Ennobling Magic

[performer]

. Whether or not the audience objects is not for me to predict.

everything you have written is predicated on the belief that you CAN predict how an audience would respond to a lie.

a pm suggested you were a troll. i said i thought you were just stupid. but i think we are both right. you are a stupid troll.

Dearie me, Brad! You really shouldn't be rude, you know! When you lose your temper you lose the argument! I don't necessarily go along 100 percent with jkeyes theory but he expresses his point of view admirably against the hordes and seems to be bouncing them all up and down like strings on a puppet. In any event I have been in touch with the aforementioned Mr Hartz in the spirit world and he agrees with Mr Keyes wholeheartedly. The opinion expressed does not seem to be too much at variance with that of highly respected Jerry Andrus from what I have heard in the past. In fact I wish he was on this thread. I would love to hear what he thinks about it.

I believe the term "stupid troll" l to be a trifle unkind. I don't think he is a troll and he is certainly not stupid. He is intelligently putting his views forward even if I can't quite understand them. I just think you can disagree with him without insulting him. I must be getting more tranquil in my old age.

[jkeyes1000]

But your entire argument has been that the audience will definitely be incensed by what you define as lies.

Besides reading about tricks you need to get out and perform a few. Try different presentations. Don't just guess, but from actual experience see what is and is not effective.

Also I'd like to praise your performance. You have your character from The Three Billy Goats Gruff down pat. Time to move on to something else.

No, my argument has been all along that regardless of how highly respected you may fancy yourselves, it could only enhance your dignity to be "lie free". You must admit that if you and I were competing for attention, at neighbouring venues, all other things being equal, I would have the "edge". Do you not see honesty as a potential selling point, an advantage, to a performer in such a suspect line of work?

I've outgrown competing for attention.

Since I only speak for myself, do not have multiple personalities, nor am I part of The Borg, I do not know why you are saying "yourselves" when you respond to my post.

Trip, trap, trip, trap.... Oh, now I remember.

You are conversing with a proud grammarian, Mr. Jackpot, and a perfectly literal writer (or rathe as perfect as this rubbish smartphone will permit). My use of the word, "yourselves" is justified because it was in response to your remark about the consistency of my argument, which was and is addressed to the lot of you.

[Bill Mullins]

I just read this quotefrom Mason Williams, a musician and writer from the Smothers Brothers show of 50 years ago: "Art is the lie that makes us see the truth. "

[jkeyes1000]

I don't have a great deal of time to banter today, but I think I should make an effort to clarify my opinion.

I believe that the average audience member comes to see the tricks, rather than the magician. There are exceptions of course. Celebrity magicians rely on style and charisma. But what makes a person want to see a magic show is The Magic.

If you are an exception, you can make your own rules. Good for you.

But if I'm right, that the audience wants to see clever tricks and illusions demonstrated, it stands to reason that they don't want lies masking the inadequacies of your effects.

They don't mind being fooled by ingenious devices, skilled manipulations, or even "high tec" so much as cheek or gall.

Audiences come to a magic show to see special talents unique to magicians, not mere acting, and certainly not anything as common as lies.

If lying is an inherent part of your act, you are indeed merely PORTRAYING a magician, the way Tony Curtis played Houdini.

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.

If this is still hard to understand, I will pick up this thread later.

[Bob Farmer]

I'm convinced. I've made a little sign for my close-up pad. It reads:

ATTENTION!!! There will be absolutely no lying, mendacity, fibbing, guile or shading of the truth during the performance.

If you are offended by honesty, veracity, straight talk or brutal transparency, this performance is not for you.

If anyone lies during the performance, whether it's me or you, they will be beaten about the head by a Bible (or the book of your choice on which an oath of truthfulness can be sworn).

During the performance I will be hooked up to a polygraph machine to ensure my absolute compliance.

Thank you.

