The Genii Forum

Andy's work in this area reminds me of an early trick of his where he found a clever way of ramping up the impact of the classic one-ahead principle.

Instead of predicting three random choices - he turned the trick into a quasi-test of the superhuman powers that the spectator was momentarily blessed with. These powers were due to a pill (like the one in the movie Limitless) that the spectator had swallowed minutes earlier.

http://www.thejerx.com/blog/2015/6/25/presentation-limitless-ahead

I have an artist friend who is also interested in magic. But since he is not actually magician, he often asks for my take on things in the world of magic.

He asked me for my thoughts on the Nate Staniforth book called This is Real Magic. You can see a nice trailer for the book here which makes use of an unusual magic trick:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGe2T-0e46I

I have not read the book. And my reasons as to why became a rambling essay on the nature of magic in the 21st century, and how Andy's work over at The Jerx fits into that.

So - apologies for the following lengthy brain dump. But some of you who are interested in Andy's work may find some of it of interest.

----------------------

I saw that book on Amazon awhile ago but never got round to reading it. It is not something that really grabs me.

I will explain why.

Magic is about astonishment. And the people who hate astonishment the most are magicians. It is a paradox of sorts.

But what is a magician?

A magician is a layperson who - one day - was so fooled by a magic trick that they HAD to find out how it was done. And that set off a chain of events where they discover more secrets in magic books and (this is when you truly become hooked) magic shops. Eventually magicians become addicted to the rush of learning new secrets. That is the real reason we refer to the sellers of magic secrets as magic dealers - they are dealing out cheap hits to magicians addicted to learning new secrets.

At this point. Half of them also become interested in the attention that performing magic gives them. Whilst the other half just become more and more obsessed with secrets.

Magicians actually get angry when secrets are withheld from them.

As such - magicians are always cynical when these books come along about a magician's search for "real magic" and how he had to travel to India to learn the real wonder of magic. It is like a woman becoming a hooker so she can find the man of her dreams. It is pure [censored].

There is very little wonder and astonishment in magic. If you offered to teach a trick after fooling a layperson - 99% of them would want to know the secret.

Still - there are intelligent magicians who feel that there must be more to magic than this? It is quite depressing when you really understand magic on this level.

So what tends to happen is this. You get those magicians who embrace magic for what it is. And they see value in being good at something that is inherently un-noble. You see this a lot in work places. Some guy who is doing a humble job. But in his mind he feels a duty to be the best janitor/cleaner/fast-food server he possibly can be. He takes pride in his dedication to a task which will go un-noticed and unrewarded by others.

On an existential level this is a compelling idea explored in the work of Albert Camus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus

Now that is one reaction. And it is one that most professional magicians pursue. But like with a hooker it is ultimately about delivering an experience in exchange for money. So there is no artistic value in this mindset.

Another reaction is to ignore the issue altogether and become a magician's magician. You spend all your time learning new secrets and varying tricks. Your real audience is the community of magicians. With the occasional trick performed for laypeople just so that you have some experience of performing to laypeople to draw on when discussing magic with magicians.

Another reaction is to become a pseudo-intellectual who is sure that there is some deeper meaning in magic. This approach will often try and embrace the Shamanistic roots of magic (see The Mystery School ala Jeff McBride). Or it will try and argue there is something profound about the nature of astonishment.

That approach was popularized by Paul Harris. It is a very seductive idea since Paul Harris is the most influential creator of magic in the world. Since most magicians love Paul Harris - they will quote his philosophy when asked. But they don't really believe it.

In Art of Astonishment - he wrote an essay explaining his outlook. You can find a reprint of it here:

http://forums.ellusionist.com/showthread.php?72598-Astonishment-Is-Our-Natural-State-Of-Mind.

That approach was also popularized by David Blaine. Who was a student of Paul Harris. It is a popular way of approaching magic since it is buried in the idea of not getting in the way of the magic. You create an anti-style where you don't use presentation or any dramatic tricks to get in the way of the layperson's experience of astonishment.

This is great for magicians. Because shaping a presentation that entertains an audience is the hardest part of magic. And the part that magicians are least interested in since it has nothing to do with the method/secret side of a trick that magicians are most interested in.

