Originally posted by Harold Cataquet:
I'm totally confused with your terminology, Werner. One minute you're saying that "real" magic should be totally impromptu; the next minute you say that it only needs to feel impromptu! I don't see what it is you are trying to say.
If I had to guess, all you are saying is that closeup magic should look as though you are using ordinary objects (even if you are not). Isn't this obvious?
It is very hard to put forward ones thoughts, because I too realized, that I made assumptions/had thoughts, I didn't clearly put into my postings, so I'd better stop to confuse.
What I meant was simply that *TO ME*
close-up magic in it's best form was the real impromptu kind of work, which isn't equal what I do myself always, but I to would love to do more of that kind!
I gave some examples and I still stick to them, even if a jacket is needed for the *Twisting the Arm* illusion :)
Re *the next minute you say that it only needs to feel impromptu!* I don't recall and didn't check back I ever said that, as I DON'T mean that, so I apologize if one could get the impression.
The word impromptu is probably interpreted by me slightly diff. then by others, because I interpret it as being able to perform anywhere/anytime/unprepared (just with the *script* in the head and the rehearsal done many times also under fire) with props available at the place one is present.
No stuff inside ones pocket, nothing, everythiung done with borrowed objects.
I most certainly made the mistake to *invent* a new word for *impromptu Close-up magic*, as I call it -in my mind- *Real Close-up Magic*.
Actually hopefully the above explains my thoughts..
This hopefull also explains that :
*all you are saying is that closeup magic should look as though you are using ordinary objects (even if you are not). Isn't this obvious?*
This is exactly NOT what I ment, it SHOULDN'T *just* look like ordinary objects are used, but actually ordinary and borrowed objects should BE used :)
Originally posted by Curtis Kam:
Any time, any place, without preparation, emphasizing audience involvement and fools the pants off them, especially the ladies?
Werner, careful you don't prove that the "essence of close up magic" is mentalism! :)
Curtis, would make me sad if this was so :D
I'm not especially in favour for mentalisme, also I can enjoy it very much when done by ppl like Tim Conover or Max Maven :p
Sorry for all the confusion :confused: