Essay: Analyzing a Legend's Words: Jamy Ian Swiss

[jimbowmanjr]

Ah the Swiss article again.

The discussion about the odd looking deck of cards and how to present it is certainly more interesting than rehashing Swiss' comments. This article has been discussed backwards and forwards countless times and every single time it is the same argument just different voices.

Swiss could have gone about this article differently but he didn't and that is his style. Some people love him and adore him for his style, while others despise him. Frankly I could care less if you call it street magic of pancake making, you can sell it to thousands of kids or sell it to an exclusive inner circle. Those who have a genuine interest in magic will look well beyond the confines of marketing and sales to find the real secrets of magic are just beneath the surface. When they find them they will stay beneath the surface to avoid coming back up to listen to the bickering and badgering between magicians.

That crap aside....I really enjoyed all the insights on how to move into card magic from Tom and the presentation ideas from Steerpike on using cards.

--Jim

 

[Brad Henderson]

The larger issue is simple: If the people are focused on your cards, they are not focused on you. Now, some people may want to put the spotlight on their props. If that is an intentional choice, no one can argue with that. (Of course, you can't get upset if people choose to credit the prop for the amazing thing, and not you!) However, I am of the school of thought that the magician and his or her relationship to the audience is a critical element. Anything which detracts or distracts from that is a problem. Likewise, every detail in the performance and interaction contributes to what the audience takes away from both the magician and their performance. We have to make sure we are making intentional choices and understand their ramifications.

When one pulls out a familiar deck of cards, there is no barrier. Its familiarity ushers forth certain instinctively drawn conclusions, such as normalcy. Jerry Andrus has spoken and demonstrated quite powerfully the power of these instinctively drawn conclusions and how the magician might capitalize on them.

When you use an unusual prop, you are putting forth a potential barrier between you and your audience (they focus on IT and not YOU) AND you are choosing to given up the advantage these instinctive conclusions can allow. Of course, as Steerpike has shown, you can work around some of these issues - BUT having to work around them is a cost, a liability. We should consider what we sacrifice, what we gain, and what those potentials gains cost us when we make a choice to use any prop - or say any line.

Do you GAIN anything by using these cards?

Sure, we can rationalize their existence. But we have to take time to do that AND put a spotlight upon something that should be ordinary. Even the most amateur of magicians learn that saying "Here I have an ordinary deck of cards" is a sure way to instill doubt in the mind. And that's when you use normal looking cards!

Likewise, by using unusual cards, focus will always be drawn to them, as Tom said, his audiences are intrigued by them. Again, personally, I do not want my audience to focus on the nature of the cards, I want them to focus on me, us, and the amazing things that happen. Tom might thinks he GAINS something here, I might find it a liability.

Now, students of magic history may point out that Bizarre magicians thrive on unusual props. Jaks made his name with them. But we need to remember, in this genre, the props ARE special. They often are the impetus of the magic, not the magician. The magicians job is more of a curator, a teller of tells, a shower of objects. Further, these very cool props are not simply unusual versions of common objects (their are examples of these, but as a rule they fail to be dramatically satisfying examples of good magic) they were, instead, unusual objects in total.

Your clothes, your jokes, your grammar, your props, everything adds up and affects how you are perceived. If you belong to the Vernon influenced natural school of magic, then these cards are by their nature anathema. Likewise, depending what you choose to make important in your act, these cards may steal the focus or at the least offer a distraction one must work to quell. Finally, while one could always rationalize their existence, do we really achieve the level of conviction as discussed by artists such as Tommy Wonder about their normalcy, or are we just hoping they choose to believe? (Have you read this essay? You should, it's great. The Books of Wonder - they are critical books for someone wanting a real foundation in magical thinking and performance.)

It boils down to this:

Do we really get enough out of using unusual cards to justify having to take time during performance to deal with the issues that arise from using them?

You might.

I don't.

But we should each consider the question.

Brad Henderson

 

[Brad Henderson]

Tom,

I must correct you on something. Jamy has done quite a lot to help young people in magic. Each year he volunteers at Tannen's Magic Camp, and he has taken on many young, serious students at a fraction of the cost similar professional training would require. I know this for a fact as one of my students worked with him for several years. Another good friend of mine - he was 20 at the time - went to him and Jamy has always given tirelessly of his experience and advice.

Jamy is a friend. He and I disagree about MANY things. I mean REALLY disagree. But it is unfair to say that he does not care about the youth in magic. Jamy cares about MAGIC. He knows the importance of getting young people grounded in the basics, and instilling a respect for the art. Of course, when he sees this not happening, (when people are believing and claiming it is) it's reasonable that he might choose to express his disappointment.

Jamy is also very well informed. You may wish to accuse him of setting up straw man arguments, or offering opinion without substance, but you would be on poor footing. Jamy knows his history, he knows the state of the art today, and he has been in this long enough to have seen how these types of ideas affect the marketplace. Some readers might not be able to connect his opinions to facts/history that have impacted our art - some recently - but that doesn't mean his opinions are not well founded in truth, only that Jamy may have assumed too much about his audience.