Remraf The Magnificent

[Brad Henderson]

I believe the term "stupid troll" l to be a trifle unkind. I don't think he is a troll and he is certainly not stupid. He is intelligently putting his views forward even if I can't quite understand them. I just think you can disagree with him without insulting him. I must be getting more tranquil in my old age.

what else could I say? I've been told that its wrong to lie.

[Brad Henderson]

I just read this quotefrom Mason Williams, a musician and writer from the Smothers Brothers show of 50 years ago: "Art is the lie that makes us see the truth. "

I believe that was also said by Picasso - who Keyes says he does not respect, him being a mere "portrait painter" and all

[Brad Henderson]

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.

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.

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.

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?

If lying is an inherent part of your act, you are indeed merely PORTRAYING a magician, the way Tony Curtis played Houdini.

Says who?

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)

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?

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.

[Brad Henderson]

No, my argument has been all along that regardless of how highly respected you may fancy yourselves, it could only enhance your dignity to be "lie free".

How? If the audience can't tell you are lying, how can anything be enhance?

You must admit that if you and I were competing for attention, at neighbouring venues, all other things being equal, I would have the "edge". Do you not see honesty as a potential selling point, an advantage, to a performer in such a suspect line of work?

No. How would the audience know that I am lying? They would only care if you told them, but would they care any more than when they learn about your gimmicks and sleights? I think you have a seriously screwed up conception of both what magic is and how human beings work.

Have you every done a show for real people in your life?

I'm asking seriously, because I don't know ANY magician who worked any time at all (let alone successfully) for real people who could hold the beliefs you do.


And why do you think they care about lying?

They care about one thing, how do you make them feel. If you give them a feeling they value, they don't care how it's accomplished. Look around the political scene today - people don't care if you lie as long as those lies convey a feeling they desire. Hell, we lie to ourselves for the same purpose. We revel in our mythologies. We lose ourselves in video games.

What distinguished magic from the other arts is not the technique, its the feeling. Other arts can symbolically represent the impossible, only magic can give someone the direct experience of it.

[jkeyes1000]

Mr. Henderson, I have encountered your type many times. I have engaged in thousands of debates in all sorts of places, on great topics involving Science, Religion, and Government. While it would only be my subjective determination to say I won them all, I daresay I never lost.

You are the sort that jumps in feet first and hopes to impress everyone with your pretense of wisdom and experience. You start off with something dubious (like a quote from Picasso) that is supposed to take down the opposition in a fell swoop.

When it does not, you rummage about for any negative insinuation you can make. You tried to rally the troops against me by claiming falsely that I favoured camera tricks, for instance. An outright lie and you knew it.

You repeatedly question things I have already answered ad nauseum.

You hack away relentlessly, atempting to dress down your adversary for lack of evidence, yet offer none in support of your own point of view.

I told you, if you want to know for your own information, or to prove it to others whether audiences are okay with being lied to, al you have to do is ask them.

I will even trust you (yes, a known liar) to give us an accurate set of statistics. But you decline the suggestion. Why? Because you don't want them to even consider the matter! Bad for business.

You are nothing but a stubborn blowhard. You have the temerity to try to persuade us of your genuine authority on the subject (any subject), despite your own advocacy of lies and "creating feelings" in lieu of making sober sense.

[Brad Henderson]

so you can't prove any of the things you claim

got it

and apparently you can't answer any of the questions i have asked, because the answers are nowhere to be found.

how does the audience know you are lying?

would their awareness of this change how they feel any differently from catching one in a silent sleight?

i don't ask my audiences how they feel about me using ANY technique because awareness of technique (let alone fixation thereof) is antithetical to the goals of the magician.

only a puzzler requires rules of engagement.

but i don't think you understand anything about magic or art and therefor cannot understand what have written above.

and i call BS again. i don't think you've done any of the things you claim you have. Neither your debate skills nor your examples of magic scripts/structure suggest you have.

but hey, the answer is easy - put up or shut up. Show us in performance how your approach to not lying produces a product that can be in any way measurably different that that produced by a magician who lies

show us

please

[Bill Mullins]

I just read this quotefrom Mason Williams, a musician and writer from the Smothers Brothers show of 50 years ago: "Art is the lie that makes us see the truth. "

I believe that was also said by Picasso - who Keyes says he does not respect, him being a mere "portrait painter" and all

So he did, and you quoted him on the first page of this thread -- which is probably why it stood out when I saw it in the Smothers Brothers profile.

