What is a purist?

[ThrallMind]

So, by definition, a purist is someone who put his own pleasure (and concerns) above that of his audience (- But will probably never have the courage, honesty, or self confidence to admit to it.)

Brad Henderson

Hey Brad, ever thought maybe the joy he gets from pulling off sleights allows him to pass on that joy to performing, and give his audience the same reactions that gimmicks would provide? So, in effect, he could be making both himself AND the audience happy, while still putting them first.

So, don't go crapping on a plate and calling it food to hide your true intent. That was an insult, made obvious by your little statement "But will probably never have the courage, honesty, or self confidence to admit to it."

Just my .02

-ThrallMind

 

[Shadow782]

I find it ironic that your avatar is a playing card ... And you carry distortion and 5 speed, maybe you're not a purist after all.... ( according to your definition of purist )

A purist in the trade means someone who doesn't use any setup, the cards are shuffled, coins are normal, no gimmicks or dups used.

As for the term "false reactions", no comment.
its the gimmicks reaction? No comment.

What I was getting at was that he doesn't "need" a deck of cards. Having a deck of cards jsut makes it 10x better, but its not a necessity. And also as I said before I am "for the most part" a purist. If I use gimmicks theyre generally very little amount of them and I don't base my entire routine around a gaff deck, (like a few people I know) if you get what I mean. As for false reactions, that was a bad term, and I admit a better term could've been used, but the concept was something along those lines. And as for gimmicks reaction, adjones has done a pretty good job with that.

 

[Steerpike]

Quote: if I use a gimmick to achieve my reactions, then they are false reactions.
I really like that. Mind if I quote that?

As a wise mentalist once told me, BS is still BS no matter how many times people tell the story.

I think its more the fact that if they get reactions with gimmicks, that its not theirs, its their gimmicks reaction. Or something along that line.

Again, what a crock. The spectators don't know the gimmick exists. They believe it's you. If you shun gimmicks claiming it creates "false reactions" all that means is you're desperate for excuses for your own ego.

Hey Brad, ever thought maybe the joy he gets from pulling off sleights allows him to pass on that joy to performing, and give his audience the same reactions that gimmicks would provide? So, in effect, he could be making both himself AND the audience happy, while still putting them first.

How often is that actually the case?

I do a copper/silver transposition with sleight of hand instead of a scotch & soda gimmick. Does that make me a better performer? Does that get me better reactions? No. I just do it to save pocket space. Durr durr durr!

Regardless of whether they're your reactions or the gimmick's (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), if you did a good job, you still get paid and the audience still likes you.

If I use gimmicks theyre generally very little amount of them and I don't base my entire routine around a gaff deck, (like a few people I know) if you get what I mean.

There is a book titled The Long and Short of It by Mark Lewis. I suggest you read it sometime.

 

[ThrallMind]

Regardless of whether they're your reactions or the gimmick's (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), if you did a good job, you still get paid and the audience still likes you.

So, you agree with me. You cannot state that the "definition" of a purist is someone who puts themselves before the audience as fact as Brad did.

It all depends on your approach to what you do.

-ThrallMind

 

[Steerpike]

So, you agree with me. You cannot state that the "definition" of a purist is someone who puts themselves before the audience as fact as Brad did.

Not necessarily. I was attacking the idea that gimmicks are somehow inferior to sleight of hand or that they create "false" reactions.

I find most purists to be egotists. The very paradigm is one of masturbation, and if I wanted to see a creature ringing its own bell, I would go to the primate house at the zoo.

 

[ThrallMind]

Not necessarily. I was attacking the idea that gimmicks are somehow inferior to sleight of hand or that they create "false" reactions.

I find most purists to be egotists. The very paradigm is one of masturbation, and if I wanted to see a creature ringing its own bell, I would go to the primate house at the zoo.

As far as gimmicks, I have no problem with them. I am in no way a purist. I just thought it bad form to state something as a definition of "A purist is someone who places themselves before the audience."

-ThrallMind

 

[Steerpike]

I just thought it bad form to state something as a definition of "A purist is someone who places themselves before the audience."

The truth just ain't very sexy.

 

[Chr!s]

As per my comments on Marlo. My apologies, i have not read anything by Marlo that featured the use of gaffs and gadgetry, so i must have made the assumption... Anyhow, Bill Kalush has various things published in magazines and i believe his inversion routine, 'the fidget card' is featured on the 'secret sessions' tape. He also published 'the Kalush cut', i believe in trapdoor, but don't quote me on that!

Chr!s

 

[Medifro]

I find most purists to be egotists.

You got things the wrong way. I think the way you see it, a purist is someone who doesn't use gimmicks because they take pride on sleight of hand, saying that anything else is "false reactions".

This is often NOT the case. Brad put it a neat way as he knew what he's saying and had alot of experience behind it. The attitude of purist, the way you think it is, only exist ( as far as I can see it ) in hobbyists with not enough general experience in magic studies. Would you take an opinion based on that? Allow me to explain the picture more.