Experience gives one a perspective that mere passion cannot provide. For example, when one has grown up with DVDs as a "given" then there is value in talking to people who were there at the production of the first videos - and have seen first hand how our world has changed.

I would respectfully suggest that we tone down the passion and look to the words which stem from experience and are backed with a knowledge of history, for what they are - a valid consideration of important issues facing our art today.

We don't have to agree with him. But to dismiss him - without valid cause - is to do no better than stick one's fingers in one's ears screaming, "Na, na, na, na I'm not listening, I can't hear you!"

Brad Henderson

 

[jimbowmanjr]

My take on the article was just Jamy having his say and saying it in his own way. Do I think the article really affected any change? No I honestly don't but not many people, who should be reading, don't read as much as they should these days. I think the real change is working by what he does in person and partially by what he says.

I will also say I think it's a lost cause going after the marketing machine that has generated the "street" image. Sure plenty of people will get sucked into the hype of learning magic tricks in 30 minutes to amaze their friends, or get laughed at. Perhaps a small percentage of those who were sucked in by the marketing machine will stick around a few years or possibly a few decades. The only reason they stick around is because they found a real passion in magic that transcended some high definition DVD with a glossy cover and a flashy demo ad plastered all over the front page.

Instead of focusing on all the bad I take out the small parts that are good or at the very least prodding people into magic to see if there is genuine long-term interest. I am just as tired of the garbage as Jamy is in all honesty but I think things will straighten out on their own in the end just as they have always done. Then again if they don't you will have guys doing 20 tricks poorly and haphazardly which leaves plenty of room for the genuine showman to show everyone what real magic looks like. I am all for helping out the younger generation of magicians but some people don't want the help or the direction, they just want the easiest and fastest path towards making them the next David Blaine or Criss Angel.

Here is a pretty great read, an interview of Jamy Ian Swiss, I found on Penguin that was done well before this article we are talking about was ever written:

http://www.penguinmagic.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=60280&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

--Jim

 

[Steerpike]

Of course, as Steerpike has shown, you can work around some of these issues - BUT having to work around them is a cost, a liability. We should consider what we sacrifice, what we gain, and what those potentials gains cost us when we make a choice to use any prop - or say any line.

I would like to point out that I created the scripting not just to allay suspicion of the deck, but also to enhance the persona I project while performing.

I have an interest the philosophy of the Japanese tea ceremony, and so everything in my routines is carefully scripted and choreographed. However, as I demonstrated in that bit of a scripting, I hide all signs of contrivance.

The trick to successfully using custom decks lies in style. Food for thought.

Jamy is also very well informed. You may wish to accuse him of setting up straw man arguments, or offering opinion without substance, but you would be on poor footing. Jamy knows his history, he knows the state of the art today, and he has been in this long enough to have seen how these types of ideas affect the marketplace.

I don't doubt he's informed. As I said before he's obviously very intelligent and has a keen insight.

However, smart people are very good at justifying things they did for less-than-smart reasons.

For example, he asserts that the definition of street magic is intimate close-up performances shot on camera. I reject that definition as Paul Harris has been doing what David Blaine has sans camera crew for years. Furthermore, David is deeply influenced by Alexander Herrmann and Max Malini who were notorious for being perpetually in character.

I define street magic as the inevitable extension of this philosophy.

 

[Brad Henderson]

I

For example, he asserts that the definition of street magic is intimate close-up performances shot on camera. I reject that definition as Paul Harris has been doing what David Blaine has sans camera crew for years. Furthermore, David is deeply influenced by Alexander Herrmann and Max Malini who were notorious for being perpetually in character.

I define street magic as the inevitable extension of this philosophy.

And how much money did Paul Harris make while doing it? And, was what Paul doing and the way he was doing it really the same as Blaine with the "look, look, watch" level of interaction?

Jamy is exploring the concept/existence of this alleged professional venue of Street Magic (as opposed to mere impromptu magic, or vest pocket magic, or close-up magic). In that regard, what Harris did does not qualify. (Though I am curious where people get the idea that is what he did, and I wonder if anyone knows how succeful he may have been with it.)

While the notion that Harris was privately unleashing moments of strange on the unsuspecting may be interesting; while it may be something worthy of imitation; it is not a valid example of what Swiss is questioning - this concept that there exists a real professional venue of/for "Street Magic" in the post Blaine sense OTHER than on TV.

Many seem to overlook that. I'm sure their passion blinding them to the truth in his actual words.

As to Blaine/Malini/Hermann - Malini was a consummate promoter. I do not know that he was thinking about being "in character" more than "what can I do to sell tickets." Nothing wrong with that, but I do not think either of these men would look at what is passing as "street magic" today and think it akin to their work. YOU, steerpike, might choose to define your own work as an extension of them, you might choose (confusingly) to call it "street magic" but what we are discussing is the actively promoted (pretended?) image of an idea to the public. For that, we have to look at the evidence apart from one's personal and perhaps idiosyncratic artistic choices.

