Method as Accoutrement - A Minor Rant

[JHostler]

I recently stumbled upon an intriguing(?) video by one of magic’s more prominent book reviewers. His opening thesis: The latest often isn’t the greatest because “method is [largely] irrelevant.” He supports this bold, steaming pile of insight by asserting that the reasonable execution of any reasonable method remains invisible… so if it works, it works.

I’ll grant this reviewer compensatory credit for transitioning to some truly useful advice for beginners (and the bulk of Magic Books Anonymous members). And [shock!] the "latest and greatest" IS often rubbish. But that bloody lead-in deserves some deconstruction.

First, magic advances as a craft and art form – and keeps pace with the demands of an increasingly sophisticated and jaded audience – only through the diligent efforts of practitioners AND developers. Over time, methods are exposed… they’re rendered less astonishing by technological advancements… and “spectators” (what an awful term!) simply demand more. Many like the reviewer tend to assume a modern-era starting point for method and technique. But there was indeed a time before Vernon, Marlo, Curry, Dingle, Jennings et al – not to mention the pass, roughing fluid, and a myriad of tools now considered fundamental to the trade.

Setting aside his myopic view of magic’s evolution, this person takes a hyper-utilitarian approach to valuing method and technique – ignoring the joy and satisfaction that accrue from exploring and advancing new ideas for their own sake. Many of us simply dig magicdom’s equivalent of basic and applied research – not to mention the thrill of being fooled by (or fooling others with) something innovative.

Finally... the reviewer himself - presumably a voracious reader - invests untold hours of his own time perusing the very "latest and greatest" material he so flippantly cheapens.

So… enough of the “method matters not” pith. Please.

[Jonathan Townsend]

What's wrong with a utilitarian perspective on magic methods as regards packing, setup, script, outs, disposition of props, and reset?

[Richard Kaufman]

Before Vernon, Daley, and Horowitz, methodology was more brute force: Multiple Top Changes, Passes, Palms. There was a huge difference before and after those three guys in New York (and Arthur Finley).

[Brad Henderson]

Let’s consider the statement logically - if two different methods produce no discernible difference in the experience of the participant, how can we say one is better than another? If switching one method to another TRULY has no perceptual impact on the experience of the audience then are they not effectively the same?

In theory, this person is correct. If the audience can’t see any difference between version ‘a’ and version ‘b’ then there is no reason to advocate one for the other - age of the method is irrelevant.

BUT as we know, while many methods can get us to the same place, and while many methods are equally ‘invisible,’ the practical truth is that different methods almost always also change other things - they inject a difference in procedure, they require hands in different positions, they change the rhythm and flow of the piece.

So even though two moves may be equally invisible on their own and both may get us to the same end result, the requirements for the use of each will almost always lead to perceptual differences that do impact the feelingful response to the trick - but not necessarily related to issues of the effectiveness of the method(s) pers se.

So yeah, they are correct.

But their frame of concern may be more narrow than needed in order to be practically valuable. The fact is - most changes in method do change other things and those other things I believe are probably even MORE important than the method.

BUT I will say - Pursuing new methods just for the sake of newness is an act of craft. Not art. And we NEED craft to make art. So it has value. But unless those new Methods allow for perceptible differences to result in the execution of an effect, they are of little value beyond an act of self satisfaction

And there’s nothing wrong with that either

[erdnasephile]

To one of Brad's main points: I was always taught that "Method affects effect."

[JHostler]

I hadn’t planned on getting into Brad’s points explicitly ( though many of the same observations are “baked into” my original rant). Agreed on all counts. It’s the lack of such nuance in “method doesn’t matter if it ‘works’” proclamations that drives me nuts!

[Chris Aguilar]

I recently stumbled upon an intriguing(?) video by one of magic’s more prominent book reviewers. His opening thesis: The latest often isn’t the greatest because “method is [largely] irrelevant.” He supports this bold, steaming pile of insight by asserting that the reasonable execution of any reasonable method remains invisible… so if it works, it works.
...

From his "nuanced" video:

https://youtu.be/pexdEoPiRzI



I'd suggest he read (or re-read) this excellent take on the subject.

[Richard Kaufman]

"Method" is never irrelevant for the simple reason that each of us is different. Method A might work better for Magician A than Magician B.
This is often confused with the argument that "method is irrelevant" because the only thing that matters is the effect.
These are two entirely different things.

[JHostler]

"Method" is never irrelevant for the simple reason that each of us is different. Method A might work better for Magician A than Magician B.
This is often confused with the argument that "method is irrelevant" because the only thing that matters is the effect.
These are two entirely different things.

And the latter argument is a non-starter once one acknowledges that method often affects effect.

