Ennobling Magic

[Jackpot]

Pondering the many thoughts that have been offered on this thread, it gave me a clearer understanding of why (in my opinion) the use of ordinary objects is very desirable in ...

(Caution: These are opinions based on my own personal and empirical experience, and I have no data or studies to back them up). So, in the end, there are different kinds of deception, and I believe the audience can and will often differentiate. But if the magic is done with borrowed objects (or, almost as good) ordinary everyday objects, which are examinable, I believe we have a stronger brand of magic to offer. You could say that there has been "deception" in the accomplishment of the effect, but they don't feel that we've used "deceit," or feel "deceived."

Alfred thank you for your well thought out post. You have told me what you think, but more importantly backed up what you said with clear examples. Based on my experience what you say makes a great deal of sense.

Thank you for sharing.

[jkeyes1000]

1) we gave you our opinion - you're wrong.
2) i have explained many times why you are wrong by picking apart your claims and revealing where they are unsupported.

your point has no merit because the audience doesn't know you lie unless you are incompetent.

you claim the audience values a magician who doesn't lie but 1) cannot prove that and 2) still haven't told us how they know you are lying?

the best you seem to have done is claim that if you told them your methods they would care - but if you are telling your audiences how you do something you shouldn't really expect that they will have the experience of magic. And even if you claimed you don't lie, how would they know you were telling the truth, unless of course. you are an incompetent performer.


i have also pointed you to theories of art and aesthetics that establish you are wrong.

you claimed that lies are a specific kind of falsehood and in addition to pointing how that your understanding of the OED is incorrect, you have been unable to demonstrate that there is a difference between the reactions to verbal and non verbal lies. it is YOUR claim that there is a difference in the way the audience reacts. the onus of proof is on you. the entire body of magical literature suggests you are wrong.

your claim has been shown to baseless on many fronts and the weaknesses which have been pointed out have gone unanswered.


so, once again keyes - you are wrong

literally about everything.

literally

Your rants prove only that you are an inveterate liar, given to bombast and pretension. You need help, Mr. Henderson. Serious help.

ok - prove me wrong.

i've shown you how you've been proven wrong and instead of responding to claims you merely made a personal attack

i don't mind the personal attack. i'm ashamed for you that you are incapable of addressing the content.

and i love that a guy who calls himself an perfect grammarian, a master debater, and uses the word bombast accuses someone else of pretension and bombast.

but hey, you can prove us all wrong and force of to give your claims serious consideration by simply submitting a video of your work, let us see the measurably difference your approach produces.

we'll wait.

The only correct thing you said in the above comment is "we gave you our opinin". Absolutely every thing else is rubbish.

After your initial remark, you proceed to vaunt that this OPINION of yours demonstrates how wrong I am. Now, even if it were true that my observation is baseless (which it is not), your pointng out that it is "unsupported" does not constitute proof to the contrary. This is another of your logical fallacies. You aparently don't know the difference between the Absence Of Evidence and the Evidence Of Absence.

You say my argument has no merit because the audience can't know whether a magician is lying unless he is incompetant. I never claimed that it was necessary for the crowd to know you are lying, only to be suspicious. I say this makes folks cynical, wises them up, makes them less likely to be
impressed.

Next, you INFER quite mistakenly that I advocate telling aidiences how a given effect is achieved. What I said is that there is no need to CLAIM that you are doing something that you are not , to CLAIM that something is the case when it is not.

You challenge me to prove (again overlooking the fact thatI I never boasted of having proof) that audiences value honesty in a magician. Need I even bother, ladies and gentlemen?

Then you get really slick. You say that you have pointed out THEORIES of art and aesthetics that establish that I am wrong. I think that's my favoirite.

You follow up by charging me with the gross error of saying that "lies are a specific kind of falsehood" (which theyI are indeed) and chatter onI about how I don't know how to use a dictionary. Because YOU call the primary definition of "lie" in The Oxford English Dictionary ("An intentionally false statementt") "nonsense".

Shall I go on? This is getting annoyng.

[Brad Henderson]

look up the OED and they will tell you how they arrange their definitions. you claim a secondary definition (which mine isn't - it's labeled 1.1 NOT 2.0) is less authoritative because it is from the vernacular.

the OED derives its definitions from how it is used in the vernacular. it is a descriptive dictionary, not a prescriptive one

those are facts.

and again you beg the question, how does the audience know you have a tendency to lie UNLESS you reveal you are a liar via incompetence? why would an audience be suspicious of your lies unless 1) they assumed magicians to lie (in which case your point is moot as it proves they accept this as a tool of the magician)or 2) they caught you lying because of your incompetence?

as to the former - why would they be suspicious of lying - unless you told them you weren't? if that WERE a true statement then informing them of it assures the truthteller is regarded with suspicion.

so your position gets you no where

and that doesn't even begin to address the unsupported claim that a false verbal claim
is more damning than a false non verbal one.