[jkeyes1000]

so you can't prove any of the things you claim

got it

and apparently you can't answer any of the questions i have asked, because the answers are nowhere to be found.

how does the audience know you are lying?

would their awareness of this change how they feel any differently from catching one in a silent sleight?

i don't ask my audiences how they feel about me using ANY technique because awareness of technique (let alone fixation thereof) is antithetical to the goals of the magician.

only a puzzler requires rules of engagement.

but i don't think you understand anything about magic or art and therefor cannot understand what have written above.

and i call BS again. i don't think you've done any of the things you claim you have. Neither your debate skills nor your examples of magic scripts/structure suggest you have.

but hey, the answer is easy - put up or shut up. Show us in performance how your approach to not lying produces a product that can be in any way measurably different that that produced by a magician who lies

show us

please

If you have never discussed the "method" of lying with your audience then how can you boast of certainty that it is acceptable?

You keep asking the same inane question: How is the audience to know you are lying? I have indeed already answered this seveal times.

All they need to know is that you have a TENDENCY to lie. That is sufficient to lessen their sense of wonder at how you acomplishh your effects.

Just as the SUSPICION of camera tricks dulls the viewing experience of a videotaped performance, so does the CYNICISM about your honesty detract from the spectators awe.

Do you really need someone to explain this to you or are you just wasting everyone's time, Mr. Hendeson?

[Brad Henderson]

why would you discuss your methods with an audience??????

and how would they possibly know you have a 'tendency' to lie?

how is them knowing you have a tendency to lie different from them knowing you have a tendency to not put the coin in your hand or a tendency to use a mirror?

you've answered nothing nor have you presented any argument - you've made an idiotic claim without ANY thing to back it up

but maybe i'm wrong. show me. show me the video of you performing without lies and point out the measurable difference between that and the results of a performer who does

it's that simple

[jkeyes1000]

why would you discuss your methods with an audience??????

and how would they possibly know you have a 'tendency' to lie?

how is them knowing you have a tendency to lie different from them knowing you have a tendency to not put the coin in your hand or a tendency to use a mirror?

you've answered nothing nor have you presented any argument - you've made an idiotic claim without ANY thing to back it up

but maybe i'm wrong. show me. show me the video of you performing without lies and point out the measurable difference between that and the results of a performer who does

it's that simple

I have addressed that concern as well. Evidently you pay little attention to points that do not support your own contention. You cannot tefute them so you ignore them snd accuse your opponent of being remiss.

I have stated, and I repeat, that FALSE MOVES are necessary to virtually every magical effect. Without them, there would be no Art Of Deception. Everyone that is familiar with the secret to pulling a rabbit out of s hat or "sawing a womsn in half" knows that. There's nothing we can do about that.

Butt lies are NOT NECESSARY. They only add to the cynicism. Who but a fool would risk that?

The alternative is to vow honesty in your verbal claims, and demonstrate this by saying nothing that might be CONSTRUED as a lie. It isnt as hard as it would seem. Unless you happen to be a pathologue.

[magicam]

I have engaged in thousands of debates in all sorts of places, on great topics involving Science, Religion, and Government. ... I daresay I never lost.

Well, now we know Trump's alias on this board. Didn't know he had an interest in magic.

[jkeyes1000]

I have engaged in thousands of debates in all sorts of places, on great topics involving Science, Religion, and Government. ... I daresay I never lost.