Brad

 

[Steerpike]

And how much money did Paul Harris make while doing it?

Enough to sustain himself it would seem

And, was what Paul doing and the way he was doing it really the same as Blaine with the "look, look, watch" level of interaction?

Knew that had to come up sooner or later.

To be brutally honest, I firmly believe those that ridicule Blaine's minimalist scripting and say that it's bad presentation don't get it.

Jamy is exploring the concept/existence of this alleged professional venue of Street Magic (as opposed to mere impromptu magic, or vest pocket magic, or close-up magic). In that regard, what Harris did does not qualify. (Though I am curious where people get the idea that is what he did, and I wonder if anyone knows how succeful he may have been with it.)

But he tries to define it in terms of venue, much as you would stage magic or restraurant magic. Like in bizarre magic, it doesn't work that way.

this concept that there exists a real professional venue of/for "Street Magic" in the post Blaine sense OTHER than on TV.

I was able to pull down minimum wage doing Blaine-style strolling magic at the Waterfront in Pittsburgh last summer. I had no camera crew and was unlikely to get on TV. But I was still getting about minimum wage in tips.

I know you may argue then that it's busking, but the problem that I see here is that people are trying to make knew ideas fit old definitions rather than expanding those definitions to encompass new paradigms.

As to Blaine/Malini/Hermann - Malini was a consummate promoter. I do not know that he was thinking about being "in character" more than "what can I do to sell tickets." Nothing wrong with that, but I do not think either of these men would look at what is passing as "street magic" today and think it akin to their work.

Of course it was done from the angle of promotion, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

Malini and Herrmann performed constantly, even in the most mundane circumstances, as an extension of Robert-Houdin's philosophy that a magician is an actor playing the part of a conjurer.

Is it too far-fetched to say that the paradigm can be further pursued?

YOU, steerpike, might choose to define your own work as an extension of them, you might choose (confusingly) to call it "street magic" but what we are discussing is the actively promoted (pretended?) image of an idea to the public.

But let's stop and think for a minute. Who outside of magicians cares what we call it? When I first joined BNI, no one in the chapter understood the difference between busking, close-up, parlor, and bizarre magic. We only care because we're involved in it, in the same way that a metalhead wouldn't want you calling Ensiferum death metal because it's actually Viking metal. And if I didn't lose you on that analogy, I don't know what will.

To argue the opposite side, do you think our audiences really care if a Criss Angel fan calls himself a street magician?

 

[Brad Henderson]

The discussion Swiss raises is explicitly about this notion of "street magic" as it relates to it being a "genre" as delineated by practitioners within our field. You can call whatever you do whatever you want on the banner you use to advertise tyour show to the public, but when you are selling something to magicians as "street magic" then we need to know what it is. Swiss's article attempts to explore that. To try and apply his thoughts to things not intended is intellectually unfair. And as we are magicians discussing our art as it is marketed to both the world and to each other, it is worth taking time to consider these issues, even if they do not affect the "real world."

First, I would suggest that you find out a little more about Paul Harris and his career before you start making assumptions. I think a little factual history will go a long way. (Eric Mead's amazing story in Magic Magazine is a good place to start.) I think you will find this notion that Paul was actively making a living from inflicting moments of "strange" on the public different than his philosophy and history express.

Second, I am not being critical of Blaine's performance style - only commenting that the style is affected by the presence of a camera crew. This is an exaggeration, but a seemingly homeless man walking up to a person on the street with a camera crew following him will elicit a different reaction than the same homeless man, sans crew, walking up to someone on the street. There are many posts of young people expressing their challenges in trying to get someone to stop and watch them. While there are many factors involved, we cannot ignore that the presence of a camera crew allows the performer a much wider variety of options that simply will not be available in the real world. (And having been filmed for a TV pilot in a bar setting, and having done real walk around in a bar setting, I can tell you from personal experience that we are talking about two very different worlds.)

Third, your point comparing Street Magic to Bizarre is the most interesting, and gets to the heart of the problem Swiss is wrestling with. What IS street magic? Is it a venue? Is it a style? What is it?

When you look at how it's marketed, that's when things get confusing. Is street magic different than impromptu magic? Does street magic have to occur on a street? If you do a trick in a prison, is it now "prison magic?"

This is the problem and one worthy of debate. It seems to me that "Street Magic" is something being sold as a viable venue. There are issues with that sell.

Now, you suggest street magic may be an extension of busking. You complain that some may be short sighted for not being willing to expand their definitions. But like a balloon, if you expand an idea too far, you end up with nothing. There IS, it seems from observation, something different between what would be conventional busking and that marketed as "street magic." A valid definition would honor those differences while embracing the similarities.

As of now, we don't have a valid definition. Swiss's essay is a step toward exploring ideas that might help us find one.

Of course, this definition must embrace the majority, if not the totality, of that which is currently considered "street magic." We have to consider not only what Blaine called his special, but what magic shops now sell under it's imprimatur.

