Is this on the recent Hamman DVDs?Originally posted by Pete Biro:
The classic version is on tape. Kaps doing it for Hammann... a beauty of an effect. Always was, always will be.
@#X! patter
-
Guest
Re: @#X! patter
-
NCMarsh
- Posts: 1223
- Joined: February 16th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Favorite Magician: Devant, Wonder, Richiardi, Benson, DeKolta, Teller, Harbin, Durham, Caveney, Ben, Hoy, Berglas, Marceau
- Location: Orlando, FL
- Contact:
Re: @#X! patter
David,
There ain't no verbal spin in labeling @#X! an effect of manipulating time -- they see a card in the clip, then they sign a card, then the card that has been in the clip from the begining is shown to have been the signed selection. Without any words on your part, the story that is being told is one of time dislocation (or, I suppose, of a sloppy and confused transposition between some folded card in the clip and the spectator's selection -- but I highly doubt this latter interpolation).
If you like your effects clear, then you need to be clear about what your effect is. Time dislocation is different from appearance in an impossible location. If you show the card in the impossible location before it is selected/signed -- you are performing a time dislocation. According to the lines you earlier posted, this is exactly what you do. The first step in studying an effect for performance -- and ESPECIALLY for publication to your colleagues -- is to ask "What is the effect?" If you're telling me that you see this as a card to impossible location, then you clearly haven't even taken this first baby step and have no right to sell me your "analysis" of the effect. Think about it, learn about it, THEN write about it.
Do they believe that you manipulated time? Do they believe that the coin vanished? Of course not! But that's the whole, beautiful point of magic -- we know it can't be true, but it feels so real. Providing a compelling illusion of time displacement is just as powerful for an audience as providing a compelling illusion of any other impossibility. Not to mention that there is something very imaginative about this particular effect and, hence, it can be more theatrically compelling.
It should be noted that "ambigous effect" is equivocal. It is not that care and clarity have been sloppily excluded from the construction of "The Dream Card" -- it is that the trick is the production of an impossible object that seems to be pulled from the imagination itself, one that re-contextualizes the past few moments as a kind of living dream. This cuts to the quick of the mysterious -- think of Dante's description of the trinity in the final book of the Paradiso.
[Editors Note: While I am conflicted in doing this, I have decided to delete part of Nathans post. Nathan, while you raised some legitimate issues, I think you did it in a manner that went over the line considering there seemed to be no provocation on Davids part. Perhaps you can question Davids crediting and research without being quite so confrontational about it. Thanks for your consideration; Dustin]
Not sure I see what, or who, is being protected by this edit; David has already read the full version, for others it is just a tease as to what was here. But I do understand the desire to keep conversations civil and will respect Dustin's wishes.
This post was picked up by one of the circle jerk cover acts: http://magicianx.blogspot.com
Best,
N.
IllusionArtistry.com
There ain't no verbal spin in labeling @#X! an effect of manipulating time -- they see a card in the clip, then they sign a card, then the card that has been in the clip from the begining is shown to have been the signed selection. Without any words on your part, the story that is being told is one of time dislocation (or, I suppose, of a sloppy and confused transposition between some folded card in the clip and the spectator's selection -- but I highly doubt this latter interpolation).
If you like your effects clear, then you need to be clear about what your effect is. Time dislocation is different from appearance in an impossible location. If you show the card in the impossible location before it is selected/signed -- you are performing a time dislocation. According to the lines you earlier posted, this is exactly what you do. The first step in studying an effect for performance -- and ESPECIALLY for publication to your colleagues -- is to ask "What is the effect?" If you're telling me that you see this as a card to impossible location, then you clearly haven't even taken this first baby step and have no right to sell me your "analysis" of the effect. Think about it, learn about it, THEN write about it.
Do they believe that you manipulated time? Do they believe that the coin vanished? Of course not! But that's the whole, beautiful point of magic -- we know it can't be true, but it feels so real. Providing a compelling illusion of time displacement is just as powerful for an audience as providing a compelling illusion of any other impossibility. Not to mention that there is something very imaginative about this particular effect and, hence, it can be more theatrically compelling.
It should be noted that "ambigous effect" is equivocal. It is not that care and clarity have been sloppily excluded from the construction of "The Dream Card" -- it is that the trick is the production of an impossible object that seems to be pulled from the imagination itself, one that re-contextualizes the past few moments as a kind of living dream. This cuts to the quick of the mysterious -- think of Dante's description of the trinity in the final book of the Paradiso.
[Editors Note: While I am conflicted in doing this, I have decided to delete part of Nathans post. Nathan, while you raised some legitimate issues, I think you did it in a manner that went over the line considering there seemed to be no provocation on Davids part. Perhaps you can question Davids crediting and research without being quite so confrontational about it. Thanks for your consideration; Dustin]
Not sure I see what, or who, is being protected by this edit; David has already read the full version, for others it is just a tease as to what was here. But I do understand the desire to keep conversations civil and will respect Dustin's wishes.
This post was picked up by one of the circle jerk cover acts: http://magicianx.blogspot.com
Best,
N.
IllusionArtistry.com
-
Dustin Stinett
- Posts: 7263
- Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
- Favorite Magician: Sometimes
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
Re: @#X! patter
Nathan,
Well, like I said, I was conflicted. The issues you raised were legitimate; it was just a matter of how you did it. I cannot recall who said it, and Im sure Im paraphrasing, but theres an old saying that says something like, Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell and have them look forward to the trip.
Im not protecting anyone. I am protecting a principle that you already recognized: civility (and I thank you for that). I received two different alerts on this thread and I was asked in both to delete the whole post. I was not compelled to do so even though (strictly speaking) the direction this part of the thread took has little to do with the original post; something I am supposed to take into consideration as well when doing my job.
As for Magician X, he has done precisely what we invite everyone who dislikes our choices to do: started his own site where he can voice his opinion without worrying about being edited or deleted. I sincerely wish him well. And before anyone says anything about his anonymity, I would remind you that Houdini and Milbourne Christopher both authored poison pen columns under pseudonyms. Quite often the targets of poison pens are deserving of the criticismmyself included. But, if anyone thinks Im too heavy-handed with the delete option (something I have not had to do in a while), I know a nice warm vacation spot for you. I hear its a dry heat.
Thanks,
Dustin
PS: I hope everyone agrees that this thread has run its course. Im going to lock it so we may all move on to better things.
Well, like I said, I was conflicted. The issues you raised were legitimate; it was just a matter of how you did it. I cannot recall who said it, and Im sure Im paraphrasing, but theres an old saying that says something like, Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell and have them look forward to the trip.
Im not protecting anyone. I am protecting a principle that you already recognized: civility (and I thank you for that). I received two different alerts on this thread and I was asked in both to delete the whole post. I was not compelled to do so even though (strictly speaking) the direction this part of the thread took has little to do with the original post; something I am supposed to take into consideration as well when doing my job.
As for Magician X, he has done precisely what we invite everyone who dislikes our choices to do: started his own site where he can voice his opinion without worrying about being edited or deleted. I sincerely wish him well. And before anyone says anything about his anonymity, I would remind you that Houdini and Milbourne Christopher both authored poison pen columns under pseudonyms. Quite often the targets of poison pens are deserving of the criticismmyself included. But, if anyone thinks Im too heavy-handed with the delete option (something I have not had to do in a while), I know a nice warm vacation spot for you. I hear its a dry heat.
Thanks,
Dustin
PS: I hope everyone agrees that this thread has run its course. Im going to lock it so we may all move on to better things.