Well, now we know Trump's alias on this board. Didn't know he had an interest in magic.

I'll take on all comers. It is wearying, but a matter of honour I can never allow myself to neglect.

[jkeyes1000]

why would you discuss your methods with an audience??????

and how would they possibly know you have a 'tendency' to lie?

how is them knowing you have a tendency to lie different from them knowing you have a tendency to not put the coin in your hand or a tendency to use a mirror?

you've answered nothing nor have you presented any argument - you've made an idiotic claim without ANY thing to back it up

but maybe i'm wrong. show me. show me the video of you performing without lies and point out the measurable difference between that and the results of a performer who does

it's that simple

I have addressed that concern as well. Evidently you pay little attention to points that do not support your own contention. You cannot tefute them so you ignore them snd accuse your opponent of being remiss.

I have stated, and I repeat, that FALSE MOVES are necessary to virtually every magical effect. Without them, there would be no Art Of Deception. Everyone that is familiar with the secret to pulling a rabbit out of s hat or "sawing a womsn in half" knows that. There's nothing we can do about that.

Butt lies are NOT NECESSARY. They only add to the cynicism. Who but a fool would risk that?

The alternative is to vow honesty in your verbal claims, and demonstrate this by saying nothing that might be CONSTRUED as a lie. It isnt as hard as it would seem. Unless you happen to be a pathologue.

I did not mean "pathologue". I meant "pathological liar". My so called "smartphone" must have auto-filled that.

[Bill Marquardt]

Mr. Keyes, I am no master of debate, therefor I can only proffer an opinion. I believe the notion that a magician should never lie in a performance is ridiculous. When I tell the story of my grandfather and the "Gypsy's Curse" it is a bald faced lie. I am pretty sure the audience is aware of that. Maybe I have a grandfather and maybe I found the cards in his attic, but there is no such thing as a gypsy's curse. I am storytelling.

I certainly would not begin with "Here is a set of cards. Some of them have two different sides ...." Nor would the "trick" be very effective done in silence. Rather, it would be confusing and certainly not entertaining.

Sorry, but I reject your arguments.

[performer]

Since I am quite sure that I am far more expert at telling lies than everyone on this thread put together I think it is time that I give you all an example of the evil and disappointment that results in untruths. This should prove once and for all that jkeyes is correct. Please view this video. However, I urge you all to view it to the very end. Some people of a very wicked frame of mind found the end of the video quite funny for some odd reason.
I urge you to watch it for two reasons.
1.It will break up the tension and anger that is unnecessarily prevalent on this thread and perhaps give you all a bit of a laugh which I think both jkeyes and Brad could do with. Particularly Brad.
2. It will show the great disappointment that people end up with after listening to someone telling lies during a demonstration of magic tricks, particularly tricks involving thread.

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

[jkeyes1000]

Mr. Keyes, I am no master of debate, therefor I can only proffer an opinion. I believe the notion that a magician should never lie in a performance is ridiculous. When I tell the story of my grandfather and the "Gypsy's Curse" it is a bald faced lie. I am pretty sure the audience is aware of that. Maybe I have a grandfather and maybe I found the cards in his attic, but there is no such thing as a gypsy's curse. I am storytelling.

I certainly would not begin with "Here is a set of cards. Some of them have two different sides ...." Nor would the "trick" be very effective done in silence. Rather, it would be confusing and certainly not entertaining.

Sorry, but I reject your arguments.

I never said anything against storytelling, Mr. Marquardt, nor do I suggest we ought to divilge our secrets. I am talking about being straightforward in our claims related to what we are, and are not DOING, what is "empty" and what is not, etc.