-----------------

As you can see it is not hard to put together a book detailing how you went from a young person performing magic. To somebody who gets burned out. To somebody who journeys to the East to connect with thousands years of Shamanism/magic to discover that magic come from within and is ultimately about reminding ourselves of the astonishment that should be a part of our everyday life.

I could write a hundred books like that in my sleep. Indeed - in Art of Astonishment there is an essay by David Abram in which he went on the same journey. As such the Nate Staniforth book is just a book-length copy of the ideas set out by David Abram.

I am pretty sure this is the essay that appeared in the book:

http://www.primitivism.com/ecology-magic.htm

This approach is something that Doug Henning tried to achieve with his magic. He had a lot of unusual spiritual/religious ideas. And for him magic was a way of reminding people how magical the universe is.

It is all pseudo-intellectual nonsense, and no magician takes it seriously.

It is just that it is much easier to wax philosophical about magic. Than it is to try and do something new and interesting in magic.

Penn & Teller are one of the few to do that. And it is interesting that they perform "meta" magic. If something is inherently uninteresting and without value. The only way to make it interesting is to examine and critique it from the outside. So that your commentary on that object gives it value rather than extracting any value from the object itself.

A urinal is not art. But the way Marcel Duchamps appropriated it made it into art.

-------------------

The other approach to magic that has surfaced recently is the one advocated by Andy over at The Jerx.

Andy approaches magic by turning it on his head. His idea is rather like Alfred Hitchcock talking about the McGuffin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkyUxfSOKbI

He realised that most magic books approach magic from the point of view of professional magicians. And as such they overlook the massive freedom an amateur magician has when performing for a friend. If you want to spend 6 months setting up a magic trick. Or have a trick that takes place over a number of days - there is nothing stopping you as an amateur magician. Issues surrounding what is "practical" are of no concern.

As such - we can use magic tricks as permission slips to [censored] with people in any way we want. It is a strange social permission that magicians have access to that most people do not. Essentially magicians have the power to perform practical jokes on people where the goal is fooling them rather than humiliating them. That allows for a wide range of social power if the magician realises it and makes use of it. And it is something that Andy is exploring in his work.

http://www.thejerx.com/blog/2015/6/24/the-purpose-of-magic-in-the-early-21st-century

When do people get a chance to do something special for somebody else? They can prepare a surprise birthday party. Or they can try and pull off an ambitious marriage proposal. And that is kinda' it... If I want to take you on an adventure that ends in a surprise - it is hard to do so unless it is under the guise of a romantic gesture. As such - you are limited in who you can perform these ambitious gestures to.

Magicians on the other hand have a role in the culture where they can engage with people in order to pull off something unique, unusual and surprising. All under the guise of performing a magic trick.

Since a spectator is fooled by a magic trick - she has no idea how or why it worked. So if you tell her to meet you in the middle of New York during Manhatten-henge, in order to try something weird - you can use the wider context of what is happening to provide extra depth and meaning to your trick.

http://www.thejerx.com/blog/2017/8/17/sky-imps

Andy's goal with magic is to try and provide special analogue experiences in a digital age. We live in an age now where people send each other graphics of pints of beer on Facebook rather than actually meet up for a celebratory birthday drink. People are lazy and the digital tools of communication we have mean people put less and less effort into their social interactions with each other.

As such - using magic in a way to create compelling surprises and unique memories is a goal that is truly worthy and useful thanks to the digital world we are now living in.

Quick side note. I haven't seen this movie yet. But there is a French film called Amelie which explores similar ideas. In which a French woman secretly surprises strangers in unusual ways to solve problems they are facing. All under the cloak of anonymity.

------------------------

I really like this approach to magic that Andy advocates. One problem with magic is that some magicians use it as an form of ego validation. They want to impress people and receive acclaim. However - this is not something that is of any interest to those of us in magic who end up exploring other ideas. It is not hard to fool people. And getting validation from it is the same as getting an ego boost in beating a 6 year old in an arm wrestle.

With Andy's approach to magic - you are orchestrating unusual performances. In which the presentation gives all the credit to somebody or something else. Ironically - the spectator realises the presentation is mostly nonsense and will give you credit for it. But it removes the ego validation from the performance and that makes it much less awkward for the performer and the spectator.

