Because he's using gimmicks, that makes him a below average magician? Oh boy, there is so much wrong with that statement. About 80% of a magic perfomance is just that... performing. Therefore, if he's getting better reactions than you, even using gimmicks, it means he's a better performer, and therefore a better magician. Sorry, but that's the truth.
What is a purist?
- Thread starter kcardum
- Start date
Because he's using gimmicks, that makes him a below average magician? Oh boy, there is so much wrong with that statement. About 80% of a magic perfomance is just that... performing. Therefore, if he's getting better reactions than you, even using gimmicks, it means he's a better performer, and therefore a better magician. Sorry, but that's the truth.
And I still believe at heart in Kung-Fu, even if I learned other styles and used them I'd still be a purist in regards to MA. In regards to magic and any other artform, a purist falls back to his/her roots and appreciates them and practices what was once pure. Many magicians of the past were purists but I think most of them used thumbtips, duplicates and topits. Or is "purist" a new term in magic?
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think Medifro was agreeing with the post he referenced, at least how I read into it.
Then my post was directed towards anyone who did agree with that state of mind.
Sorry medifro.Belief for yourself is fine, and I appreciate that you believe in Kung Fu, but to stick with the analogy we're running with, you would not see a pure kung fu fighter do well in MMA.
However, an MMA fighter would be fine fighting in kung fu rules.
I wasn't attacking earlier, I was just curious and rushed, so I wrote quickly.
My point here is this: blending styles allows you to be "backwards compatible," so to speak. You can always limit yourself as you see fit.
Choosing to limit from the outset leaves you...if I may be dramatic...limited.
Pj
On a side note, this has been an interesting topic to read and follow up on. I'm disappointed by how quickly good topics get scrubbed to the second page of obscurity with the onset of "I need help choosing red or blue cards" threads.
I don't post often, but I've had fun today.
However, an MMA fighter would be fine fighting in kung fu rules.
I wasn't attacking earlier, I was just curious and rushed, so I wrote quickly.
My point here is this: blending styles allows you to be "backwards compatible," so to speak. You can always limit yourself as you see fit.
Choosing to limit from the outset leaves you...if I may be dramatic...limited.
Pj
On a side note, this has been an interesting topic to read and follow up on. I'm disappointed by how quickly good topics get scrubbed to the second page of obscurity with the onset of "I need help choosing red or blue cards" threads.
I don't post often, but I've had fun today.
I've read most of this topic.
Thought a lot about it since I first saw it posted many hours ago.
I actually put it in the lot with the however many other Cerca Trova ideas.
I still don't know how I would define a purist, but have an idea or two and have decided to throw in two cents worth of thought.
I don't think someone who has decided to shun normal gimmicks is hindering themselves as much as many people think.
Sure, with just a thumb tip I can do tons of tricks that are very difficult if not impossible without.
And with double backed and double faced and whatever other cards you can think of I can do amazing magic.
But if I practice with loops, thumb tips, the flow gimmick and any other additive to magic, I actually hurt and limit myself when I'm caught unprepared. Say I do a gimmicked trick and it hits big, no HUGE. And the next week I'm at the same place and the person I did it for approaches asking me to do it again for the 4 friends he's with. Now he's been raving on me for 30 mins across the room...but I don't have my superman gimmick-or maybe i accidentally broke my loops for the day...if I don't have an equally impressive impromptu effect then not only will he look like a fool, I'll look like a bad magician. Neither of which you want.
With that said. Someone who never uses anything but a deck of cards or regular coins will always be searching for a method to do something that is normally achieved with gimmicks. Like I know a loopless haunted deck. It's nice if my spectator has never seen the looped version...but otherwise it's really a disappointment. I don't use a ton of gimmicks, not to save pocket room...it's more of a lack of money. I'd rather go through books and learn a good base of information that I can apply to anything rather than getting one gimmick that has one certain purpose...kind of bland, almost hindering to my creative process.
Like I enjoyed learning from Daniel Madison's trilogy notes. I like cameo, fatal-heritage and whatnot. The effects in 2 were equally fun to learn and practice. But the moves taught in 3, without the 'suggested effects' opened my mind up to new things, something that I enjoy more than impressing my audience.
Anyway. That's just what I've been thinking about this evening/night. And any incoherence is due to sleep deprivation.
Thanks for your time.
g'nite(or g'day).
-Rik A.
Thought a lot about it since I first saw it posted many hours ago.