[Bill Mullins]

if two different methods produce no discernible difference in the experience of the participant, how can we say one is better than another?

Maybe "experience of the participant" is the most important factor, but not the only one. Suppose method a and method b look the same to the spectator, but method b is more reliably performed by the magician. Or method a leaves the props in a position that makes it easier to move to the next trick in a set, or to reset for a repeat performance. Wouldn't this be "better"?

[Leo Garet]

For me, "Better" and "Best" are methods that I'm comfortable with and that allow me to present an effect that spectators seem to enjoy.

i say "seem," because who knows for certain.

I always think of it in terms a a joke.....yes I Know. However it's true. Tell a joke to a group of five different people.

"A" laughs uproariously.

"B" laughs audibly, but not uproariously.

"C" enjoys the joke and chuckles quietly.

"D" smiles.

"E" doesn't think it's remotely humorous, let alone funny, and remains stony-faced.

If it's a group of friends, "E" will likely say "Is that funny"? And add some good natured, disparaging comments.

Magic trick spectators are the same but, minus the laughter, it's harder to discern their reaction. Often impossible.

[Bob Farmer]

For those who do not or cannot invent magic tricks, method may be irrelevant, but for those of us who do invent, method is never irrelevant. A method for something may lead to something else; any effect requires a deceptive method. A deceptive method may be old or new: age is irrelevant, only deceptiveness counts.

[Brad Henderson]

if two different methods produce no discernible difference in the experience of the participant, how can we say one is better than another?

Maybe "experience of the participant" is the most important factor, but not the only one. Suppose method an and method b look the same to the spectator, but method b is more reliably performed by the magician. Or method a leaves the props in a position that makes it easier to move to the next trick in a set, or to reset for a repeat performance. Wouldn't this be "better"?

I would say all these are examples that affect the experience of the participant. A method that causes the magician to be tense out of fear it is unreliable is perceived by the participant. If the magician has to constantly readjust their props that is perceived by the audience and affects how they feel.

My point is to the degree that two methods are perceptually indistinguishable by the audience - and that includes everything that the audience sees that results from that method choice - they are identical.

Further. Methods do not exist in an arbitrary objective state. An unskilled double lift is an unskilled double lift. We can argue the double lift may be ideal for the trick, but not if it isnt performed well. Likewise. A double lift as a means may be a great move for any number of reasons but it may not be ideal for doing exactly what it does in a specific context or Specific time.

But the final arbiter in all matters is the perception of the audience-participant.

This is why we as magicians like to watch other magicians who do crappy tricks with interesting methods.

Because we as participants/audiences see things differently than those without the same training/experience.

My girlfriend was at a magic event and saw dave neighbors to 15 versions of coins across.

She literally couldn’t tell a difference in any of those versions. The magicians sitting on either side of us watched in rapt attention - they could notice the perceptible differences. So knowledge of the audience is also a factor.

[Bill Mullins]

I would say all these are examples that affect the experience of the participant.

Well, my premise was that the methods are identical from the perspective of the participant.

Like the situation with Dave Neighbors and your girlfriend. Of the 15 methods, if Dave saw some as better than others, and your girlfriend saw no difference, weren't the ones that Dave preferred in fact "better"?

My girlfriend was at a magic event and saw dave neighbors to 15 versions of coins across.

Were you ever able to get her to another magic event? <G>

(And what ever happened to Dave? I haven't seen him post on any magic fora lately, nor heard of him being at a convention. Is he okay?)

[Richard Kaufman]

Al Schneider asked me to post this to the discussion: "I was working a booth hawking my books. A young guy and his wife stopped by to see what I had. He did not seem interested in my latest so I pitched a booklet on Matrix. She exclaimed, "That's my favorite trick!" I said that I then did not need to show him the routine. He said he would like me to see me do it. I did. He was quiet. She slowly put her arm around him. She pulled him close. She spoke softly into his ear. "Honey, that's not the same trick!" "Honey, he doesn't touch the cards and they move anyway!" My point: he was clearly doing one of the improved versions of Matrix. In general, magician's do not know what the layman sees nor do they seem to care."