Looking to impress somebody is a very needy thing to do. And that is something that puts off a lot of intelligent and secure people in magic. As such magic tends to be performed mainly by those who are less intelligent and less secure as personalities. Which is why magic has such a poor reputation in the artistic world.

---------------------

So back to the Nate Staniforth book. It is a clever way to publish a book. Since it sells a compelling story that laypeople will lap up. And it gives magic a meaning that is fake but believable. It is the magic equivalent of the divorced woman writing EAT. PRAY. LOVE.

It fits very well with where we are as a culture in 2018. But it offers nothing of real value to the thinking magician.

Today's Jerx...

I was discussing magic versus mentalism with a friend. And I want to share it here since the work of Andy plays an important part in my analysis.

Mentalism is one of my main passions in magic. However - I feel magic is more powerful when performing close up (which are the situations I find myself in).

With mentalism - you fool them.

With magic - you fool them AND there is some kind of visual surprise as well (a transposition, disappearance, colour change, etc). So you get to fool their eye as well as their mind. And I find that more compelling.

Another problem is this. Most of the best principles in mentalism are for use on the stage in a formal show. Rather than when performing close-up. So even if I did want to perform mentalism more - it is frustrating knowing that most of the best ideas are not suitable for using in a close-up environment.

Andy over at The Jerx is a big fan of mentalism in a close-up environment. This is because mentalism is more interactive than simply watching a piece of magic eye candy. As such - Andy focuses on making the interactivity of his mentalism tricks the main point of the performance. And he does this by pushing the envelope really far - such that they often come close to a kind of performance art.

As such - I find myself feeling that the best way to perform mentalism in a close-up environment, is to go in the direction that Andy advocates in his work.

performer wrote:I gave Richard my article some time ago. I am getting a psychic vibe you will never see it and my genius will have to go unrecognised.

With regard to this matter I have had a request from a well known figure in magic for a similar article on the svengali deck. I have informed him that Richard has first refusal on the matter but it doesn't look like he is going to use it. Since this is the case I am inclined to hand it over but I did promise him that would check in with Richard first. I shall assume that if there is no guarantee that it is not going to be in Genii by the end of March 2019 I will then feel able to release it to the multitude.

After all I am getting older every day and would like to see this article in print somewhere while I am still above ground.

Joe Mckay wrote:I was discussing magic versus mentalism with a friend. And I want to share it here since the work of Andy plays an important part in my analysis.

Mentalism is one of my main passions in magic. However - I feel magic is more powerful when performing close up (which are the situations I find myself in).

With mentalism - you fool them.

With magic - you fool them AND there is some kind of visual surprise as well (a transposition, disappearance, colour change, etc). So you get to fool their eye as well as their mind. And I find that more compelling.

Another problem is this. Most of the best principles in mentalism are for use on the stage in a formal show. Rather than when performing close-up. So even if I did want to perform mentalism more - it is frustrating knowing that most of the best ideas are not suitable for using in a close-up environment.

Andy over at The Jerx is a big fan of mentalism in a close-up environment. This is because mentalism is more interactive than simply watching a piece of magic eye candy. As such - Andy focuses on making the interactivity of his mentalism tricks the main point of the performance. And he does this by pushing the envelope really far - such that they often come close to a kind of performance art.

As such - I find myself feeling that the best way to perform mentalism in a close-up environment, is to go in the direction that Andy advocates in his work.

Here is a sample of some of the writings of the man you continually praise.

Still no clue how to attach files here. I'll have to copy and paste, however I will censor it as it is beyond vile and evil.

I've deleted your post because it was extremely confusing what was quoted material and what you were writing yourself. Parts of it were certainly offensive.

None of it was written myself. I will post the link in the interest of clarity.

Recommending this deviant's thoughts on magic is highly repugnant.

Richard Kaufman wrote:I've deleted your post because it was extremely confusing what was quoted material and what you were writing yourself. Parts of it were certainly offensive.

The tone is certainly offensive, but I’m still confused. I was expecting a link to the The Jerx. I can’t make out who’s having a go at whom on this link.

The posts from January 23rd on in this thread make no sense.