I actually put it in the lot with the however many other Cerca Trova ideas.
I still don't know how I would define a purist, but have an idea or two and have decided to throw in two cents worth of thought.
I don't think someone who has decided to shun normal gimmicks is hindering themselves as much as many people think.
Sure, with just a thumb tip I can do tons of tricks that are very difficult if not impossible without.
And with double backed and double faced and whatever other cards you can think of I can do amazing magic.
But if I practice with loops, thumb tips, the flow gimmick and any other additive to magic, I actually hurt and limit myself when I'm caught unprepared. Say I do a gimmicked trick and it hits big, no HUGE. And the next week I'm at the same place and the person I did it for approaches asking me to do it again for the 4 friends he's with. Now he's been raving on me for 30 mins across the room...but I don't have my superman gimmick-or maybe i accidentally broke my loops for the day...if I don't have an equally impressive impromptu effect then not only will he look like a fool, I'll look like a bad magician. Neither of which you want.
With that said. Someone who never uses anything but a deck of cards or regular coins will always be searching for a method to do something that is normally achieved with gimmicks. Like I know a loopless haunted deck. It's nice if my spectator has never seen the looped version...but otherwise it's really a disappointment. I don't use a ton of gimmicks, not to save pocket room...it's more of a lack of money. I'd rather go through books and learn a good base of information that I can apply to anything rather than getting one gimmick that has one certain purpose...kind of bland, almost hindering to my creative process.
Like I enjoyed learning from Daniel Madison's trilogy notes. I like cameo, fatal-heritage and whatnot. The effects in 2 were equally fun to learn and practice. But the moves taught in 3, without the 'suggested effects' opened my mind up to new things, something that I enjoy more than impressing my audience.
Anyway. That's just what I've been thinking about this evening/night. And any incoherence is due to sleep deprivation.
Thanks for your time.
g'nite(or g'day).
-Rik A.
You brought to light a point I had missed; considering what you just wrote, is it fair to say that, contrary to what a sleight-of-hand-purist (which is what I guarantee is what we meant by "purist" on this topic originally) will assume, does the general practitioner not have to work harder, consider more options, and become more creative than he who reserves himself solely to conjuring dexterity?
My uncle is a purist, and I sympathize with the argument for it, I do, but his argument is often that gaffs are a lazy magician's way of avoiding sleight-of-hand.
Perhaps it is he who is taking the lazy way out?
That last bit should clue everyone in to why this interests me so much. My uncle was my inspiration as a kid, and we've had many heated debates on this.
Has anyone considered my ealier challenge regarding a purist's setlist for a large venue? I'd offer a book if I had written one.
Pj
Adjones, re-read my post, I clearly stated that this is THE WRONG LOGIC.
Do read the complete post before posting about it!
Cheers,
And I clearly stated it was then directed towards anyone with that mindset, and apologized for directing it at you.
these days a purist in my light is a very hard to find line. In David blanies book it says hes a purist, but he uses invisible decks, rising decks, ect. What i think is his idea of a purist is no fake reactions
Well for the sake of arguing, and a chance at a free book, it's worth a shot
The audience usually won't have any concerns. I believe it was Derren Brown that said in one of his books that chances are your audience has never seen a magician before and won't see one again. Their knowledge of magic beyond rabits being pulled out of hats is very limited. The spectators just want a good show. The difference between here then there and distortion is big to a magican. But to a spectator that has no idea what distortion is (and will never know) here then there is a fantastic trick. The spectator is happy and the performer is happy.
You also make it seem that even if the audience is looking for very specific things that can only be accomplished by gimmicks, the purist knows about them and purposely ignores their desires. With no contact with audience members before a show there is no possible way for the performer to know about what they want. If he did know and continued to ignore them or ajust, he is indeed selfish.
The audience usually won't have any concerns. I believe it was Derren Brown that said in one of his books that chances are your audience has never seen a magician before and won't see one again. Their knowledge of magic beyond rabits being pulled out of hats is very limited. The spectators just want a good show. The difference between here then there and distortion is big to a magican. But to a spectator that has no idea what distortion is (and will never know) here then there is a fantastic trick. The spectator is happy and the performer is happy.