Here is where someone who actually wanted to make a point would tell me why i'm wrong. you won't. you will repeat yourself.

and please, it your claims have a basis, show me what that is l

you say it has a basis but you have also said you can't prove it.

that's a narrow edge to walk

why do you think your are correct?

you claim people are disappointed to learn a magician lies but i see no evidence that is true. if you can't show evidence then there is no reason to believe it is true. you made the claim. a master debater would know where the burden of proof lies.

all you offer is the ravings of some unknown person on the internet - a master debater who is incapable of supporting the points he makes.

again, i beg you, show us.

show us your work. show us how much better a performance without lies can be. If
you can't back up your claims with reason then show us an example.

please

pretty please

[Anthony Vinson]

Wowsers. Can hardly believe this thread continues to unwind its way through the labyrinth. Can hardly believe that I just caught up by reading 3 pages worth of posts!

I dropped in to say that I no longer believe Mr. Keyes is a troll. Like Mark, I believe his assertion is sound and not without merit. I find it, in fact, to be worthy of discussion. Unfortunately Mr Keyes, while obviously learned and capable, comes across as a humorless pontifical pedant which makes it damn near impossible. Too bad. Perhaps if you were to lighten up and display a little humor and humility we might actually be able to properly consider your topic? If so I think the tone of this thread might make an immediate turn toward civility. Just a suggestion, and yours to ignore.

Av

[Tom Gilbert]

Yes, a little humor from Mr. Keyes would go a long way. Like Brad, I'd love to see a video of a performance for an audience. I will say though, his bragging about winning all of his debates on different topics was a big put off. Who wins a debate is pretty subjective. I certainly hope he isn't thinking he's winning here, maybe at how much you can beat a dead horse. He's certainly allowed to tell no lies performing his magic, and those of us that do to enhance the astonishment have that option also. I don't believe magic needs a total makeover, it's worked well the way is for hundreds of years.

[performer]

I think he is winning! At least he is getting all of you wound up over nothing which amounts to the same thing. As for humour I would venture to say that it is difficult to be humorous when everyone is insulting you. In fact he is FAR more polite that I would be in the same situation.

All I think that he is trying to say is that he has no objections to deceptive techniques and even statements. Or perhaps even implied lies or lies that have nothing to do with the trick itself. It is merely that he feels uncomfortable with an outright barefaced lie in the performance of a magic trick. For example if you tell the tale of the magician who went a magic shop in the usual 6 card repeat story he would have no problem with that. However, if you were to say something more blatant that misguides the audience from the secret in an unfair manner he would object to that. I think he just wants the audience to be in with a fair chance rather than an unfair one.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Jackpot Wrote: "Alfred thank you for your well thought out post. You have told me what you think, but more importantly backed up what you said with clear examples. Based on my experience what you say makes a great deal of sense. Thank you for sharing."

Thanks for your acknowledgement of my post, Jackpot, and your kind words.

[Anthony Vinson]

All I think that he is trying to say is that he has no objections to deceptive techniques and even statements. Or perhaps even implied lies or lies that have nothing to do with the trick itself. It is merely that he feels uncomfortable with an outright barefaced lie in the performance of a magic trick. For example if you tell the tale of the magician who went a magic shop in the usual 6 card repeat story he would have no problem with that. However, if you were to say something more blatant that misguides the audience from the secret in an unfair manner he would object to that. I think he just wants the audience to be in with a fair chance rather than an unfair one.

If I understand him correctly he is simply asking us to consider being more honest with our audiences and ourselves by avoiding direct lies, whenever possible or practical, without diminishing the impact of our magic. Fair enough. If I failed to understand him correctly, then I remain befuddled.

And Mark, to be clear, I wasn't asking that he engage in comedy, just that he lighten his tone a bit so as to make his ideas more accessible.

[Brad Henderson]

he is simply asking us to consider being more honest with our audiences and ourselves by avoiding direct lies, whenever possible or practical, without diminishing the impact of our magic. .

but why?

1) the audience won't know
2) there is no evidence to suggest that if they did, they would care
3) he assumes people don't already believe we use lies as a technique and that magic should hold itself to different rules than any other artform.

[jkeyes1000]

If you folks want a bit of levity, perhaps I can afford it.

Back in the day, I would spook the crap out of people with my own version of "water into wine".

Looking and acting for all the world like Jesu, I would ask a volunteer to fetch me a pail of rainwater. Whomever it happened to be would look about and spot a few barrels or buckets containing a clear liquid.

Now here is where I would "fudge" as I call it. Though I might have lied if I had directed the induvidual to the buckets, proclaiming that they contain water (it was actually white wine), I spared myself that guilt by allowing the volunteer to choose what he or she supposed to be water.

I would take a bunch of red grapes from one of the guest tables and mash them in a vat with a pestle. The pestle was hollow and filed with beet powder, so that the dye was deposited in the mix unbeknownst to the crowd.

Adding the "water", I would swish snd swirl the concoction and ultimately pour the purplish beveage out for all to sample.

The more cynical of the bunch would snicker, thinking no doubt that it would taste like coloured water. When they sipped of it, they were astonished to discover that it savoured of red wine (the beet powder in combination with the white wine making for a persuasive "palette").

This is my idea of humour, although I will admit it isn't for everybody.

I believe that the more serious I am, the funnier the bit. You see?