Many purists don't like carrying gaffed stuff for these reasons ( might be more, but these are the ones I know from my experience with magicians )
- I don't need to waste my pocket space.
- I only work with borrowed decks, makes everyone fooled ( Harry Lorayne in particular, fooled a heck of magicians ), note, not because of some false reactions thing.
- Laziness ( David Willamson: "I always work with shuffled deck, I'm lazy, and I forget stuff", Magic Farm DVD )
- Easier to put it as a middle on a context of a routine
- No access to gaffs.
- I go for my own skill ( can't deny that this exist, but they are the least group, and can't say anything for their egositism, not like its wrong, but at the same time, you know he is experienced because he got nothing against using gimmicks, he knows they can produce extremely effective magic. The attitude, is how you know if he's experienced or not. They'll go like this: "do you use gimmicks?", "nah, I don't like setups, also I like using sleight of hand more". "so do you think gimmicks are bad?" "Of course not, they can do great stuff, I just don't use 'em". )

Again, Steerpike, you're judging on purist in general, based only on what you see in these forums. Did you meet any experienced magician who is a purist, either in person, in a chat, or studied their work? If yes, then sorry for saying what I just said, but again I disagree with you for the reasons above. Hope it fixes your vision on purists.
"Truth ain't so sexy", not alot of magicians got this logic. Get into the community more to check for yourself.

If you see the above reasons I mentioned, you see why Mr. Henderson definition had alot of meaning, in one short sentence.

Shadow782. I think "false reactions" is a perfect term. Here is a little lesson I learned the hard way, in an example: You see a magician and all he does are tricks with gimmicks, all what you do is sleight of hand. Appearantly, he is getting reactions out of his magic, but for you, you think that he's using toys instead of skill, making him an below average magician.

Don't get into this logic, this make you look like someone with average respect of magic when talking to more experienced magicians. He got skill which is presentational, he likes using gimmicks, you like using sleight of hand, you both are entertaining the audience. Whats the problem? check your attitude, and think about it.

Cheers man.

 

[Steerpike]

Again, Steerpike, you're judging on purist in general, based only on what you see in these forums. Did you meet any experienced magician who is a purist, either in person, in a chat, or studied their work? If yes, then sorry for saying what I just said, but again I disagree with you for the reasons above. Hope it fixes your vision on purists.

Yes, actually. Self-proclaimed purists I've spoken to have given me that vibe because they don't give the reasons you do. They come across as bragging. For example, magicians I've met who like to conserve pocket space still carry thumb tips.

 

[Medifro]

Yes, actually. Self-proclaimed purists I've spoken to have given me that vibe because they don't give the reasons you do. They come across as bragging. For example, magicians I've met who like to conserve pocket space still carry thumb tips.

Hope the reasons I gave you fixes your views.

The ones you talked to, see the attitude, thats how you know if you're talking to someone with good knowledge in magical arts or not.
Dave Williamson, although I mentioned that he works with shuffled decks, he also uses a spoon bending routine which there is setup. Note that he didn't brag about using card gaffs for false reactions, and didn't have an attitude on gimmicks, this tells you that he's someone who knows his stuff well. Nevertheless, saying a general statement about purists being egoistic is wrong.

EDIT: I think many members here will be offended by the above sentence, don't feel to as knowledge is not insulting at all. The more you study magic, the more you come to conclusion that the attitude against gimmicks, as mentioned in many post here, is extremely limited.

I just edited my previous post to make more remarks, hope you read it again in case you didn't.

Cheers,

 

[Steerpike]

Hope the reasons I gave you fixes your views.

The ones you talked to, see the attitude, thats how you know if you're talking to someone with good knowledge in magical arts or not.
Dave Williamson, although I mentioned that he works with shuffled decks, he also uses a spoon bending routine which there is setup. Note that he didn't brag about using card gaffs for false reactions, and didn't have an attitude on gimmicks, this tells you that he's someone who knows his stuff well.

I don't consider Dave Williamson a purist. At all.

 

[Wallmott]

Saying that gimmicks gets false reactions is the worst thing i have heard in a long time.

I can tell you one thing, David Copperfields stage is gimmicked like no tomorrow and he has a big crew to make it all work. Is Mr. Copperfield getting false reactions?

If a effect is good even if its gimmicked why not use it? There is allot of effects that just cant be done without gimmicks which is fantastic and will get amazing reactions.

 

[Brad Henderson]

Tried to post last night from blackberry. Did not work What I had written was much better then, but this will still get the point across, I hope.

First, I will say that there is no insult intended or hidden in my definition. It is merely a statement of the way things are as put forth by others on this thread. It is taking their words and extracting the truth ffrom them. Unfortunately, some might not find that truth sexy *thank you Steer).

I talked to my friend about it, and he agrees. Then again, he has no problem admitting that he does magic solely for his own pleasure.

Now, the "insult" may come out in my little addition, about self confidence, but only if you recognize the truth in what I write.

So, let's play a little game:

I challenge anyone via argument to show how what I wrote is untrue based on the definitions offered here as "purist." If anyone makes a good run at it, I will send them a free copy of my book, The Dance.