For instance: you can ASK a volunteer whether they are satisfied that the box is empty, without proclaiming it to be so. Find clever ways to circumvent lies, that's all I'm saying

[Brad Henderson]

why would you discuss your methods with an audience??????

and how would they possibly know you have a 'tendency' to lie?

how is them knowing you have a tendency to lie different from them knowing you have a tendency to not put the coin in your hand or a tendency to use a mirror?

you've answered nothing nor have you presented any argument - you've made an idiotic claim without ANY thing to back it up

but maybe i'm wrong. show me. show me the video of you performing without lies and point out the measurable difference between that and the results of a performer who does

it's that simple

I have addressed that concern as well. Evidently you pay little attention to points that do not support your own contention. You cannot tefute them so you ignore them snd accuse your opponent of being remiss.

I have stated, and I repeat, that FALSE MOVES are necessary to virtually every magical effect. Without them, there would be no Art Of Deception. Everyone that is familiar with the secret to pulling a rabbit out of s hat or "sawing a womsn in half" knows that. There's nothing we can do about that.

Butt lies are NOT NECESSARY. They only add to the cynicism. Who but a fool would risk that?

The alternative is to vow honesty in your verbal claims, and demonstrate this by saying nothing that might be CONSTRUED as a lie. It isnt as hard as it would seem. Unless you happen to be a pathologue.

this does not answer the questions

1) how would the audience ever know you are lying unless you are incompetent and give away the trick?

2) why would their reaction be any different than if they discovered your secret with or without verbal accompaniment?

as the lay person has NO IDEA what is required to produce the illusion - or won't if you are competent - then why do you assume that they wouldn't think lying isn't as viable a method as sleight of hand, smoke or mirrors?

you have never backed up a single claim you have made. you say they will care but offer no proof they do. you say it makes a difference but offer not examples of performances where the presence of lying presents anything observably different from the absence of lying.

in other words, you have made a ridiculous claim and your entire argument has been repeating it and avoiding the questions

let's take an easy one: you say picasso's statement on the visual arts is untrue but have never disproven it or offered anything at all to refute it beyond 'i don't like picasso'

maybe you just aren't good at analysis

that's cool. show us in action. show me a video of your work that proves your approach produces anything demonstrably different than what a liar would produce.

put up

or shut up

[Brad Henderson]

Mr. Keyes, I am no master of debate, therefor I can only proffer an opinion. I believe the notion that a magician should never lie in a performance is ridiculous. When I tell the story of my grandfather and the "Gypsy's Curse" it is a bald faced lie. I am pretty sure the audience is aware of that. Maybe I have a grandfather and maybe I found the cards in his attic, but there is no such thing as a gypsy's curse. I am storytelling.

I certainly would not begin with "Here is a set of cards. Some of them have two different sides ...." Nor would the "trick" be very effective done in silence. Rather, it would be confusing and certainly not entertaining.

Sorry, but I reject your arguments.

I never said anything against storytelling, Mr. Marquardt, nor do I suggest we ought to divilge our secrets. I am talking about being straightforward in our claims related to what we are, and are not DOING, what is "empty" and what is not, etc.

For instance: you can ASK a volunteer whether they are satisfied that the box is empty, without proclaiming it to be so. Find clever ways to circumvent lies, that's all I'm saying

why?

you have failed to show that 1) the audience can ever know if you are lying and 2) that they actually would react differently than spotting a mirror.

in fact i would wager dollars to donuts that if you claimed the box were empty and they discovered the mirror they wouldn't comment on what you said, but instead mention the mirror.

i contend the exact same response would occur, and their feelings toward you would be identical, if they spotted it without your claim.

show me that i'm wrong.

explain why i would be wrong.

[Brad Henderson]

mark, i have no anger toward jkeyes

i have pity for those who might actually heed his suggestions. .

i'm not arguing to convince him. he is clearly a lost cause.

I'm arguing to make sure no one falls prey to his daft and baseless ideas.

[performer]

I have been wondering about the Jerry Andrus approach to this since I have heard it stated that he would never lie. He made one post only on the magic cafe and here it is:
.................................................................................................................................................................................................