[jkeyes1000]

If you folks want a bit of levity, perhaps I can afford it.

Back in the day, I would spook the crap out of people with my own version of "water into wine".

Looking and acting for all the world like Jesu, I would ask a volunteer to fetch me a pail of rainwater. Whomever it happened to be would look about and spot a few barrels or buckets containing a clear liquid.

Now here is where I would "fudge" as I call it. Though I might have lied if I had directed the induvidual to the buckets, proclaiming that they contain water (it was actually white wine), I spared myself that guilt by allowing the volunteer to choose what he or she supposed to be water.

I would take a bunch of red grapes from one of the guest tables and mash them in a vat with a pestle. The pestle was hollow and filed with beet powder, so that the dye was deposited in the mix unbeknownst to the crowd.

Adding the "water", I would swish snd swirl the concoction and ultimately pour the purplish beveage out for all to sample.

The more cynical of the bunch would snicker, thinking no doubt that it would taste like coloured water. When they sipped of it, they were astonished to discover that it savoured of red wine (the beet powder in combination with the white wine making for a persuasive "palette").

This is my idea of humour, although I will admit it isn't for everybody.

I believe that the more serious I am, the funnier the bit. You see?

Meant "palate" of course. Damned smartphone.

[Anthony Vinson]

he is simply asking us to consider being more honest with our audiences and ourselves by avoiding direct lies, whenever possible or practical, without diminishing the impact of our magic. .

but why?

1) the audience won't know
2) there is no evidence to suggest that if they did, they would care
3) he assumes people don't already believe we use lies as a technique and that magic should hold itself to different rules than any other artform.

Oh, I don't know why. No doubt he has his reasons. I agree with you that the audience won't know and probably won't care, but he titled the thread Ennobling Magic, so perhaps there's a clue to be found there? I won't speculate too much, but maybe he will clarify his reasons if given the opportunity.

[Anthony Vinson]

If you folks want a bit of levity, perhaps I can afford it.

That's a start! Thanks for making the effort to provide insight into your assertion.

Av

[performer]

I own a beautiful set of Sherwood cups and custom balls and a lovely Ickle Pickle Chalice chop cup. But, with the chop cup, or even the cups and balls (and I know I am treading on sacred ground here), whether they say so or not, they are likely to suspect the cup(s) which are not everyday items or the little balls with sweaters or whatever. In a layman's mind they may not know how something is gaffed, but if they even believe that it is, then their perception of the deception, if you will, is of a different kind then that they have been deceived by masterful sleight of hand, and the effect will be blunted, or at least not be as strong as it could be. That is why Skinner evolved to doing the cups and balls routine with coffee cups, cherries and a table knife, or John Carney's "Fruit Cup," using a coffee mug, rolled up borrowed dollar as a ball, and a table knife as the wand.

Alas and alack one of my first teachers in magic would be gravely disapproving of your statement. I never had any live teachers but did manage quite well with dead ones. I wasn't a psychic reverend then so I could not contact them in the spirit world but I could learn from the books they had written. I am referring in particular to crusty old Wilfrid Jonson who used to amuse me greatly with his cantankerous opinions on magic one of which was "which brings us back to certain English conjurers who use plastic beakers, paper picnic cups, or old ice cream containers. These seeming practicalities add nothing to the effect and we advise the reader to purchase a proper set of cups worthy of the dignity of this classic of legerdemain"

I am afraid old Wilfrid was a bit snooty about this sort of thing. I always thought that ice cream containers etc; would be a splendid substitute on the grounds that as a television producer once snorted to me, "surely the more mundane your props are the better". The reason for his snorting was because he heard that silly old Ali Bongo criticised me for using an old card table they had lying about in the studio instead of a fancy draped table looking very spruce and flashy.

At any rate I have always been too anxious to avoid Wilfrid's cantankerous disapproval from the astral plane so have avoided tea cups, ice cream containers and plastic beakers even though I have a strong suspicion that it IS the better option. Alas once something is written in a book when you are a young student of magic you tend to take it as gospel and are hesitant to change.

He never said very much about lying to the public so at least we are spared any agonising over the matter. The nearest he came to it was when he wrote, "A second thing to remember is that you cease to be a conjurer when you have finished your performance. Nothing can be more irritating to really intelligent people than the conjurer who poses as a "magician" and pretends to be a man of mystery AFTER he has finished his act. The author hopes that you will become a conjurer but not a conjuring bore"

I really have a fondness for Wilfrid Jonson and his books. His Dover publication "Magic Tricks and Card Tricks" is quite excellent particularly the card trick section which is where I first began my fondness for card magic. His other book which is harder to obtain is "Mr Smith's Sleight of Hand is absolutely terrific and has the best advice I have ever read about how to learn patter (I refuse to use that pretentious word "script").

I just hope to God that David Berglas doesn't read that bit about being a "man of mystery" after the show! For all I know maybe that was where Wilfrid got the idea in the first place!

[Brad Henderson]

If you folks want a bit of levity, perhaps I can afford it.

Back in the day, I would spook the crap out of people with my own version of "water into wine".