Swiss's essay raises more questions than it answers, and I think that was part of the intent. However, people have allowed their passion to close their ears, and instead of people willing to address the issues with facts at the ready, it seems all too easy to call names. (This is directed to posters other than Steerpike per se.)

I think we should all consider the questions raised and look to the supporting evidence before we decide. (For example, one might want to read Houdin's words in context and check out some more of the background which is known about Malini before building philosophies based on conjecture.)

Brad Henderson

 

[Steerpike]

The discussion Swiss raises is explicitly about this notion of "street magic" as it relates to it being a "genre" as delineated by practitioners within our field. You can call whatever you do whatever you want on the banner you use to advertise tyour show to the public, but when you are selling something to magicians as "street magic" then we need to know what it is. Swiss's article attempts to explore that. To try and apply his thoughts to things not intended is intellectually unfair. And as we are magicians discussing our art as it is marketed to both the world and to each other, it is worth taking time to consider these issues, even if they do not affect the "real world."

Fair enough.

First, I would suggest that you find out a little more about Paul Harris and his career before you start making assumptions. I think a little factual history will go a long way. (Eric Mead's amazing story in Magic Magazine is a good place to start.) I think you will find this notion that Paul was actively making a living from inflicting moments of "strange" on the public different than his philosophy and history express.

I don't subscribe to many magazines for financial reasons, so you'll forgive me for gaps in my knowledge of interviews.

There are many posts of young people expressing their challenges in trying to get someone to stop and watch them.

But you don't need a camera to get around it. You and I both know that. Which is I reject the definition that Blaine-style street magic exists only on TV.

Third, your point comparing Street Magic to Bizarre is the most interesting, and gets to the heart of the problem Swiss is wrestling with. What IS street magic? Is it a venue? Is it a style? What is it?

I've attempted to answer this with my own thoughst, but nobody seems to be listening. And this may sound sardonic, but it's probably because I'm just a name on a computer screen. I have no reputation to precede me.

Now, you suggest street magic may be an extension of busking. You complain that some may be short sighted for not being willing to expand their definitions. But like a balloon, if you expand an idea too far, you end up with nothing. There IS, it seems from observation, something different between what would be conventional busking and that marketed as "street magic." A valid definition would honor those differences while embracing the similarities.

Does the suggestion have merit, yes or no?

As of now, we don't have a valid definition. Swiss's essay is a step toward exploring ideas that might help us find one.

That would be great if people actually listened, but they don't. The last time such an argument came up, I had to repeat the same point at least a dozen times because no one would acknowledge the fact that I actually said it. And when I rebutted their arguments, they just posted the exact same arguments again as if I hadn't said anything at all.

Swiss's essay raises more questions than it answers, and I think that was part of the intent. However, people have allowed their passion to close their ears, and instead of people willing to address the issues with facts at the ready, it seems all too easy to call names. (This is directed to posters other than Steerpike per se.)

On the flip side of the coin, a lot of people take that essay as scripture and quote it with the dogma of a stereotypical Southern preacher. And they insist that anyone who disagrees with any of it is just uneducated or too young to know what they're talking about.

 

[Brad Henderson]

Steerpike,

If you are a fan of Paul Harris, I do encourage you to seek out the magazine with is interview. It really does a great job, better than anything so far, of communicating who Paul really is.

I would be interested, and maybe not in this thread, exploring the idea that "Blaine style" street magic exists without the TV? I'm not so sure. I make my living as a performer and have for years. I've worked unusual venues and normal venues with unusual goals. I am all too familiar with square pegs and round holes. While I am sure there are people out there who attempt to emulate Blaine, the question is to what degree are they succesful? Of course, we have to define success. Having done the "camera crew" thing, I can tell you that it IS a different experience, and to try and sell that experience to someone as something they will easily be able to replicate in their lives - not sure how honest that is.

But that people try and accost others on the street to perform for them, I have no doubt. But is this what makes "street magic" "street magic?" If someone hung out in the hallways of their school with their latest trick waiting to show someone, is that "street magic?" If so, I was doing street magic long before Blaine. As I look back, I would have called it a quiet, desperate call for attention, but that's who I was in high school.

The problem comes in the name.

1) "Street Magic" was already taken and has only several hundred years of valid history backing up its definition. No one faults Blaine for calling his special that. He could have called it whatever he wanted. The problem is that the magic world - or part of it - has stolen that name and stuck it on something that is quite different. It's a case where marketeers showed no respect for either history or simply the intelligent use of words. Again, I don't fault Blaine, I fault those who tried to capitalize on it without forethought. (Besides, why name your "product" something that invites market confusion. Selling a special to lay people is no problem, there is no market confusion. But in our world, it is a dumb idea. It's like AOL introducing an online service for graphic designers to find photographers called "photo-shop". Sure they could expand the definition of "photoshopping" to include the new idea - both eventually have to do with creating greate images - but is it a smart or fair thing to do? The big world may not be familiar with photoshop, but in an industry where it has been a "thing" for decades...bad idea.)

