I believe that the average audience member comes to see the tricks, rather than the magician. But if I'm right, that the audience wants to see clever tricks and illusions demonstrated
on what basis do you believe you are right? If you were right then all magicians who did the same tricks would be received identically by the audience. If a card comes up to the top and the audience doesn't know how its done, then they will enjoy it as much when you do it with your ridiculous palm method (which I would pay money to see) or when bill malone does it, or david williamson, or david blaine. Hell, they wouldn't even need to see a magician, they could just stand in a magic shop and what the tricks being demonstrated.
It's my experience that people find "tricks" boring because people for the most part don't like puzzles. After all, a puzzle is only fun if you solve it, and if you do, then you aren't presenting magic. Magic is not a puzzle. Nor is it about tricks. As max Maven said, "tricks are about objects, magic is about life." Now, are you going to tell us that you have no respect for Max, as you have done with Weber and Picasso?
David Blaine did not begin as a celebrity magician. He did the same tricks we all did. But for some reason, not everyone got the same response and became famous, did they. IF you were right, then anyone who did those tricks would be just as well known and successful as Blaine. They aren't. So clearly the audience isn't responding to the tricks. They are responding to something more.
jkeyes1000 wrote: it stands to reason that they don't want lies masking the inadequacies of your effects.
How do they know there are lies? If said lies masks the "inadequacy" on an effect, how would they know the effect was inadequate, being masked as it is?
Again, you make the mistake of assuming that other human beings think like you, and as you have proven with your grossly inaccurate view of the meaning of words (and how words get meanings) they don't. You're the only person who I have seen used the term "stands to reason" and then offered nothing based on reason at all.
jkeyes1000 wrote:They don't mind being fooled by ingenious devices, skilled manipulations, or even "high tec" so much as cheek or gall.
Says who? My experience, and that of every other magician I have met, tells me that people want to feel magic.How that is accomplished it irrelevant. the only people who care about how its done are magicians. Again, you think like a magician and not a human being.
jkeyes1000 wrote:Audiences come to a magic show to see special talents unique to magicians, not mere acting, and certainly not anything as common as lies.
Again, how do you know this is true? I agree that people come to see magic (or more specifically to experience the feeling of magic) but why do you think they care how it is accomplished, especially when acting, and lying, and lighting, and music, and color, and costuming all convey that feeling?
jkeyes1000 wrote:If lying is an inherent part of your act, you are indeed merely PORTRAYING a magician, the way Tony Curtis played Houdini.
Let's back up? What is magic? It seems you think its puzzles meant to confound, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. What is the goal of the magician and the art of magic? (I realize this means you have to think about art, and clearly you are ignorant of the basics, but do try. It will be good for you in the long run)
jkeyes1000 wrote:The "impact" of your performance, the intensity of the amazement, is proportional to the wonder of how it was done, given the veracity of your claim.
Says who? And again, how does the audience ever know the veracity of my claim unless I fail? And again I ask, what evidence do you have that an audience reacts differently when realizing the magician lied with his or her words versus lied with their bodies? "The coin is in the other hand" is equally damning whether or not the trick is performed silently, yes?
jkeyes1000 wrote:If this is still hard to understand, I will pick up this thread later.
It's not hard to understand. We understand completely - you have no idea what you speak of.