I need to get something clarified that has been misinterpreted about me, in regards not lying. In real life I do not lie. However, I would lie to protect someone's life, or something like that.
As magicians, you might say that we are often playing the part of an actor.
So, if say “I pass my hand over the wrong card and it turns into the right card,” that is a lie. But I am an actor playing the part as if one card magically turning into another.
But a good example is one time at the Castle when I have just finished my close up show, a lady asked me a question that I could not honestly answer without exposing something. I don't remember, but lets say I had just done the Linking Pins. It ends with three regular pins on the table that they may examine if they wish. Let's say she said, “Was that trick done with regular safety pins?” I would probably say that she can examine the pins. But if she persisted asking if it was done with regular pins, then I would be lying if I said yes. So, I said, Lady, as a magician I am playing the part of an actor and and have a license to lie, I am no longer playing that part and have thus lost the license, and I can not answer your question.

Jerry Andrus

[performer]

I think we need a short break from this silliness to go off topic a trifle. I once saw Jerry Andrus when he was a much younger man perform on British television. It must have been a very long time ago because it was black and white television. It had quite an impact on me at the time and his performance stuck in my mind for years. He seemed to perform against all the rules. I remember he had a crew cut haircut and never cracked a single smile. Deadpan expression throughout. His card magic was very flourishy indeed which normally I would detest and think bad magic. And I still do. But Andrus was different somehow. All my usual arguments against flourishy handling somehow didn't apply to him. I suspect it was because he worked very slowly and that took the sting away.

When you use flourishes every single second and to compound the sin work so fast as if Beelzebub were chasing at your heels it comes off very badly. But Andrus worked very slowly indeed and with that deadpan unsmiling expression it really made an impact on me and I was quite fascinated about his material from that minute on.

I did see him perform in his later years but somehow it didn't have the same impact. I still do his wonderful Linking Pin trick. I know the routine was entirely his but it did not escape my notice that the secret was published years before he invented it, in Magic As A Hobby by Bruce Elliott which was the very first book that started me off on magic. He never mentioned this at any time--he did not lie about it----he just neglected to mention it!

OK. You can go back to fighting now.

[Bob Farmer]

This is looking more and more like answering an argument that the earth is flat: it's a waste of time and energy.

[Bill Marquardt]

This is looking more and more like answering an argument that the earth is flat: it's a waste of time and energy.

But no one yet has directly mentioned the "lie of omission."

[performer]

I did! See what I said about Jerry Andrus and the Linking Pins!

Anyway I see what Jkeyes is getting at. I am not sure I necessarily agree with it 100 percent but I do see what he is trying to say. It is a valid point of view and nothing to get worked up over.

[Bill Marquardt]

Would it not have been better to assert that "it is generally better to show rather than tell," (advice one sees often in the magic world) rather than to declare that any time a magician lies he creates a negative image of himself; that he should never ever lie?

While performing the first stage of Twisting the Aces, I might say "There is now one ace face up," (a lie) or I could say "We now see one ace face up" (the truth.) Do you really believe that the audience would be put off by the former statement, that they would then deem me a liar? Why would they? I am only affirming what they "see."

But yes, the horse is dead. No longer necessary to beat it with a stick.

[Brad Henderson]

we don't want to arouse suspicion when there is none. so saying things like this is an ordinary deck, or even passing the deck for examination, only puts the idea of deception into the minds of the audience.

but the issue is with ones choices arousing suspicion, not with the manner in which it is done. in other words. a silent action can be equally damning as a verbal statement

a well placed lie can often quell suspicion. it appears as if keyes is unfamiliar with the work of tamariz - or how to present magic deceptively.

[jkeyes1000]

Pardon me if I am in a bad mood right now. It has nothing to do with anyone in particular, not evenI Brad. It's because I just wrote a brilliant response to his rubbish and it got wiped out so I have to start over.