2) Most of the tricks being sold as "street magic" have been sold for years. The idea of doing magic spur of the moment, even for strangers, is ancient. The idea of performing walk around, even at fairs and festivals, is old. So what then makes any of this - what we are being sold as something new enough to be worthy of a new name - "street magic?"

I don't have that answer. I don't think Swiss has that answer. And I think it is important (for those who care, regardless of if they are a 'name' or not) to think about that answer.

Now, where are those black ghost viper guardians I just set down? I gotta show and need to knock em dead.


Brad Henderson

 

[essaywriter]

Steerpike,

If you are a fan of Paul Harris, I do encourage you to seek out the magazine with is interview. It really does a great job, better than anything so far, of communicating who Paul really is.

I would be interested, and maybe not in this thread, exploring the idea that "Blaine style" street magic exists without the TV? I'm not so sure. I make my living as a performer and have for years. I've worked unusual venues and normal venues with unusual goals. I am all too familiar with square pegs and round holes. While I am sure there are people out there who attempt to emulate Blaine, the question is to what degree are they succesful? Of course, we have to define success. Having done the "camera crew" thing, I can tell you that it IS a different experience, and to try and sell that experience to someone as something they will easily be able to replicate in their lives - not sure how honest that is.

But that people try and accost others on the street to perform for them, I have no doubt. But is this what makes "street magic" "street magic?" If someone hung out in the hallways of their school with their latest trick waiting to show someone, is that "street magic?" If so, I was doing street magic long before Blaine. As I look back, I would have called it a quiet, desperate call for attention, but that's who I was in high school.

The problem comes in the name.

1) "Street Magic" was already taken and has only several hundred years of valid history backing up its definition. No one faults Blaine for calling his special that. He could have called it whatever he wanted. The problem is that the magic world - or part of it - has stolen that name and stuck it on something that is quite different. It's a case where marketeers showed no respect for either history or simply the intelligent use of words. Again, I don't fault Blaine, I fault those who tried to capitalize on it without forethought. (Besides, why name your "product" something that invites market confusion. Selling a special to lay people is no problem, there is no market confusion. But in our world, it is a dumb idea. It's like AOL introducing an online service for graphic designers to find photographers called "photo-shop". Sure they could expand the definition of "photoshopping" to include the new idea - both eventually have to do with creating greate images - but is it a smart or fair thing to do? The big world may not be familiar with photoshop, but in an industry where it has been a "thing" for decades...bad idea.)

2) Most of the tricks being sold as "street magic" have been sold for years. The idea of doing magic spur of the moment, even for strangers, is ancient. The idea of performing walk around, even at fairs and festivals, is old. So what then makes any of this - what we are being sold as something new enough to be worthy of a new name - "street magic?"

I don't have that answer. I don't think Swiss has that answer. And I think it is important (for those who care, regardless of if they are a 'name' or not) to think about that answer.

Now, where are those black ghost viper guardians I just set down? I gotta show and need to knock em dead.


Brad Henderson

Brad,

You sum up many of my opinions in a great way. There are things here and there that I either disagree with you on or go farther as to agree on with Steerpike, but overall you have implemented a strong argument. Good job.

This has been a good discussion. I see both sides coming up with some strong arguments here.

If anyone feels it is getting out of hand (I think it's a nice debate...anyone's feelings hurt?), just post and I'll tell a mod they can close it if they'd like to...or they'll close it themselves...

Thanks again for helping this thread become so active guys.

 

[Steerpike]

I would be interested, and maybe not in this thread, exploring the idea that "Blaine style" street magic exists without the TV?

That depends entirely on how many people are willing to listen.

It really is politics. Everybody want to take a side, but nobody wants to be the poor shmuck who has to explain any of it.

Having done the "camera crew" thing, I can tell you that it IS a different experience, and to try and sell that experience to someone as something they will easily be able to replicate in their lives - not sure how honest that is.

As I said before, you have to consider the nature of modern advertisement to begin with.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I again point to the Bowflex commercials. Because of my genetics, there's no way I'll ever look like Butch Deadlift on the commercials there. But I don't want to take the commercial off the air to save other people from my temptation.

No one faults Blaine for calling his special that.

Some do, actually.

Blaine approved the title because it was like the show: simple, direct, and without too much ostentation.

I have to side with David on this: the World's Greatest Magic Series really sucked. There were a few good performances, but for the most part the production was inept.

The first Street Magic TV special was like a Japanese tea ceremony. It was stripped down, simplistic, and had an almost zen appeal to it. And then the camera focused on the audience reactions. That's why people like David so much, and possibly why the old guard hate his guts.

2) Most of the tricks being sold as "street magic" have been sold for years. The idea of doing magic spur of the moment, even for strangers, is ancient. The idea of performing walk around, even at fairs and festivals, is old. So what then makes any of this - what we are being sold as something new enough to be worthy of a new name - "street magic?"

Again, I must reference bizarre magic. The idea of storytelling and magic combined wasn't a new idea when Andruzzi came into the scene, but he formalized it.