Now, remember. We have accepted the notion that a purist is someone who will ONLY use sleight of hand methods to accomplish his or her magic. So, those that have asked "what if the two methods accomplish the same task" or "do you still get paid" are missing the point. Of course, sometimes sleight of hand is the better method, sometimes it may work equally well as a gaff. But a purist - by definition - ALWAYS uses pure sleight of hand even if it is not as effective a method as other options. They will INTENTIONALLY choose the weaker option. In other words, they ALWAYS put their pleasure and concerns over that of the audience. (And note: my definition says nothing about the effectiveness of the position. It only identifies the orgin of the performer's motivations.)

Also, this notion that using sleight of hand allows others to revel in their joy is pure self indulgent clap trap. If I see the joy in a young man's eyes who is in love, that means nothing to me. Now, if he choose to share his girlfriend for a night, maybe we have something.

Magic is not about watching someone else get their rocks off. (Well, actually it too often is. Rather, magic SHOULDN'T be about watching someone else get their rocks off.) We don't pay to go to a restaurant and watch someone else eat, do we?

This "argument" essentially over states my postulate for me - that a purist's joy is not just more important than that of his audience, but it is the only thing of importance, that the audience is here to revel in his pleasure.

So, who is up to the challenge. How is my definition not completely accurate - that a purist is someone who places his own pleasure (and concerns) over that of his audience?

Note: I have limited web writing access due to travel, but will peek in and see if anyone can dubunk the definition. Also, special prize to anyone who can find the logical and practical flaw in the defintion of a purist (someone who only uses sleight of hand to accomplish their magic) as offered here.

Brad Henderson

p.s. Not everything a magic lecturer tells you is true

 

[Medifro]

the defintion of a purist (someone who only uses sleight of hand to accomplish their magic) as offered here.

A purist is someone who doesn't use gaffs or setups that cannot be made by sleight of hand ( culling four aces to top, a purist would do that, you get the idea ).

There are effect that doesn't require sleight of hand though are done with no setups or gaffs, this is particularly true for card magic ( self-workers ). Purists would do that with no problem ..

Its not about using sleights or not, its about using gaffs/complex setups or not.

Thats the way I see it .. Would love to see other arguments ..

Cheers,

 

[PjPinsonnault]

I don't know if this point has been made, but I'll offer this:

To consider yourself a purist is to limit your growth as a magician. While I don't doubt that some magicians could put together a 45-minute platform act for, say, 100 people, based solely on sleight-of-hand effects, I would venture to say that those who could are few and far between.

Let's say you get an offer to perform a 30 minute set on a platform in front of 500 people, and you'll get $5.00 a head from the door. Do you turn down $2500.00 on the purist principle? I know I'd be hard pressed to come up with a setlist from my own repertoire that people in the back rows could understand.

Or an even better challenge to the devout purists is this: share what you'd perform, purely with sleight-of-hand, that could entertain a crowd of that size for that long.

Pj

 

[Brad Henderson]

Medifro,

Yes, the definition of a purest would include self working tricks or tricks set up on the fly. A purest (as defined by others on this thread) would perhaps best be described in the negative - someone who refuses to use x, y, and z.

Regardless, the issue is the same, someone who is limiting their magic choices based on ideas which they value as more important than that those which the audience values.

I too am looking forward to the contributions.

Brad

 

[Medifro]

A purest (as defined by others on this thread) would perhaps best be described in the negative - someone who refuses to use x, y, and z.

Regardless, the issue is the same, someone who is limiting their magic choices based on ideas which they value as more important than that those which the audience values.

I agree with this, though the last thing you said in your above post ( the magic lecturer thingy ) left me intrigued.

~ Feras

 

[Sir FansAlot]

We have accepted the notion that a purist is someone who will ONLY use sleight of hand methods to accomplish his or her magic.

Not me, I believe myself to be a purist however I do use gimmicks. I think it's more a frame of mind than anything. If there is a workable option to achieve the same effect without using a gimmick the purist would choose the non-gimmicked version even if it's 'harder'. I also believe that the idea of a purist deals more with the way someone approaches the art rather than the type of props they use. Ranging anywhere from material/props to Ethical values which I personally think defines a purist moreso than props.

 

[PjPinsonnault]

Not me, I believe myself to be a purist however I do use gimmicks. I think it's more a frame of mind than anything. If there is a workable option to achieve the same effect without using a gimmick the purist would choose the non-gimmicked version even if it's 'harder'. I also believe that the idea of a purist deals more with the way someone approaches the art rather than the type of props they use. Ranging anywhere from material/props to Ethical values which I personally think defines a purist moreso than props.

I wonder, then, how you'd define the "purist magician." You sound like a general conjuror to me.

Does anyone remember the old days of the UFC? When there were boxing and jiu-jitsu and judo and wrestling purists who all argued over whose style was better?

Along came fighters who blended multiple disciplines and arsenals and the purists began falling apart in the cage. Arguments ceased, because results were evident on the mat.

Alas, all we have here is lip-service, but the lesson seems appropriate.

Pj