quite ironic since in magic we are lying through our teeth.
What really bothers me is the way that coin magic is becoming today. It seems when I started out, using an extra coin was all you needed in a coins across. Now it seems you can only do coin magic if you have a Triple Threat as a starting point. When did we start getting so lazy?
I’m sure there will be many people that will argue that gimmicks only come into the picture when we can’t go any further with sleight of hand. The reason we use shells is because it gives a better illusion that no sleight of hand could. I will agree with that. Granted I think the line is 80% sleight of hand 20% gimmicks.
I guess the picture I’m trying to paint here is put effort into your magic. It pisses me off when people say you should concentrate more on the presentation than the method. I would think you should consider both equally. Usually people who tell me this bullshit are shitty magicians to begin with. I have talked to someone who says the above and then tried to argue that the slip force, which he does horribly, is better than the classic force… I would say that his opinion isn’t so high on my list. Maybe it was because he did MagicK, not magic…
So my final thoughts. Work on your craft. Don’t be a pussy and use gimmicks all the time.
Next posting will be a video of me teaching you guys the opener that I use all the time. Thanks for keeping this stupid blog alive.
-Tony
sato
You make a good point. One thing that I tend to think about when on this topic is, are we talking about Magic as a performer, or Magic as an artist. Now, as a Performer, I can see various justification for throwing in a few gimmicks here and there. Now… I wouldn't go as far as using a 1 way force deck for my ACR, but an invisible deck has its purposes. Now, on the other hand, I have seen Justin Hanes of Beaverton do an entire Svengali deck routine… with a regular deck of cards. I guess my point is… sometimes Gimmicks = a lazy man's shortcut, and sometimes Gimmicks = plainly the best method to the effect (Invisible deck).
Some people do take it too far though… expecting magic to be a "you buy it, you open it, you perform it" type hobby. As you can see in a lot of the tivo 2.0 variations where the creator puts in the title "improved version… better handling…" and they totally cop out doing the simplist shit (horribly I might add) because they can't to the cardini snap change variation.
But yeah… to the person that says a slip force is better than a classic force… HAHA. Yeah, anyway.
Spencer Peterson
I wonder what your roomate has to say about this.
Tobelli
I believe using a gimmick that could be replaced by a sleight (double sided tape could be replaced with a top palm) is laziness.
Although the result for a layman might be the same, whether we use a gimmick or not, their a substantial differences. First of all I personally do card magic for myself. Hence I don't see the point of using gimmicks. I enjoy practicing sleights (as every magician does).
Using a gimmicks implies preparation and therefore you can never been as clean as using pure sleight of hand.(You start dirty and end dirty most of the time).
I think it is legitimate to use a gimmick where our sleight of hand touches the limit, e.g. Svengali Deck. It is just impossible to achieve the same effect with pure sleight of hand, for the rest I will not support laziness. But I never use gimmicks.
Rui Guerreiro
Hi Tony, everyone.
Been a follower of DF for a few months now, and I share most of your points of view, and the object of this post is certainly one of them. "Gimmickness" all the time will turn a card magician in a stage magician, where preparation is eveything. IMO, cards are the main tool for close-up and impromptu effects, so I'd quote you when you said "Work your craft" anytime. But let's not forget that simple gimmicks like different coloured back or doublefaced card can produce wonderful effects, and still show no contempt for the craft itself. My reference when I say this, is a fellow countryman, Helder Guimarães (FISM06 champ), who I've seen use those kind of gimmicks A LOT, and still he can still impress me. Well, just a humble thought.
Warm greetings from Portugal.
JeffreyTong
I think that everything has it's time and place. For example, if you have a real heckler who's burning you're hands like mad, why not take out a gimmick to just destroy him. But there are many advantages to regular cards as apposed to gimmicks.
First of all, you will have to carry around a lot of stuff while using gimmicks, which can be messy.
Secondly, it's just not clean. Spectator often want to check the cards and such, gimmicks sometimes does not allow that.
But then again, gimmick can provide what sleight of hand cannot. Though personally, I have a few gaff cards, but sleight of hand can never be replaced.
MichaelFeldman
I don't think laymen are stupid, and if you use gimmicks from the very beginning, I think laymen know it. Some gimmicks make things just too clean and laymen dismiss what you do as "just a trick." If you do stage magic, they attribute it all to the box, if you perform "WOW" close up, they'll attribute the effect to the thing you are holding (if you actually ask them how they think it's done).