I believe that the street magic advertised by Ellusionist and Theory-11 and seen on TV from Blaine, Angel, and Cyril is a pursuit of such a paradigm to take an old idea and formalize it into more than just a concept. Most of the controversy comes from the fact that it's still taking time to settle on a set of standard conventions, and it's also meeting opposition from a section of the magic community who simply refuse to acknowledge the very idea as valid.

It's difficult to further the discussion when there are people out there who don't want the discussion to even take place.

 

[Brad Henderson]

Andruzzi was not the father of Bizarre Magic, that would be Charles Cameron and his English cronies. Bizarre magic was a reaction to the current British magic scene. It was not something that was "created" but a confluence of ideas that evolved in a certain direction. (It was originally called Goetic magic.) And while magic and storytelling did exist prior to that, that is not a good delineation of what Bizarre magic was or what it became. I have long argued that Bizarre magic is a poor term as what it became goes beyond what it began as. And that comes to the issue - Bizarre magic as a definition also fails to encompass everything and tends to limit people's thoughts on the field to a particular manifestation of the concept.

So, Bizarre magic is a great example of how terminology can be too restrictive or not clear enough - the same case we seem to have with "street magic."

When you look at the history behind some of the concepts you are advocating, you find that they do not bear out your conclusions. But to the larger issue - what IS street magic and how is it different from everything else we have been doing for hundreds of years?

Brad Henderson

 

[TomIsaacson]

Tom,

I must correct you on something. Jamy has done quite a lot to help young people in magic. Each year he volunteers at Tannen's Magic Camp, and he has taken on many young, serious students at a fraction of the cost similar professional training would require. I know this for a fact as one of my students worked with him for several years. Another good friend of mine - he was 20 at the time - went to him and Jamy has always given tirelessly of his experience and advice.

Jamy is a friend. He and I disagree about MANY things. I mean REALLY disagree. But it is unfair to say that he does not care about the youth in magic. Jamy cares about MAGIC. He knows the importance of getting young people grounded in the basics, and instilling a respect for the art. Of course, when he sees this not happening, (when people are believing and claiming it is) it's reasonable that he might choose to express his disappointment.

Jamy is also very well informed. You may wish to accuse him of setting up straw man arguments, or offering opinion without substance, but you would be on poor footing. Jamy knows his history, he knows the state of the art today, and he has been in this long enough to have seen how these types of ideas affect the marketplace. Some readers might not be able to connect his opinions to facts/history that have impacted our art - some recently - but that doesn't mean his opinions are not well founded in truth, only that Jamy may have assumed too much about his audience.

Experience gives one a perspective that mere passion cannot provide. For example, when one has grown up with DVDs as a "given" then there is value in talking to people who were there at the production of the first videos - and have seen first hand how our world has changed.

I would respectfully suggest that we tone down the passion and look to the words which stem from experience and are backed with a knowledge of history, for what they are - a valid consideration of important issues facing our art today.

We don't have to agree with him. But to dismiss him - without valid cause - is to do no better than stick one's fingers in one's ears screaming, "Na, na, na, na I'm not listening, I can't hear you!"

Brad Henderson

Brad,

I respect that you and jamy are friends- and I also respect that you and him are very well read and knowledgeable on magic history.

My reference to the "youth of magic" was referring to "Street Magic" or "E" kids, whatever we are going to label them. maybe "Aspiring Criss angel clones"

I'm sure he puts in plenty of time helping those at places like Tannen's that have been around well before the "E" revolution began, but It seemed clear from his article that he has dismissed all those "E" type kids as lost causes, and does not seek to educate or help them, only to prove that their "art" doesn't really exist by his definitions.

I don't really understand what the point of trying to prove the non-existence of "street magic" was for. Does something have to be a Profession for it to exist? Do you have to be able to make a living with it for it to be "acknowledged by the experts?" can a (not even specifically magic) performance art not be acknowledged if you can't make money with it? that seems silly to me, but maybe I misunderstood his contention.

I think its safe to say that what "street magic" really is, is marketing "CLose up Magic" to youth that they can do anytime, anywhere, and as the perfect Social tool. Taking traditional magic and trying to make it cool and hip, and for a long time magic needed it. "Street magic" has a nice ring to it, maybe we should change it to "awkward-adolescent-phase-Reducer" but I don't think as many people would be interested in it then.

I don't think that most of the marketing on E sells the idea that it's something you can "make a living at" I would venture to say that the appeal to most youth that are attracted to E, is NOT so they can go up to people on "The Street" and try and MAKE money.. its a tool to help them be "cool at school" and help them meet people have something that sets them apart. Whether at school, or parties or any basic social situation, it's "form" is to be as universal and applicable as possible. Create moments of astonishment, show people something they don't see everyday "Learn to Amaze"- that is what they are selling. And lots and lots of unnecessary fancy playing cards, and dog tags. If these kids ever want to perform professionally, its practice and performance in "real world" settings that help to develop their performance skills.