I have no idea what's being discussed, and nothing posted since the date above is even remotely understandable (unless you happen to have read the now deleted posts I presume).

magicfish appears to have a grudge with Andy. He probably has some kind of connection to The Magic Café.

It is all very confusing. But I just want to remind people that Andy & me are two different people. This is something else magicfish appears to be confused about.

magicfish is also (deliberately) confusing what Andy meant with his throwaway joke. The Magic Café were trying to plant child porn allegations on his old blog as a way of shutting him up and shutting the blog down. A mindless and incredible over-reaction.

[RICHARD KAUFMAN INTERJECTING: You cannot make throwaway jokes about child porn!]

This is something Andy wrote about on his blog at the time. And it is to this that Andy is referring when he made his joke in the comment linked to above.

The whole episode is unpleasant to think about. Particularly in light of the past 24 hours. Any chance we can clean up the forum a bit and delete some posts from this thread to make it less confusing?

One other thing.

Would it be possible to lock this thread?

Year Three of The Jerx is finished. And hopefully Year Four will be starting soon.

If magicfish wants to attack Andy he can start a new thread specifically for that purpose. Rather than clutter this one up.

Andy feels there is too much discussion of magic online. Too much talking and not enough doing. And I am more guilty of that than most. So I probably won't bother starting up a new thread for Year 4 of The Jerx.

Besides everyone is on board now with his work so it no longer needs any extra publicity to help spread the word.

So .... Richard deleted a post and noted that he did so because the post made little sense, was difficult to understand, and was somewhat inappropriate.
Rather than leave well enough alone, magicfish decided to respond to Richards deletion by then linking to the contents of the post Richard had just deleted, thus continuing the confusion?

I still don't understand the direction magicfish is attempting to drag the thread in, but at least I understand why I don't understand.

Roger M. wrote:So .... Richard deleted a post and noted that he did so because the post made little sense, was difficult to understand, and was somewhat inappropriate.
Rather than leave well enough alone, magicfish decided to respond to Richards deletion by then linking to the contents of the post Richard had just deleted, thus continuing the confusion?

I still don't understand the direction magicfish is attempting to drag the thread in, but at least I understand why I don't understand.

That puts you ahead of me!! Talk about confusion boats nuke me from stern to bow.

I see no reason to lock the thread. RK and The Moderators (that well-known rhythm ensemble) seem to be well on top of things.

The devotion Joe displays for Andy is a bit disturbing. Andy has often been controversial. if he can dish it out, he can stand to have his words scrutinized. if positive opinions toward Andy are acceptable to Joe, then so should negative.

You can’t expect to praise someone for 4 pages and demand that no one dare disagree with you.

Accepting that there are limits, by and large I agree with Mister Henderson.
Joe is unquestionably one of Andy’s greatest publicists. Nothing wrong with that, if it’s your thing. And I I look forward to his observations on Year Four.

As for Andy’s thoughts regarding “too much discussion of magic online. Too much talking and not enough doing,” he’s not in a position to make such a statement in anything like a definitive manner. He’s probably right, but in his eagerness to have a go at the talkers, he seems to assume that everybody (almost) is a talker not a doer. Except maybe himself.

Talking is what people do, in and out of Magic, so there’s bound to be more talk than action. Always was.

Having scribbled that, now I really am confused.

I have read and reread that quote from "Andy" several times. I can make no sense of part of it--the offensive part. Deletions to follow.
Magicfish--don't post it again.

If people want to attack Andy - that is fine by me. Andy is more than capable of defending himself. And I am more than capable of sticking up for him as well since whilst he has been involved in a number of feuds/controversies over the years - it is clear to me that his behavior has been reasonable albeit seasoned with a lot of outrageous humour (which some appreciate and some don't).

I just thought it might be useful to lock this thread since it is now redundant. And if anyone has an issue with Andy they can start a thread where the issue can be discussed properly. Hopefully in a way that is a lot less confusing than the current discussion has ended up becoming.

As for me being a massive Andy Fan Boi. It is true. And I am genuinely sure he is sick of it. Apparently he mentions me in the credits to his latest book. But I am sure it is just an act of sympathy to an obsessive fan. That is fine by me - I have zero dignity when it comes to magic. I just love it too much.