[Michael Rubinstein]

Certainly changing a move changes the way a trick looks. And sometimes the layman sees something that a magician ignores (extra finger movement, unnecessary actions, etc). A magician knows the performer is doing something, but accepts it because the effect is good. A layman has no idea what the magician did, but knows that "something" wasn't right. They may not verbalize that to a magician, but that doesn't mean it escapes their attention. I call those things flaws. If we say that pure magic is flawless, then a magician who creates the illusion of magic performs a flawed routine. Minimizing those flaws (and there are always flaws) helps us to create a better illusion of real magic, and that means substituting a method or movement to make it look better (i.e. more magical), and therefore a better routine. We all know that there are a plethora of published routines that show the same effect, but we choose the best one for us to perform to get the best illusion. Take the many coins across routines mentioned earlier. Are there extra coins? The exact amount of coins? Gaffed coins? Use of a table? Sit down or stand up? Use of a spectator? Every situation contains different problems to overcome.
And sometimes a magician doesn't have the ability to flawlessly perform some moves, but as they advance in the art, they may gain the ability to perform better moves ( or perform moces better!) and reduce flaws in their magic.
Anyway, just some thoughts after reading this thread.

[Dave Le Fevre]

In general, magician's do not know what the layman sees nor do they seem to care

That should be the "superpower" that we all want to have - to see our own performance from viewpoint of a lay audience. (Though of course different lay audiences have different opinions.)

[Al Schneider 123]

the "superpower" is called listening

[Dustin Stinett]

I recall once hearing a magician (at the Magic Castle) say that he would rush to the men's room and sit in one of the stalls to listen to the discissions that take place in there after his show.

I have always tried to watch a performance from the viewpoint of a layperson when I can, because I love to watch the magic, not the technique. An aside: years ago I spent the better part of a week in Boca Raton back when Bill Malone's magic bar was there. I saw a LOT of magic since I went there every night. (With a group, who promised not to mention that I was a magician because the performance would be different.) On the last night, I approached a few of the performers who were gathered by the bar as I had a message for them from one of the guys who used to work there. They were stunned to discover that I was a magician. "You don't ACT like a magician!" The point of that story is, it is possible to do.

Now I told you that story to tell you this one: I watched a highly touted, first time performer, in the Close-Up Gallery a few times. I later asked his collaborator if I could give him some notes. He listened and then said, well, okay, but ..." and then told me why "no one will notice those things."

Even if they listen, they do not hear.

[PressureFan]

I heard Jamy Ian Swiss relate the men's room tip in his lecture years ago.

[Al Schneider 123]

I believe my style of performing is different than others in the sense that I am very concerned about my "customers" welfare. For example, when I reveal the magic effect, I do not look at the spectator. I have found that doing so shuts down their reaction because someone is looking at them when they are shocked. I also try to avoid that, "I did something that fooled you,ha ha!" I did a bit of walk around and found customers that wanted to share their magic experiences. That is, I encourage people to express their point of view. I think most magicians discourage comments from others. At a shoot at L&L, one of the ladies in the audience during lunch walked up to me and said, "You are different." She said she had seen a lot of magicians at many L&L shoots. She confessed that they were very good but always saw something funny. Before she walked away she said, "When you do the magic I don't see anything funny, just the magic." Do you understand the people she is refering to? Listening is duplicating something in your head without judgement. This thread is not a minor rant but very important. And I appreciate the supporting comments here. That means a lot to me.

[Dustin Stinett]

Hi Al,
I'm so glad when you participate here. Suzanne is a good friend, and I can tell that she is your student as she has the same qualities that you just wrote about. It's why she is so good. You must be quite happy to know that she is "paying it forward" with her students.

It's astounding to me the number of close-up magicians who build a fourth wall between them and their audience. Close-up is about human contact, even in "formal" settings. (I suspect that the virtual setting is the cause of that.) Even Ricky Jay broke the fourth wall, and he was not a fan of people.

[Michael Rubinstein]

In addition to audience feedback, try (strive) to watch a video of your performance (both in front of people and with your practice sessions). This way you can see yourself as the audience sees you, and find flaws with your handlings that you might otherwise have missed.

[Curtis Kam]

I absolutely agree with Dave Le Favre that the most important skill a magician can develop is the ability to know what the audience is experiencing when he or she or they performs.

It’s not the same thing a different audience experiences when a different magician performs, even when it’s the same trick, or the same technique. Some performers invite more scrutiny, some less.

I’ve found this is important to keep this in mind if you’re ever in the position of coaching another magician.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tarotist]

Techniques and methods are indeed important and you should use the best method for a particular trick. However I believe there is something far more important than either the method OR the trick. The most important skill a magician can develop is to have an amusing personality. Not necessarily funny but at least amusing. If you have that it can cover a multitude of sins.

[El Mystico]

What a great discussion!
My tiny view:
I agree with Richard when he says the New York Circle from the 30s and 40s revolutionised close-up magic (I paraphrase!).
But - one of my parlour shows is on the history of magic. I take great delight in getting gasps from material from Hocus Pocus Junior and Discoverie of Witchcraft.
Humans haven't noticeably evolved or grown smarter since those days.
But performing circumstances have changed in many ways.