Is the amazing success of E a good thing? Is attracting thousands of kids (who might not otherwise ever find interest) to magic a positive thing for our art? That's a whole other can of worms to open up, but because of the current success of it, inevitably I think we will see many talented people on the scene because they were "sucked in" by the Street Magic marketing, and eventually learned to research and find more valuable information in things known as "books" While E attracts many to start learning magic, its only those who find they have a REAL PASSION for Magic that stay with it, and those youth could very well be The Future of magic which is why i find it important guide them as much as we can. I appreciate your feedback, as it is a very important issue that does face the art.

TI

 

[Brad Henderson]

Tom,

Street Magic is being sold as many things, and that's the problem.

Does it have to result in paid bookings to be real? No. But some portray it as having that potential. It is worth evaluating that claim/implication. There are kids who want to grow up and be "street magicians." I think we need to provide a more honest picture of how that might turn out.

Are people having the same kinds of success walking up to folks on the street and performing for them as they are promised in the video trailers of the hot new products? I don't know. I DO know that the camera crew affects those reactions and the implication you will get the same may be a little suspect.

Likewise, you suggest that "Street Magic" is magic that is "hip or cool." I can see that, but - I have to ask - is does that mean people are selling "coolness?" Can you buy "coolness" or is that taking advantage of people who are easily deceived and/or desperate. Should we stand by and watch classic tricks be sold with inflated price tags simply because the buyer now purchases a dose of "cool" with each secret? Is that dose delivered? Are you buying a fantasy?

Lots of products sell the "sizzle" but you also get something with that sizzle - you get a shoe of a certain, new style, for example. It's still a shoe, but it's different than another shoe. Maybe not enough to really matter, but at least it's something. With Street Magic, you are getting the same old tricks (often) with little more than a guy in an backward turned hat teaching them - sometimes not even that. So, are the really selling "cool" or just the "promise of cool"? After all, it''s still the same old trick in the box.

Not my kind of thing, but some people clearly have no problem with it.

Likewise, the promise that this "style" of magic will help with social interactions is something one can debate (and Jamy does.) Jamy has a wonderful section where he talks about the social skills one can develop from magical performance. He discusses how these skills are traditionally showcased in classic learning texts, and compares that to today's sources. They simply do not focus on these skills, so I hold that argument questionable.

But you hit the nail on the head, but went on with too many words. You write, "I think its safe to say that what "street magic" really is, is marketing..."

THAT I think is the key of it all. It is marketing. Pure and simple.

Now, I have no problem with people being smart at marketing, but their choices complicate matters. They have given an entire existing genre of magic (impromptu or closeup magic) a new name - sadly one already taken by an entire existing genre of magic (busking/street magic)!

And that raises questions. To use Steerpike's example, one can market Bizarre magic, but in doing so - even though it encompasses many elements - there isn't the same market confusion that has been created with Street Magic.

So, if you want to say that Street Magic is nothing more than impromptu or close-up magic repackaged and resold to the taste of modern youth, I might be able to consider that a valid definition. (I haven't thought it through, but it seems like it would do a good job of encompassing the examples which are presented as "Street Magic.")

Is there a better definition out there?

Brad Henderson

p.s. You speculate that this genre may introduce people who then go on to research new ideas and thereby contribute to the art. While I applaud your optimism, my experience shows otherwise. I was one of the first consultants on the Easy to Master projects. We wanted these tapes to be a tool for magicians everywhere. We wanted to expose them to great magic. We wanted to introduce them to artists, classic and new, that might open up a new world of thought for them.

Did it work?

Well, no. Instead people talk about Michael Ammar's Twisting the Aces, they mimic every word and move (even sometimes doing the tricks wrong handed because that's what they saw in the TV screen) and we have seen more and more variations of variations of the same ideas with almost no one digging into the referenced works.

On short, it's nice to believe this influx of people to a wide berth of ideas will have a positive outcome, but when you look at the history of our art, you see a different tendency that is far less encouraging.

 

[Steerpike]

So, Bizarre magic is a great example of how terminology can be too restrictive or not clear enough - the same case we seem to have with "street magic."

I've had this conversation before with Rick Maue and on that we agree.

However, until a better term comes up, it serves our purposes.

And I don't believe it doesn't support my point. As I said, it's a formalization of a paradigm that already existed. The trouble is that it's hard to sum up in a single name. Unlike more traditional forms of magic, we don't have the ability to identify or differentiate it by venue.

Some people have suggested that the title guerilla magic is more accurate. Thoughts?

As to the point of making money through this style, Eric Evans once spoke of a performer known as Merlin the Magical One in Dallas. He works entirely for tips, is not hired by any venue, and relies entirely on his own charm and reputation. But he manages to pull down tips anywhere between 20 and 100 dollars.