So… I think it's about trust. Performers need to establish their skill before an audience will just dismiss anything you do as "just a trick." Once you perform a few effects that are clearly the result of sleight of hand and the audience begins to trust that you have the skill you claim to have, that's when you can (judiciously) thrown in a gimmick or two to really blow them away.
Do some really knuckle busting stuff, and then for your last trick, combine some sleight of hand with something simple like a shell, copper silver, or a double faced card and watch their jaws drop. If you start with that same trick for someone who has never seen you do magic before…. it just won't go over nearly as well.
Ben Train
I hate coming to class late!
So, first, the child worker analogy is flawed, for several reasons. First, the products are almost NEVER the same. Generally speaking, the third world produced product is going to be inferior. So, in this case, which ever produces the better product is the "method" of choice (ethical problems aside). But lets assume, for arguments sake, that the products ARE the same… which brings us to the second point. Assuming both products ARE the same (unlikely as that seems) then the production method only matters if you know about it (can't feel bad about the kids if you don't know there ARE kids). So, assuming the layperson doesn't know the method, and both methods produce the same result, all that matters is the final product- which means any method is acceptable.
But, and here's what I really wanted to say- the product CAN'T be the same! Even if it's only minor details, it's details non the less. Subsequently I'm in the Don Allan school of thought: if it can be done with sleight of hand, I use sleights. If adding a gaff makes it BETTER, then I'm all for the gaff (A great example is the so-called McDonald's Aces. I've yet to see a better assembly, as far as overall effect goes).
B-dizzle.
sato
Dont argue for the sake or arguing. Read his post again. He did not say all Gaffs are bad and you shouldn't use them. He is saying don't sell yourself short as a magician and create an excuse to not work on your sleights, just because gaffs are available.
Uri Engel
I think it's a mistake to assume that using gimmicks can be a short cut around sleights. On youtube they may be, in real life they're not.
Using gimmicks requires mastery of their own set of skills- how to ring them in, how to handle them in a way that doesn't betray their nature, and how to ring them out.
To use the example Tony gave- if you use double stick tape to make palming "self working" you still have to find a way to ring that double stick tape into and out of play, and secretly handle it during the effect.
Looking at the big picture, it would actually be simpler and easier to just practice palming…
The reason I personally don't use gimmicks at the moment is not that I think it would be lazy. On the contrary. I perform magic informally so having to bother with carrying and managing extra stuff other than the props openly used is simply too much trouble to be practical for me.
I would love to do McDonald's aces and Skinner's Monte, but considering my current performing conditions, they just can't compete with impromptu, ungimmicked assemblies and Monte routines I already do with nothing more than a normal deck.
Steven Ling
WELL Spanky… I mean Spencer. His roommate would’ve responded sooner if he regularly read this blog. Ha ha. Ok, on to my response.
I definitely agree that using gaffs as a easy way out would be the wrong direction to go. I think gaffs come into play when it’s a better method for an effect than the sleight of hand version. If it cleans up an effect in a noticeable way then yes, I would go with the gaffed method. If both gaffed method and sleight of hand method looks exactly the same then I would say as a performer, you have the right to choose. However, if you’re using gaffs with the mindset of instant-presto-magic just for the sake of instant-presto-magic then most likely you’re not even going to bother to practice because you’re already in the mindset of this gaff doing all the work. In other words, it’s going to show through your performance, in a very negative way.
Michael Feldman also brings up a good point about gaining trust from your audience. As Tony mentions, we as magicians are lying through our teeth, what’s the most effective way to successfully pull off a con? By gaining the trust of your victims. Since Feldman brought up the WOW! gimmick, I had that once for two months or so. I had to construct the effect I was using it for in such a way that takes the suspicion away from the gimmick. At the end, the WOW! change became a secondary thing in the grand scheme of things as the effect became a signature transpo thing. That made me think “I might as well not have used WOW!” In a situation like that, I think a sleight of hand version for the change would’ve been the better way to go as you would be cleaner and you would not have the issue of having to justify this very odd looking card holder.
In the end I think John Carney’s introductory essay in Carneycopia explains it the best. One needs to look at the effect that they wish to accomplish and then find the shortest and smoothest path from point A to B to C to whatever. If a gaff needs to be incorporated to achieve that because it is superior to sleights, then use the gaff. If the sleight of hand method is superior, then use sleight of hand. The idea at the end of the day is being able to connect the different points using the BEST paths.