Looking and acting for all the world like Jesu, I would ask a volunteer to fetch me a pail of rainwater. Whomever it happened to be would look about and spot a few barrels or buckets containing a clear liquid.

Now here is where I would "fudge" as I call it. Though I might have lied if I had directed the induvidual to the buckets, proclaiming that they contain water (it was actually white wine), I spared myself that guilt by allowing the volunteer to choose what he or she supposed to be water.

I would take a bunch of red grapes from one of the guest tables and mash them in a vat with a pestle. The pestle was hollow and filed with beet powder, so that the dye was deposited in the mix unbeknownst to the crowd.

Adding the "water", I would swish snd swirl the concoction and ultimately pour the purplish beveage out for all to sample.

The more cynical of the bunch would snicker, thinking no doubt that it would taste like coloured water. When they sipped of it, they were astonished to discover that it savoured of red wine (the beet powder in combination with the white wine making for a persuasive "palette").

This is my idea of humour, although I will admit it isn't for everybody.

I believe that the more serious I am, the funnier the bit. You see?

i'll believe it when i see the video of it

just like your ambitious card handling, i don't believe this has ever been performed, let alone successfully, outside of your imagination.

[jkeyes1000]

If you folks want a bit of levity, perhaps I can afford it.

Back in the day, I would spook the crap out of people with my own version of "water into wine".

Looking and acting for all the world like Jesu, I would ask a volunteer to fetch me a pail of rainwater. Whomever it happened to be would look about and spot a few barrels or buckets containing a clear liquid.

Now here is where I would "fudge" as I call it. Though I might have lied if I had directed the induvidual to the buckets, proclaiming that they contain water (it was actually white wine), I spared myself that guilt by allowing the volunteer to choose what he or she supposed to be water.

I would take a bunch of red grapes from one of the guest tables and mash them in a vat with a pestle. The pestle was hollow and filed with beet powder, so that the dye was deposited in the mix unbeknownst to the crowd.

Adding the "water", I would swish snd swirl the concoction and ultimately pour the purplish beveage out for all to sample.

The more cynical of the bunch would snicker, thinking no doubt that it would taste like coloured water. When they sipped of it, they were astonished to discover that it savoured of red wine (the beet powder in combination with the white wine making for a persuasive "palette").

This is my idea of humour, although I will admit it isn't for everybody.

I believe that the more serious I am, the funnier the bit. You see?

i'll believe it when i see the video of it

just like your ambitious card handling, i don't believe this has ever been performed, let alone successfully, outside of your imagination.

I'm going to ignore you from now on, Mr. Henderson.

[performer]

Oh don't do that! It will mean he has won after all!

[jkeyes1000]

I feel sorry for Mr. Henderson, seeing that he has such a hard time finding fault with my argument. So I have decided to share this wretched video of me sort of "re-enacting" the Water Into Wine trick.

I didn't want to make it in the first place, but I was put up to it by a friend.

Having spent the previous night rehearsing, I was quite inebriated. Thus the practice I got I did me litle good in the end.

I probably never looked worse in my life, but I find it funny in a kind of pathetic way.

This will be Mr. Henderson s best chance to criticise me. Call it an early Christmas present.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKEn2doLKJo&sns=em

[performer]

he is simply asking us to consider being more honest with our audiences and ourselves by avoiding direct lies, whenever possible or practical, without diminishing the impact of our magic. .

but why?

1) the audience won't know
2) there is no evidence to suggest that if they did, they would care
3) he assumes people don't already believe we use lies as a technique and that magic should hold itself to different rules than any other artform.

It is actually a metaphysical thing. Hard to explain but I shall try. Audiences are intelligent animals and they do sense something is not quite right. They can sense untruths somehow. They might not sense the specific untruth--they just sense it as part of the whole. They smell insincerity. And subconsciously it sets up a vague resentment in their minds. They can understand stories or tongue in cheek lies or baloney that they expect magicians to come up with. They don't mind that so much. What bothers them is the vague feeling that things are not quite as the performer says they are. It is a gut feeling that there are blatant lies going on somewhere that is insulting their intelligence. And people don't like their intelligence insulted.

If the performer avoids that kind of thing he feels more relaxed in his approach and if he is aware of the issue, (whether it is a real issue or an imagined one), then his performing "vibe" will be more effective as a result because he will feel freer to perform in the way he wishes. Even if the problem is a manufactured or imagined one it is reality in his own mind and he should be free to perform according to his own philosophical principles.

There. That is as near as I can get to explaining the nub of the matter. I may be wrong but at least it gives me a chance to sound suitably intellectual.

[performer]

I feel sorry for Mr. Henderson, seeing that he has such a hard time finding fault with my argument. So I have decided to share this wretched video of me sort of "re-enacting" the Water Into Wine trick.

I didn't want to make it in the first place, but I was put up to it by a friend.

Having spent the previous night rehearsing, I was quite inebriated. Thus the practice I got I did me litle good in the end.

I probably never looked worse in my life, but I find it funny in a kind of pathetic way.