You also make it seem that even if the audience is looking for very specific things that can only be accomplished by gimmicks, the purist knows about them and purposely ignores their desires. With no contact with audience members before a show there is no possible way for the performer to know about what they want. If he did know and continued to ignore them or ajust, he is indeed selfish.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well for the sake of arguing, and a chance at a free book, it's worth a shot
The audience usually won't have any concerns. I believe it was Derren Brown that said in one of his books that chances are your audience has never seen a magician before and won't see one again. They're knowledge of magic beyond rabits being pulled out of hats is very limited. The spectators just want a good show. The difference between here then there and distortion is big to a magican. But to a spectator that has no idea what distortion is (and will never know) here then there is a fantastic trick. The spectator is happy and the performer is happy.
You also make it seem that even if the audience is looking for very specific things that can only be accomplished by gimmicks, the purist knows about them and purposely ignores their desires. With no contact with audience members before a show there is no possible way for the performer to know about what they want. If he did know and continued to ignore them or ajust, he is indeed selfish.
i just crapped myself, great job, genius qoute to use.
and its very true, good job
Some people are saying that Gimmicks are for lazy magicians, those who do should go out and performe some gimmicked, un examinable tricks and you will see that it is not just for lazy people.
To get away with gimmicks you need to give a great performance so they belive in what you are doing and dont care about your props.
Always performance over method.
To get away with gimmicks you need to give a great performance so they belive in what you are doing and dont care about your props.
Always performance over method.
another meaning
A "purist" to me also means a magician that always chooses the most direct path.
Nothing contrived, just fastest way from point A to B. Pass instead of shuffle or a cut, nothing excessive to draw away attention from the effect.
As with the disscussion about the gimmicks, there is clearly a good reason to go "purist".
If you don´t get tremendous gains by using a gimmick then there is no reason to use it. No matter how believable and well done your performance is there is a need in laymen to at least touch and feel the piece of miracle. If you pocket you stuff as soon as you´re done, you leave them with that ever present suspicion that there was something fishy about your props.
A "purist" to me also means a magician that always chooses the most direct path.
Nothing contrived, just fastest way from point A to B. Pass instead of shuffle or a cut, nothing excessive to draw away attention from the effect.
As with the disscussion about the gimmicks, there is clearly a good reason to go "purist".
If you don´t get tremendous gains by using a gimmick then there is no reason to use it. No matter how believable and well done your performance is there is a need in laymen to at least touch and feel the piece of miracle. If you pocket you stuff as soon as you´re done, you leave them with that ever present suspicion that there was something fishy about your props.
First, thanks for playing.
You have rationalized being a purist by appealing to an audience's ignorance. This does not debunk my statement as being untrue - however you bring up points worthy of disucssion on their own merit.
You have essentially said (if I am reading you properly) that as long as the audience does not know about filet mignon, it's perfectly fine to serve them McDonald's and they will be happy enough.
And that may very well be true.
Unfortunately, my point is that the purist KNOWS that filet mignon is available, but for personal reasons, chooses to not share that with his audience. He offers an inferior effect because of his own self centered needs.
The audience may not know what they are missing, but clearly the performer does. Yet he does not mind cheating them - putting his own pleasure and concerns over that he is allegedly there to entertain.
In my mind, and others are free to disagree, the performer should always offer the best available to his audiences.
Senchi is close when he says:
"Nothing contrived, just fastest way from point A to B. Pass instead of shuffle or a cut, nothing excessive to draw away attention from the effect."
He is of course echoeing Al Baker who advocated the simplest techinique. But most magicians took Baker's admonition incorrectly. They assumed simplest meant easiest.
It doesn't. The simplest technique is the most direct. It could be a palm, a pass OR a gimmick.
All doors should be open.
The purist closes doors before the problem is even clearly stated.
Sometimes the simplest most direct route IS sleight of hand, but sometimes it isn't.
What should be the deciding factor? The impact of the effect, or the performer's self centered indulgences?
I do disagree Senchi when you say, "No matter how believable and well done your performance is there is a need in laymen to at least touch and feel the piece of miracle. If you pocket you stuff as soon as you´re done, you leave them with that ever present suspicion that there was something fishy about your props."
As someone who has used both sleight of hand as well as gimmicks, as someone who has presented magic without props as well as with intricate and one of a kind pieces of apparatus, I assure you this point of view comes from inexperience. First, it assumes that the audience MUST be aware of the presence of the gimmick, which is patently untrue. Second, it assumes that there are not theatrical contrivances for moving the audiences attention away from the prop (when they are visible) and to the performer. I believe it was Charles Reynolds (one of magic's true genuis's) who coined the phrase "talking away the box."