I get passionate about people who are super creative in magic or people (like Richard Kaufman - another of my crushes) who consistently produce incredible work for the magic community. In just the past five years alone - Kaufman has been on an amazing run.

I have other crushes as well.

Paul Harris.

Lubor Fiedler.

Bob Hummer.

To name a few.

But sadly there is not much opportunity to post about their work online since they are not currently doing much these days.

As for Andy's blog. Something that has become clear to me is that Andy gets more excited when he hears feedback from people who have performed his work, and are in a position to offer interesting feedback. And perhaps further suggestions.

Here is a quote from his blog:

This year was really the first time where I received a decent amount of feedback from people who were out there performing the material from this site, JV1, and the JAMM. I received a bunch of emails with write-ups of how the effects went, pictures from the performances, and a few videos of effects being performed in casual situations and even on stage. It's cool to see people performing this stuff or being inspired by the ideas and building on them.

This is the sort of interaction he wants with his readers. As opposed to the more Magic Café style of using magic as a topic to debate and analyze - rather than perform. And I am more guilty of that than most. So I had this in mind when I tried to pass along Andy's feelings as regards online magic discussions. And it is with that in mind that I will probably make an effort to post less about Andy's work in future.

Since in a way - that is going against the aesthetic that Andy wants to create with his blog.

Richard Kaufman wrote:I have read and reread that quote from "Andy" several times. I can make no sense of part of it--the offensive part. Deletions to follow.
Magicfish--don't post it again.

Don't worry, I won't. I think you get the idea of the kind of human being we are dealing with here.

Joe Mckay wrote:As for Andy's blog. Something that has become clear to me is that Andy gets more excited when he hears feedback from people who have performed his work, and are in a position to offer interesting feedback. And perhaps further suggestions.

Here is a quote from his blog:

This year was really the first time where I received a decent amount of feedback from people who were out there performing the material from this site, JV1, and the JAMM. I received a bunch of emails with write-ups of how the effects went, pictures from the performances, and a few videos of effects being performed in casual situations and even on stage. It's cool to see people performing this stuff or being inspired by the ideas and building on them.

This is the sort of interaction he wants with his readers. As opposed to the more Magic Café style of using magic as a topic to debate and analyze - rather than perform. And I am more guilty of that than most. So I had this in mind when I tried to pass along Andy's feelings as regards online magic discussions. And it is with that in mind that I will probably make an effort to post less about Andy's work in future.

Since in a way - that is going against the aesthetic that Andy wants to create with his blog.

Well, duh ... most people like having their backside kissed!

Brad Henderson wrote:The devotion Joe displays for Andy is a bit disturbing. Andy has often been controversial. if he can dish it out, he can stand to have his words scrutinized. if positive opinions toward Andy are acceptable to Joe, then so should negative.

You can’t expect to praise someone for 4 pages and demand that no one dare disagree with you.

You said it better than I could've. Thanks Brad.

All this talk about sexual predators reminds me of my favourite piece of comedy magic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNQ6_1GCVVA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxAkNvnxhI

"Andy" posted an ethical opinion against actions which "...take advantage of the innocent and/or damage another human physically or mentally."

A lot of people are overlooking the serious issue of the extreme (and insane) lengths the Magic Cafe were planning on going to in order to pull down his old blog.

Why do you believe that's true? Because Andy says it's true?

Fair point!

Joe Mckay wrote:A lot of people are overlooking the serious issue of the extreme (and insane) lengths the Magic Cafe were planning on going to in order to pull down his old blog.

A lot of people are overlooking the serious issue of the horrific things this guy has publicly written about honest, decent hardworking people.
His magic isnt that good, but even if it was the best in the world, it wouldn't be enough for me to praise his work. There is enough good material in print to choose from. I don't need a new trick so badly that I'll overlook violent mysogeny.

I look at magic like a fractal. You can zoom in as much as you want. And you can zoom out as much as you want.

But it makes no difference. At every level you will find something about this multi-faceted art that is fascinating.

So if your magic microscope is not set to the same focal length as Andy's - I can see why his work wouldn't have much to offer. Even I fancy a break every so often and want to think about other areas entirely.