This will be Mr. Henderson s best chance to criticise me. Call it an early Christmas present.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKEn2doLKJo&sns=em

Damn! I haven't looked at the video yet but I meant to warn you not to post it. Even if it is superb beyond the imagination your critics will call it crap anyway no matter how good it is. It is the way the human mind works. They will look at it not to enjoy it but to find flaws in your argument. It reminds of this little rhyme:

"A man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still"

[performer]

Oh God! Delete it quickly if it is not too late! You are handing them ammunition to shoot you! Or to put it another way rope to hang you with!

[Frank Yuen]

In your video, how is it not a lie when you say, "Now it's simply a matter of adding the water to the grapes."?

[jkeyes1000]

Oh God! Delete it quickly if it is not too late! You are handing them ammunition to shoot you! Or to put it another way rope to hang you with!

Mark, I am wrll aware of how awful the video is. I wil not dispute any condemnatory remarks about it. But it has .nothing to do with my point. If Brad tries to use this to "prove" that I am wrong, I will rebuff that as easily as I have his other objections.

[jkeyes1000]

In your video, how is it not a lie when you say, "Now it's simply a matter of adding the water to the grapes."?

Do you mean my calling it "water"? As it was the volunteer (in public performance, which this was not) who fetched it, I may be allowed to presume it such.

They effectively provided it.

Or do you mean that there is more going on?

Well, the "act" is structured in such a way thatI I (the incompetant magician) HOPE that this will do the trick. It's a sort of Comedy Of Errors thing.

[Brad Henderson]

well, Mark. It seems you are no longer the only psychic here. remember when i predicted:

i love when people tell 'others' they need to take acting lessons. What's the over under that keyes speaks with a pseudo british accent, lots of pauses that signify nothing, and manages merely to bore and confuse?

as you see above i said i don't believe this has been been performed successfully outside of keyes imagination. this video proves i was correct.

This piece has never been performed for another human being. 1) the color difference between the wine and flower water is visibly noticable 2) the smell of a bucket of wine would fill the room the moment it is poured like that. His pitch said he sent an audience member to get
he bucket. as he finds stooges repulsive any human with a nose would notice the moment they bent down to get it. Plus no where in his script does he have them taste the water to prove it is water. If he were performing in a social setting people would want to. even his idol slydini knew to have people taste and smell the salt before it became sugar (or was it vice versa). And i'm all for long routines as long as they captivate the audience. there is no way people would pay attention to and stick around for this.

i DO believe he has thought about this trick before. A lot even perhaps. But this piece has never been performed for real people. at least not successfully.

(plus, i suspect there is at least one point in the video where some camera editing was used to his advantage. but it's only a suspicion. )

you think like a juggler without a soul - you seem to think magic is a puzzle and that the puzzler must abide by certain rules.

as i suspected, keyes thinks the value of magic is in offering puzzles to be figured out. He has essentially stated as much, but the title he bestows to the video suggests i am correct. Who does that? who takes something inherently profound and renders it trivial by making it a puzzle?

this is a shame. He has a good voice and an novel look. It's just that his thinking is so clouded that his assets are diluted (no pun intended) to the point they become liabilities. I think he needs a LOT more stage time.

as i said

i'm sorry man, but you just don't get it.

sadly this video proves i was correct. The good news is i don't think he is a completely lost cause. But he has to get his head on straight and get some real world experience. i just don't think he has any understanding of what real audiences respond to - which explains his fixation on an irrelevant issue such as a magician's lie.

and i understand that a bad liar can give off an air of something that just doesn't feel right, but that's the same incompetence i speak of. It's the same as when a magician is uncomfortable holding a card in their palm. Some magicians you can just tell they are up to something. Others have mastered the skill.

this issue, once again i contend, comes down not to a difference between verbal and nonverbal lies but with ones competence as a magician

plus, do people expect magicians to be honest? i think he is guilty of making assumptions about people's assumptions. just as they don't tell out 'liar' during hamlet they won't yell out liar when you say the box is empty. Unless they see the mirror, but again (and i speak from a 30
plus year old experience that still haunts me) they will focus on the mirror and not your claim. Steve Lee (my next door neighbor when i was 10) still remembers when he thrust his hand in the box and felt the mirror. he has never once reminded me about the words i may have uttered.

but hey, there is a simple way to show that i'm wrong - you admit
you can't backup your claim with theory so let's see some performance videos and judge how your approach to magic actually plays in practice. Show us how your approach is better. if it is, we should be able to tell a difference between your work and any lying magi.

This video fails to prove any noticable difference between lying and not. and i'm unsure this video is free from lies as he defines them. He calls it a bucket
of rain water after all.

[Brad Henderson]

i see keyes has already started hedging on his rain water comment.

again this shows me it has never been performed before.

i'm reminded of a bob reed joke here.

[Brad Henderson]

Oh God! Delete it quickly if it is not too late! You are handing them ammunition to shoot you! Or to put it another way rope to hang you with!

Mark, I am wrll aware of how awful the video is. I wil not dispute any condemnatory remarks about it. But it has .nothing to do with my point. If Brad tries to use this to "prove" that I am wrong, I will rebuff that as easily as I have his other objections.

your work speaks for itself

case rested.