When you understand that concept, then doors open.
Why start in a hole when you can begin on a step ladder?
Brad Henderson
Wow these analogies are really getting out there. Hugely entertaining!
I personally can vouch that I do enjoy it when performing for an audience. I similarly challenge you to deny that you don't enjoy it, that you don't "get your rocks off". You wouldn't be peforming magic unless you enjoyed it, and there is no greater joy than actually performing for people and getting reactions. The only counter examples would be a working professional who needs to use magic to make ends meet. However they entered the field with the intention of enjoying it. Another would be someone performing at gun point.
So I see no problem with purists and non purists alike enjoying their performing skills, and the reactions. In many ways you can feed off their enjoyment, and vice versa. You don't want to be shown magic by someone who doesn't want to perform it now do we? Yes its egotistical, but you also need to see that its also enjoyment of other peoples enjoyment/entertainment.
Now to the main purist argument. I won't counter your definition of a purist. It is a tad subjective but its a pretty well agreed upon definition. I can see one example where a purist certainly has an advantage. The reactions from gaffed card revelations tend to downplay the magic involved (unless used extremely well, and even given that it's a different kind of reaction). I think army of 52 and Ultragaff are an example of this. As soon as you reveal the gaffed card, the spectator knows that it is not an ordinary deck. The reaction of a spectator when they know a gimmick has been and must have been employed is certainly a different one to a purist effect. Not necessarily a worse reaction mind you.
However I get the feeling you are actually referring to a trick of equalled or better "quality"/"impact" that can be achieved using a gimmick. Again I find this hugely subjective. Some people like chicken, others like beef (ah the food analogies rear up again). Even more so, some people like plain chicken soup, others like chicken ala king. We and the spectator have different tastes, even if a trick looks more impressive to some specators, it won't to others. A single colour change may impress someone more than a full blown deck colour change. I know that's been the case for me a few times.
So it's not always about putting your own enjoyment first as a purist. It's a matter of opinion (of the magicians and the specator) whether a gimmick would enhance the effect or not, and whether the reactions and enjoyment of the spectator would benefit.
However I fear that we must address the direct hypothetical situation where a gimmick would be uknown, and would "enhance" or "better" the effect in terms of the "specific spectator". If a purist chooses not to use it, then it is their choice. It doesn't have to be due to placing their own enjoyment over the spectators. It can be due to personal preference, which sometimes is distinct from enjoyment (this will take some thinking about). Analogy: I may want to drink alcohol, but for whatever reasons (religious, problems etc) I choose not to, even if it harms my own enjoyment and the enjoyment of those I could be drinking with.
Thus a purist can choose not to employ gimmicks and not place his/her enjoyment above a spectators.
I personally can vouch that I do enjoy it when performing for an audience. I similarly challenge you to deny that you don't enjoy it, that you don't "get your rocks off". You wouldn't be peforming magic unless you enjoyed it, and there is no greater joy than actually performing for people and getting reactions. The only counter examples would be a working professional who needs to use magic to make ends meet. However they entered the field with the intention of enjoying it. Another would be someone performing at gun point.
So I see no problem with purists and non purists alike enjoying their performing skills, and the reactions. In many ways you can feed off their enjoyment, and vice versa. You don't want to be shown magic by someone who doesn't want to perform it now do we? Yes its egotistical, but you also need to see that its also enjoyment of other peoples enjoyment/entertainment.
Now to the main purist argument. I won't counter your definition of a purist. It is a tad subjective but its a pretty well agreed upon definition. I can see one example where a purist certainly has an advantage. The reactions from gaffed card revelations tend to downplay the magic involved (unless used extremely well, and even given that it's a different kind of reaction). I think army of 52 and Ultragaff are an example of this. As soon as you reveal the gaffed card, the spectator knows that it is not an ordinary deck. The reaction of a spectator when they know a gimmick has been and must have been employed is certainly a different one to a purist effect. Not necessarily a worse reaction mind you.
However I get the feeling you are actually referring to a trick of equalled or better "quality"/"impact" that can be achieved using a gimmick. Again I find this hugely subjective. Some people like chicken, others like beef (ah the food analogies rear up again). Even more so, some people like plain chicken soup, others like chicken ala king. We and the spectator have different tastes, even if a trick looks more impressive to some specators, it won't to others. A single colour change may impress someone more than a full blown deck colour change. I know that's been the case for me a few times.