 

[Brad Henderson]

Again, Bizarre Magic as a name does not have the same problems that Street Magic does - partly because the original "street magic" was a venue specific name and the new SM isn't. Bizarre magic does have enough elements that are unique to it that, regardless of venue, we can call it that and know what we are talking about. So many of today's "street magic" elements are NO DIFFERENT from impromptu, close-up, etc. So it behooves us to clarify what makes it different from these others - and aside from the marketing of "cool" I am not sure what it could be.

As to Merlin, I do not know his work so I cannot comment. So much, it seems, depends on the approach. If he is working stationary, or building a tip (crowd) then we would have to identify what makes him different from a traditional street performer and makes him an example of a "street magician." Not doubting he might not be one - just don't know enough to know.

Guerilla magic is a good name - what does it mean? It would seem that by definition - in the strictest sense - anyone hired to do perform could not qualify. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it does pigeon hole the idea quite a bit. Define it for me and we will go from there.

 

[Steerpike]

Merlin is a strolling performer. He works mostly on small groups of two to four. His specialty is in finding couples and charming the women until they're cooing and hanging all over their dates. At that point, the guy taking his lady out for the night is all too happy to discreetly hand Merlin a 20. He's been doing this long enough and so well that he now has a reputation that precedes him. As soon as he shows up in the presence of a couple, a tip is almost guaranteed.

Guerilla magic I would define as following this model. The performer comes out of nowhere and creates a moment of the strange and wonderful. No one is paying him to be there, and he never imposes his presence. Sometimes he asks for money, sometimes he doesn't.

Effectively, it's a pursual of the mysterious stranger principle.

As I said before, I tried this myself last summer. I live in Pittsburgh, and would go down to the Waterfront on weekends. A picked out a stretch of about a quarter mile with high traffic and wandered around using things like sponge balls, XCM, and D'Lites to draw attention. I managed to pull down minimum wage. Not great, but it wasn't a bad start either. The biggest crowds I ever got was when I worked the line at The Improv. They were generally the best tippers.

 

[Brad Henderson]

Good start. I ask the following not to be critical, but to explore your idea:

how is this different from busking? Is it different from busking? What makes the items marketed as "street magic" (or guerrilla magic, should we rename it) called such? Is there something about the item that makes it special - what makes it different from say the same previous release without the title? Are their any stylistic conventions to GM? Can someone be wearing a tux, for example? And if the venue advertises the GMs presence or pays him in any way, does that cease to be GM? (Afterall, he no longer is "coming out of nowhere?)

Brad

 

[TomIsaacson]

Brad-

I think that notion of being "cool" is the first thought before "This looks like a great way to make money" I would venture then, that if they NEED magic to feel secure in school, that its going to be a while before they get enough confidence to approach total strangers on the street and show them magic. I don't see it being marketed as marketed for the kids to learn it to make money, but on the other side, its natural to assume that if you get good enough at something, that eventually you COULD make money at it.

If they actually really believe that learning a trick will instantly make them COOL, that definitely seems silly. Just like believing a certain pair of shoes will make you a better basketball player. Maybe think of it like this- It's like a magician marketing their services to a client for a party "book me and I will make your party a hit, everyone will talk about YOUR party" The magician is trying to sell his SERVICES, so he has to Hype it in some instances.. but the client would be foolish to think that they would be cool, simply because they had a magician at the party, but if it wasn't hyped they might not have bought in the first place. Does that make sense? The Hype is the spark that ignites their interest in it, sooner or later they will learn for themselves, that learning "Magic" doesn't make you cool. It's a great social TOOL, but it doesn't MAKE you cool.

The Biggest thing to remember- I don't think its a stretch to say that most (Not ALL) of the youth that are initially attracted to magic, are usually socially challenged. I don't think that this is by any means a new "trend" Magic has always attracted Nerds, and always will. It got me! I don't mind fully embracing my inner Nerd Identity.. I'll be the first one to admit that, but I can also be the first to attest to how helpful it was for me developing social skills that I might not have otherwise. I would be interested, if you have a link where I could read Jamy's thoughts on magic and social interaction. I'm sure you notice at every Magic convention, it seems to be saturated with more nerds and weirdo's than comic-con. But is it any surprise that marketing magic to help make you "cool" would have the mass appeal as it does? its brilliant marketing, and yes Marketing being the key word Now.

I suppose that we could endlessly debate proper new title for this Genre. To me, its still Magic, (we know its mostly repackaged "Close up Magic") but it still falls under the umbrella that is "The Art of Magic" Whether it should have been called "street magic" to begin with, is trivial to debate now, because its something that we can't change.

As far as the history, I agree there needs to be more focused respect for the history of the art, If we see that there seems to be an all around LACK of respect for the history, on "Street magic" and on the "Traditional" side we can't just expect that it will change on its own. Perhaps there is something we can do? maybe there's a creative way to do it... Maybe put subliminal messages in all our DVD's? Maybe make all DVD covers look like Books...haha. Who knows? Maybe put a entertaining video documentary together on the history close up magic? "History" has the tendency to bore most people, but maybe there's a creative way that we can Inspire more interest for the history. Who knows what would work, but we do know that if we do nothing, then it will never change.

TI