[jkeyes1000]

Of course I knew that Brad would call this "proof".

It proves nothing either way. This video was what you might call a "demo", a run-through.

A friend on YouTube wanted to see the act I spoke of and I reluctantly cobbled it together despite watering eyes and nasal drip due to an allergic reaction to household chemicals.

The editing is unfortunate but the only thing it hides is my sniffling.

My point never was that there is a "measurable difference" in audience response between "honest" and "dishonest" perfomances. I merely state, as a matter of common sense, that it is safer to say nothing that you cannot rightly confirm or deny.

[performer]

Alas I fear that your video has distracted everyone from my own brilliant analysis of the situation. After all, it will allow me to feel that I can be just as pretentious as everyone else Again, here it is:


t is actually a metaphysical thing. Hard to explain but I shall try. Audiences are intelligent animals and they do sense something is not quite right. They can sense untruths somehow. They might not sense the specific untruth--they just sense it as part of the whole. They smell insincerity. And subconsciously it sets up a vague resentment in their minds. They can understand stories or tongue in cheek lies or baloney that they expect magicians to come up with. They don't mind that so much. What bothers them is the vague feeling that things are not quite as the performer says they are. It is a gut feeling that there are blatant lies going on somewhere that is insulting their intelligence. And people don't like their intelligence insulted.

If the performer avoids that kind of thing he feels more relaxed in his approach and if he is aware of the issue, (whether it is a real issue or an imagined one), then his performing "vibe" will be more effective as a result because he will feel freer to perform in the way he wishes. Even if the problem is a manufactured or imagined one it is reality in his own mind and he should be free to perform according to his own philosophical principles.

There. That is as near as I can get to explaining the nub of the matter. I may be wrong but at least it gives me a chance to sound suitably intellectual.

[Bill Mullins]

i'm reminded of a bob reed joke here.

Which was . . . ?

(Cause Bob Read was actually, you know, funny.)

[jkeyes1000]

Alas I fear that your video has distracted everyone from my own brilliant analysis of the situation. After all, it will allow me to feel that I can be just as pretentious as everyone else Again, here it is:


t is actually a metaphysical thing. Hard to explain but I shall try. Audiences are intelligent animals and they do sense something is not quite right. They can sense untruths somehow. They might not sense the specific untruth--they just sense it as part of the whole. They smell insincerity. And subconsciously it sets up a vague resentment in their minds. They can understand stories or tongue in cheek lies or baloney that they expect magicians to come up with. They don't mind that so much. What bothers them is the vague feeling that things are not quite as the performer says they are. It is a gut feeling that there are blatant lies going on somewhere that is insulting their intelligence. And people don't like their intelligence insulted.

If the performer avoids that kind of thing he feels more relaxed in his approach and if he is aware of the issue, (whether it is a real issue or an imagined one), then his performing "vibe" will be more effective as a result because he will feel freer to perform in the way he wishes. Even if the problem is a manufactured or imagined one it is reality in his own mind and he should be free to perform according to his own philosophical principles.

There. That is as near as I can get to explaining the nub of the matter. I may be wrong but at least it gives me a chance to sound suitably intellectual.

I absolutely agree with your insightful analysis, Mark! Sorry for the dustraction.

[performer]

Jolly good. I feel better now!

[Brad Henderson]

My point never was that there is a "measurable difference" in audience response between "honest" and "dishonest" perfomances. I merely state, as a matter of common sense, that it is safer to say nothing that you cannot rightly confirm or deny.

and yet you SAID it was a bucket of rain water. can you rightly confirm or deny that?

no. you can't

but your failings are not the failings of the argument.

you admit there is no difference between a performance with lies and without.

and you have never established a difference between being caught having represented matters falsely with a verbal utterance and being caught having represented matters falsely with an action.

and you haven't told us why it is more damning to SAY something you cannot rightly confirm or deny than to represent through physicality or inference something you cannot rightly confirm or deny.

here's how i imagine keyes believes an audience would react:

spec: i can see the ball in your hand. you didn't really put it under the cup

keyes: dear lad, as i never uttered the words i shall put it under the cup and merely feigned doing so you have caught me in nothing. As it was your assumption that was proven wrong you have been fooled. and i, having fooled you, am a great magician

spec: but the ball. it's in your hand. i SEE the ball in your hand. there is it. IN YOUR HAND

keyes: BUT i never SAID i was putting it under the cup. so you were fooled.

spec: yep, you fooled me alright . . . i thought you'd be good.

[jkeyes1000]

My point never was that there is a "measurable difference" in audience response between "honest" and "dishonest" perfomances. I merely state, as a matter of common sense, that it is safer to say nothing that you cannot rightly confirm or deny.

and yet you SAID it was a bucket of rain water. can you rightly confirm or deny that?

no. you can't

but your failings are not the failings of the argument.

you admit there is no difference between a performance with lies and without.

and you have never established a difference between being caught having represented matters falsely with a verbal utterance and being caught having represented matters falsely with an action.

and you haven't told us why it is more damning to SAY something you cannot rightly confirm or deny than to represent through physicality or inference something you cannot rightly confirm or deny.

here's how i imagine keyes believes an audience would react:

spec: i can see the ball in your hand. you didn't really put it under the cup

keyes: dear lad, as i never uttered the words i shall put it under the cup and merely feigned doing so you have caught me in nothing. As it was your assumption that was proven wrong you have been fooled. and i, having fooled you, am a great magician

spec: but the ball. it's in your hand. i SEE the ball in your hand. there is it. IN YOUR HAND

keyes: BUT i never SAID i was putting it under the cup. so you were fooled.

spec: yep, you fooled me alright . . . i thought you'd be good.