I believe I began by saying that he is quite wrong in his assumption that audiences have "no idea" how ilusions sre created. Everyone has heard of palming, snd knows how to "saw a woman in half".

This general knowledge renders modern magic rather quaint, compared to magic in The Midle Ages, when crowds were not so savvy.

But though they think it quaint, they are still amused by CLEVERNESS AND DEXTERITY. These are the skills they come to see. If they wanted lies, they could listen to a politician speak for kicks.

Lies are TOO EASY. Everyone can do them. No one gets dressed up and buys a ticket to be shammed.

It's fine to tell a story or tell jokes, but I say no one but a masochist likes being humilated by lies, fooled by explicit misstatements, cheated out of the satisfaction of figuring out how you did it it simply by your denial of the facts.

Do I need to persuade anyone in this forum that people do ideed "have a clue" and that it only threatens to turn what is "quaint"
into something distasteful?

Mr. Hendesons logic is a pity. He asks How will they ever know? And Why should they care? He asks me for evidence that they do.

He quotes Picasso, who says something like "All art is illusion that reveals the truth", which has little meaning in this discussion, whether or not is profound wisdom or conceited nonsense.

It isa logical fallacy to assert that because a lie is a deception, that all deceptions must be lies. They are not one and the same.

But if Mr. Henderson is right, that most people believe this (as he does), then that is the answer to his question. How will they kniw you are lying? They may presume it because you are a deceiver.

The next question to be asked is, Can we regain their trust by assuring them that we do not lie? I say "yes". That is all.

[Jackpot]

Would it not have been better to assert that "it is generally better to show rather than tell," (advice one sees often in the magic world) rather than to declare that any time a magician lies he creates a negative image of himself; that he should never ever lie?

While performing the first stage of Twisting the Aces, I might say "There is now one ace face up," (a lie) or I could say "We now see one ace face up" (the truth.) Do you really believe that the audience would be put off by the former statement, that they would then deem me a liar? Why would they? I am only affirming what they "see."

But yes, the horse is dead. No longer necessary to beat it with a stick.

In all areas of life it is better to show rather than tell.

Mr. Henderson has asked Mr. Keyes to provide specific examples which could only bolster the position of Mr. Keyes. Mr. Keyes is either unable to provide examples or unwilling to do so. If he is unable to furnish examples it indicates that his theory is not completely formed and that he lacks experience. It also bolsters Mr. Henderson's position. If Mr. Keyes is unwilling to provide examples than his motivations are different than the other participants in this discussion.

Yes, this is a dead horse which is beginning to smell rather rank. Beating it will only release the odoriferous contents of the corpse.

[MagicbyAlfred]

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 magic. I think that while people don't like being overtly lied to, they don't like to be deceived in general, whether or not it is an overt lie. Of course, they expect that there will be deception inherent in the presentation of a magic trick, but there are arguably different kinds of deception. For example, if I do a clean and deceptive retention pass with their quarter and the coin appears to vanish, and let's say I can even show that it's not in the other hand (which is universally suspected after a coin vanish), they will know, I have deceived them, since the only alternative is that I have supernatural powers. But they will also have genuine respect and admiration for the skill involved. If, on the other hand, I bring out my Chinese coin, or a 20 Centavo piece, or even my own half dollar, they may (and often do) believe it is a trick coin - not because such coins do not actually exist, but because it is something unusual and unfamiliar, and it was the magician's prop with which the magic was done.

But being that it was their quarter, they will not even suspect that you used a trick coin, much less ask, "Is that an ordinary quarter." Harry Lorayne only performs card tricks with borrowed decks (impractical for most of us), but this is because he knows that even if he is using a perfectly innocent deck of Bikes or Bees, people will still suspect that they are "trick cards," and believe that they have been deceived, not by the magician's genuine skill, but cards that they could maybe buy at a magic store, and do the same thing themselves. And though the magician might truthfully deny it, if asked, they are still likely to believe they are trick cards, and to compound it, believe the magician has overtly lied to them. In such as case, perception does become reality. And, as Erdnase cautioned, "They should not even suspect, let alone detect." (paraphrasing). Even objects which are well known but not of the sort one would normally carry, can arouse the suspicion that it is a trick prop - such as in the safety pin example posted earlier, where the lady asked if they were ordinary safety pins.