For instance one of my favourite tricks in recent years is a handling for the invisible deck by Cody Fisher. It is a stage item that combines this classic with one of the most basic ideas in mentalism. And it is a masterpiece of professional magic with all the kinks worked out. It is wonderful thinking. It is so nice seeing creativity applied to such commercial and practical ends.

I recently came across a couple of tricks recently by Marc Paul that elicited a similar response as well. One of the things that interests me is how a trick changes over hundreds of performances in front of a paying audience. And that is one of the most interesting aspects of magic that amateurs never really get to experience. Yet that is where a lot of the real secrets of magic are hidden.

As for the old debate about the interaction of art and morality - I have never been a fan of that argument. If you were to abandon all the technology and art produced by people who you judge to be immoral - you wouldn't get to enjoy many of the fruits of the modern world.

NASA was set up by a literal Nazi war criminal. Steve Jobs was a jerk. John Lennon was a wife beater. Einstein was a racist misogynist.

Where do you draw the line?

I am an atheist, but I still believe only God can truly judge us.

magicfish wrote:..... horrific things this guy has publicly written......

magicfish wrote:......I don't need a new trick so badly that I'll overlook violent mysogeny.

magicfish wrote:Recommending this deviant's thoughts on magic is highly repugnant.

magicfish wrote:I will censor it as it is beyond vile and evil.

I'm not a big "Andy" fan, but neither do I particularly dislike the man or his magic ... that said, we could probably dial back the hyperbole here and just say his magic "isn't for us" rather than go way over the top and create something "criminally pornographic" seemingly focused more on a personal agenda than it is honestly reviewing a magic blog.
I get that lots of folks don't particularly like "Andy" (and who have every right to not like him), and some folks who no doubt despise him ... but let's not get ridiculous about it.

Joe Mckay wrote: NASA was set up by a literal Nazi war criminal.

Come again?

I never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

But seriously - Wernher von Braun was evil. And he was the most important person in the early days of NASA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

Roger M. wrote:

magicfish wrote:..... horrific things this guy has publicly written......

magicfish wrote:......I don't need a new trick so badly that I'll overlook violent mysogeny.

magicfish wrote:Recommending this deviant's thoughts on magic is highly repugnant.

magicfish wrote:I will censor it as it is beyond vile and evil.

I'm not a big "Andy" fan, but neither do I particularly dislike the man or his magic ... that said, we could probably dial back the hyperbole here and just say his magic "isn't for us" rather than go way over the top and create something "criminally pornographic" seemingly focused more on a personal agenda than it is honestly reviewing a magic blog.
I get that lots of folks don't particularly like "Andy" (and who have every right to not like him), and some folks who no doubt despise him ... but let's not get ridiculous about it.

I'm guessing you haven't read his earlier stuff which was invariably about degrading, and indeed physically abusing women and forcing them to do things which I won't mention here. Often, this would be his patter theme.

Look fellas, I love the Genii Forum. I don't post much but I've been here for a long time and have a great respect for Genii's history and provenance.
I also own every Richard Kaufman book except two, perhaps three, and have studied his texts for over 3 decades.
I'm don't want to cause trouble and I respect that some of you find the Jerx (magic circle jerk- highly obscene) informative.
It just bothers me that his work is being celebrated by some here.
I won't copy and paste anymore but I strongly urge you to read his blogs- from the beginning. It is appalling, hate filled, mysogeny. How some can ignore this filth because you like a coin trick is beyond me.
But it isnt my forum and I've said my peace.
I'll let you "fans" talk about his magic now.
Good day.

magicfish wrote:I also own every Richard Kaufman book except two, perhaps three, and have studied his texts for over 3 decades. .

Reminds me of the guy who orders a pizza with everything on it... but with no mushrooms, jalepeno's, onions....

Lol. Nice one Brian!
Except instead of onions and such, it's Tenyoism and DeLand. Which I hope to rectify soon.
My wallet will be the first to tell you that there are more Kaufman books than Pizza toppings however.

Are you gents all familiar with his presentation for the ambitious card? I encourage you to read it.
I will post a link but only with the moderators' permission. Then again, since this entire 4 page thread is about The Jerx, I'm sure I can share The Jerx issues right?
See Feb.28 2018.
Tell us how ingenious this is Joe.