I believe I mentioned to you (or someone in the forum) that some sott of subtetfuge is necessary in order to cteate an illusion, and thst most people are aware of the traditional kinds of deception (if not the precise means), such as mechanisms and manual dexterity.

It may welll be that some folks resent sleight of hand as much as mendacity, but I doubt it. Because they know about contraptions and legerdrmain, they accept that you employ them. I also grant that many may already suspect that you lie and accept that.

But lying is unnecessary. And as Mark has said above, nobody likes being lied to directly. It is very offensive. It is likely to be perceived as a selfish attempt to guard your secrets (a fair guess), and not as a pleasant diversion.

What I would say if someone asked me whether the rainwater was aqua pura, is, "Well I presume so! Ask that gentlemsn over there."

By the way, I found your satirical characterisation of me extremely amusing.

[jkeyes1000]

Lest anyone think the caricature in the former video is The Real Me....

I don't even know who The Real Me is to be honest.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3YlU2SX-drQ&sns=em

[Brad Henderson]

I believe I mentioned to you (or someone in the forum) that some sott of subtetfuge is necessary in order to cteate an illusion, and thst most people are aware of the traditional kinds of deception (if not the precise means), such as mechanisms and manual dexterity.

It may welll be that some folks resent sleight of hand as much as mendacity, but I doubt it. Because they know about contraptions and legerdrmain, they accept that you employ them. I also grant that many may already suspect that you lie and accept that.

and the briefest study of magic reveals that lying is one of the traditional kinds of deception, along with machanisms and dexterity. What you ignore is that using an action to misrepresent the truth is no different from using dexterity to do the same, especially when you factor in the crucial (which you said yourself) element of intent

so now we establish that there is no evidence to suggest the audience cares. in fact it appears as if you concede they likely expect lying.

but you beg the question - how would they know you lied unless you are incompetent?


t

But lying is unnecessary.

and so is using sleight of hand when a gimmick would work. as michael weber said, sometimes the shortest distance between two points is a straight lie.

if the lie gets the job done as well or better than a sleight or a gaff, then why not use it? if it actually does work as well, the audience won't know anyway, right?

t

And as Mark has said above, nobody likes being lied to directly. It is very offensive. It is likely to be perceived as a selfish attempt to guard your secrets (a fair guess), and not as a pleasant diversion

and how would they know they were lied to unless you are incompetent and fail as a magician? what makes you think that once they see your failure they will care that you lied to them any more than how much they care that they saw the ball in your hand or the mirror in the box?

but you said the goal of magic was to present illusions so the audience could try to figure them out. not me. and you labeled your video 'can you figure out how it was done' or something like that.

if you don't want the audience to care about secrets don't make them the focus of everything you are doing!

if the audience cares about your secrets then you aren't giving them an experience more valuable than that of a puzzler.

and why shouldn't we guard secrets, selfishly or otherwise? and once again i ask, how do they know you were lying and 'guarding secrets' unless you are incompetant?

t

What I would say if someone asked me whether the rainwater was aqua pura, is, "Well I presume so! Ask that gentlemsn over there."

[/quote]

and he would taste it and say - no it's not. He's a liar. that's not rain water

and then you get into the exchange which i presented, you would say you aren't a liar because you never uttered the words and he would say " but it's not water. " either case, you fail to produce a magic effect. you will be labeled a bad magician.

again you managed to establish nothing nor answer any objections. you just repeat yourself.

but i will give you some advice:

you have the method backwards. the wine should be in the vase with the flowers. this would help color both the discoloration and smell. pick a fragrant flower. the vase being in the room the whole time will have the effect of dulling their sense of smell.

when someone brings in a bucket of wine, everyone in the room will know it. plus you now no longer need to worry if the guy will smell it or spill it on his clothes - and you don't have the ridiculous situation of asking for a rain bucket. i don't know anyone who has one.

they find the bucket and can even fill it with tap water. the bucket should be too small though so your pitcher isn't filled. pouring in the yellowish water or the flowers now makes sense - it's an impromptu solution to get to the correct level

but they still need to taste it and i wouldn't want it to drink flower water. both our methods have that same problem.

[jkeyes1000]

Mr. Henderson you are missing the larger point, and that is that, whether or not lies are commonly used, or commonly known to be used, it could only be good for the general repute of Magic to assure audiences of a benign and trustworthy performer, rather than a con man.

How will they catch on? Before you ask that question, you ought to sort out whether or not they already have. One moment you swear they haven't, the next you swear they have.

This question is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Either way, it is better to allay suspicion by claiming less knowledge of, and less responsibility for the effect. To let it happen rather than make it happen.