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.

(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."

[jkeyes1000]

Would it not have been better to assert that "it is generally better to show rather than tell," (advice one sees often in the magic world) rather than to declare that any time a magician lies he creates a negative image of himself; that he should never ever lie?

While performing the first stage of Twisting the Aces, I might say "There is now one ace face up," (a lie) or I could say "We now see one ace face up" (the truth.) Do you really believe that the audience would be put off by the former statement, that they would then deem me a liar? Why would they? I am only affirming what they "see."

But yes, the horse is dead. No longer necessary to beat it with a stick.

In all areas of life it is better to show rather than tell.

Mr. Henderson has asked Mr. Keyes to provide specific examples which could only bolster the position of Mr. Keyes. Mr. Keyes is either unable to provide examples or unwilling to do so. If he is unable to furnish examples it indicates that his theory is not completely formed and that he lacks experience. It also bolsters Mr. Henderson's position. If Mr. Keyes is unwilling to provide examples than his motivations are different than the other participants in this discussion.

Yes, this is a dead horse which is beginning to smell rather rank. Beating it will only release the odoriferous contents of the corpse.

You are amongst those "beating the dead horse".

First of all, I did not post my initial comment with the intention of proving anything. The purpose was to solicit opinions and stimumate thought on the subject.

Second, you, Mr. Henderson, and othes like you (you that bristle at the suggestion that you are all of one mind), bodly assert the oposite contention without support. This goes under many names, bias and hypocrisy amongst them.

What is more absurd than to ride a high horse whilst decrying its mortality?

[jkeyes1000]

Would it not have been better to assert that "it is generally better to show rather than tell," (advice one sees often in the magic world) rather than to declare that any time a magician lies he creates a negative image of himself; that he should never ever lie?

While performing the first stage of Twisting the Aces, I might say "There is now one ace face up," (a lie) or I could say "We now see one ace face up" (the truth.) Do you really believe that the audience would be put off by the former statement, that they would then deem me a liar? Why would they? I am only affirming what they "see."

But yes, the horse is dead. No longer necessary to beat it with a stick.

In all areas of life it is better to show rather than tell.

Mr. Henderson has asked Mr. Keyes to provide specific examples which could only bolster the position of Mr. Keyes. Mr. Keyes is either unable to provide examples or unwilling to do so. If he is unable to furnish examples it indicates that his theory is not completely formed and that he lacks experience. It also bolsters Mr. Henderson's position. If Mr. Keyes is unwilling to provide examples than his motivations are different than the other participants in this discussion.

Yes, this is a dead horse which is beginning to smell rather rank. Beating it will only release the odoriferous contents of the corpse.

You are amongst those "beating the dead horse".

First of all, I did not post my initial comment with the intention of proving anything. The purpose was to solicit opinions and stimumate thought on the subject.

Second, you, Mr. Henderson, and othes like you (you that bristle at the suggestion that you are all of one mind), bodly assert the opposite contention without support. This goes under many names, bias and hypocrisy amongst them.

What is more absurd than to ride a high horse whilst decrying its mortality?

[Brad Henderson]

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

[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.

[performer]

Jkeyes may be wrong but he is damn good at articulating his wrongness so it sounds like rightness. I believe the rest of you are more right than he is but nevertheless he has somehow made you all appear completely wrong. I really have to congratulate him on outsmarting all of you in argument. And taking all of you on at once!

I bet he COULD argue convincingly that the earth was flat and manage to convince at least a few people he was correct!

[Brad Henderson]

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.