So it's not always about putting your own enjoyment first as a purist. It's a matter of opinion (of the magicians and the specator) whether a gimmick would enhance the effect or not, and whether the reactions and enjoyment of the spectator would benefit.
However I fear that we must address the direct hypothetical situation where a gimmick would be uknown, and would "enhance" or "better" the effect in terms of the "specific spectator". If a purist chooses not to use it, then it is their choice. It doesn't have to be due to placing their own enjoyment over the spectators. It can be due to personal preference, which sometimes is distinct from enjoyment (this will take some thinking about). Analogy: I may want to drink alcohol, but for whatever reasons (religious, problems etc) I choose not to, even if it harms my own enjoyment and the enjoyment of those I could be drinking with.
Thus a purist can choose not to employ gimmicks and not place his/her enjoyment above a spectators.
No one denies that the performer cannot enjoy sharing his gifts. The post I referenced claimed that the audience's enjoyment stemmed from them watching the performer pleasure himself, so to speak. That, I think, is a ridiculous argument.
You seem to think that entertainment must stem from watching someone enjoy what they do...is this true? What of the actor in a Broadway play that just learned his mother had died? What of the actor who plays a very challenging, emotionally draining role? Do we see their pleasure or do we merely benefit from the work, the sacrifice, the make in order to transport us to the aesthetic response?
Is magic fun? Always? As a professional, must it always be fun? Does it matter what you think/feel or is it your job to deliver? Does it matter if you are a professional? Do you have a responsibility to deliver simply because you have chosen to call yourself "magician?" Is a magician not an actor playing the role of the magician, in which case, does the audience ever see what we REALLY feel?
But - to the point -my quote concerns the impetus of the enjoyment. Does the performer make decisions based on their needs/concerns/pleasure or that of the audience? A purist, by definition, would ALWAYS place their concerns over that of the audience, even when they know a better method to exist.
This notion of "gaffed card revelation" is very limited and does not take into account the larger meaning and use of gaffed cards. I wrote a post on this. I think that when you consider the more accurate meaning on the term (as it has been used throughout the history of magic) you see that you are trying to narrow down to such a minute type of usage as to be largely meaningless to the overall discussion.
Ah, the hypothetical game. Let's play.
Given similar if not identical presentations, which is more deceptive: the three card monte with a servicible hype or a Skinner/Roger's type laydown where the cards can be shown SLOWLY and cleanly.
What about a coins across where the performer has to recount the coins from hand to hand repeatedly in order to get in the right positions or a simple visual flight across with no departures from the straight line of the effect?
We are not comparing color changes to deck changes, we are comparing the same effects...apples to apples. Are some color changing deck routines better than others? (More on that in a minute.)
Now I am not suggesting that sometimes sleights are not better. I often feel they are. However, is it not possible to look at a routine and see clearly whether it follows a straight line or if it departs in order to accomodate method? Can we not look at a routine and determine if it is clear, concise and understandable? I have seen color changing decks routines that are convoluted and confusing. Aren''t these be definition weaker routines than those that are clear and direct?
We can play the "all opinions are valid" game which so many people have been taught to do, but are we really talking about opinions? Vernon said great sleight of hand consisted in the elimination of moves. While this IS an opinion, comparing routines as to the number and types of moves is not.
If we agree that good magic consists of clear effects with simple processes that proceed in a direct and dramatically satisfying line, then I think we can see that some versions of tricks ARE better than others.
If a method causes the clarity and directness to suffer, then why use it if there is a better method? The purist would argue that the only thing to consider is whether or not an effect used a gaff or not. He would not think of the audience's experience. A more confusing effect using sleights would be chosen over the clear one using the gaff...how is this not putting their pleasure/concerns ahead of that of their audience?
This is the most interesting part to me as it actually addresses my definition. While the alchohol example is fun, I cannot think of anything magic related which would apply. Note that I clarified my definition to read: Places their pleasure and concerns over that of the audience.
If someone KNOWS that there is a tool which will lead to a better effect and they choose not to use it, they are by definition placing their own concerns over that of the audience. Now, as most purists go, that concern is their own self satisfication - their pleasure.
So, let's go with this: What reason would a PURIST possibly have (akin to your alcohol example) for not using the method that would produce the strongest effect for the layperson?
Anything? (Let's avoid the obvious "he can't afford the gimmick" reasoning. We can assume that both methods are available to him, yet he would still choose the gaff free version...why?)
Thanks for jumping in,
Brad Henderson