If your volunteer handles the cards, or the bucket or whatever, and you dissociate yourself from the apparatus, they are far less likely to look to you for an answer.

I don't think the audience cares whether YOU made the dove appear, but only that it appeared suddenly out of nowhere. The wonder is greater I believe when it appears to happen without your involvement.

How will they know you are lying is the wrong question. How can you enhance their astonishment is the promary concern. I say by being as clueless as they are, as unwitting of the cause.

[Jackpot]

How will they know you are lying is the wrong question. How can you enhance their astonishment is the promary concern.

I absolutely agree. A magician should use the most effective of the methods which he is competent in using.

[jkeyes1000]

How will they know you are lying is the wrong question. How can you enhance their astonishment is the promary concern.

I absolutely agree. A magician should use the most effective of the methods which he is competent in using.

I woke up this morning, ready to assail Mr. H. yet again, so forgive me if I carry on that way. I appreciate your agreement with me in at least one particular.

The main reason I gave you all that abominable video was to show how meaningless the question of How WilI They Know You Are Lying Unless You Are Incompetent is.

The whole premise of the Water Into Wine act (my version) is that a bumbler of a magician manages to somehow turn "water" into more than just coloured liquid, but REAL WINE.

I have been doing this trick for a long time. I suspect it is how Jesus himself did it some two thiusand years ago. In alll that time, no one has come close to guessing the secret. I had to GIVE IT AWAY.

The Astonishment Factor is increased in proportion to the performer's apparent inability to deceive, in other words.

[Brad Henderson]

again, i don't believe for a moment this has been performed for real people ever. the moment the bucket was brought into the room everyone would smell it, especially the carrier. who doesn't notice the color difference of the water? who would taste it to be sure it was wine? i'm not drinking either rain water or flower vase water. and finally, i don't believe anyone would sit through 12 minutes of a bad british accent and interminable meaningless pauses.

and you say that it can only help if we assure them we aren't lying

so 1) how do we do that?

do we tell them we aren't lying.

but isn't that exactly what a liar would say and 2) if you do, then you are discussing your methods with them which is not what a smart magician would do

so once again it comes down to the point - they can't know you are lying unless you get caught and once you do there is no reason to suggest that being caught in a verbal lie is more damning than someone saying 'hey, this isn't rain water, it's white wine.'

but at least you seem to realize your direction was baseless and are now advocating the tired 'i don't know how it happens myself' approach

it's a valid approach. though one few have managed to take successfully. the fact we pretty much all and only name cardini as an example sort of proves that.

but there are several issues you have to contend with

1) magic is about power. a magician by definition is someone who wields or directs that power. if the magic is beyond you, then you are not a magician. which is a fair choice. but now you have problem 2

2) so what is this power and how does it work? why can't you control it especially when you are clearly choosing to offer a demonstration there of? do you expect me to believe that you are really pulling this off unawares?

can these issues be addressed? yep. do many/any who take this approach actually to? not that i've seen and not in your video.

3) when an audience exclaims at the end of a trick 'how did you do that?' they aren't always asking for the methods

and i'm convinced that their choice of words is telling

i saw a magic show where there wasn't a moment of magic in it. there were tricks and impossibilities, but at no time did the performer ever indicate the magic was occurring. he just showed a set of conditions that shouldn't have happened - condition a followed by condition b. there was no intermediary steps where the audience saw SOMETHING occur to indicate - hey, magic is happening.

see the magic isn't the two conditions. the magic is what happens between them that causes the change.

so i went through my act and re worked everything to make it clear not only 'that' something was happening to cause the magic and also make sure that act was consistent with the alleged phenomena presented

here's what happened: people stopped explaining 'how'd you do that?'. instead they'd just say 'wow' or 'oh my god' or 'that's amazing'

see, when they ask how you do that, i believe it isn't an expression of the success of the trick but a revelation that one hasn't presented a clear effect - because in a clear effect the CAUSE of the phenomenon must be clear.

if i leave my house and break my keys in the door of the car, have a puddle splattered upon me as i walk to the store, and then get caught in the rain on the way home i might ask 'how'd this happen?'

but i know how all these things are happening. i know that keys break and there are weather patterns and puddles splash. what i'm expressing is i don't know WHY all these things happened.

if you look at most magic tricks, and i'm talking at the most superficial phenomenalogical level, you will see most
of them leave out this information

why does the card change?

well, it i pass my hand over it then the audience SEES why it is changing.

but this has nothing to do with either lying (because the act of waving the hand is a lie)

so if you want to play the role of a character affected by magic, you need to define for yourself what that power is, where does it come from, what activates it (calls it) and what is the process by which it works.

and you have to convey that to your audience in a manner where they can see it for themselves in the act. for if you tell them then you can't play the role of hapless victim. you know too
much.

so it's do able - but is it better?

i don't think so

people love the idea of super heroes. movies and stories regularly feature powerful characters.

do we rally around potter and his gang because they are clueless or because
we vicariously thrill at the thought that there are humans that can do extraordinary things

again, your position suggests a lack of understanding of how real people think and what they want from art