Thanks, George

I think that you have to change with the times, because audience tastes and interests change; but that is not the same as taking stock of each and every audience and trying to get to "know them" before starting so that you can choose what routines to do. That is impractical and unnecessary.

I have changed my act "with the times" several times during my career, but since I was continuously performing and working with young and old audiences, my tastes, humor and cultural markers changed along with them. I don't try to do hip hop, but I try to create an act that a modern audience can still enjoy. That is not the same as having to do a survey of each audience's tastes and preferences.

The wonderful thing about our magic is that the entirely irrational is proved by entirely rational means. The magic experiment is the rational means, by which the irrational entertainment is proved. The interaction of those irrational and rational opposites is what creates the Simultaneity of Opposites which is both irrational and rational at the same time and so that interaction is the magic itself. The interaction, put simply, is the way the two things work together: in principle, it is a Crossing of Opposites:

"Also, when the ancients considered the process of mathematical multiplication, their mode of calculation had a direct relationship with natural life processes as well as metaphysical ones. Schwaller de Lubicz called this mode the "principle of the crossing" (interestingly, we today continue to symbolize multiplication with the sign of a cross: X). This crossing was not a sterile, mental, numerical manipulation but a symbol for the process, by which things enter into corporeal existence. All birth into nature requires a crossing of opposites. It can be the crossing of vertical and horizontal lines, which give birth to the square, the first measurable surface; or male and female, giving birth to a new individual; or warp and weft, creating a fabric; or light, and darkness, giving birth to tangible forms; or matter and spirit, giving birth to life itself. Thus, the vital linking up of the mental abstraction of calculation with its counterpart in natural phenomena gave the ancient mathematician a living and philosophic basis for his science.”

- From Robert Lawlor's forward to The Temple in Man by R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz

The crossing of opposites is never going to change.

Mind you I might change my mind after I have been brainwashed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiR_UnnT......ntVideos

I fully agree Whit - never suggested such a thing. That would be a waste of time as folks may not tell the truth anyway.

I do recall several "greats" who would have friend stand outside and listen to comment to ticket buyers, or sit in bathroom durrng breaks, but that was long ago .
Today one cannot put credence on what people say on a cellphone

and, not possible with an unknown group anyway. But, I have seen posts by performers during after-dinner gigs who like to do walk-around earlier to get a feel of audience expectations;
and table-hoppers who pay waiters to tip them off on overheard comments. They have a different effect set in each pocket to choose fm based on gleaned info.
Arnold Furst used to take leisurely stroll into a restaurant to glean or seed information in case he was asked to perform later.

None of that is what I have been talking about at all. I'd be happy to send you a free copy of one of my eBooks if you wish, but the free Books explain a lot.
How I perform is off topic anyway, so please send an eMail.

Here and 'on topic' is my extensive experience with how people react to impossible events, process them and make decisions.
Seeing a trick at a magic show is only a small part of that. Their reaction at a show, or to watching a YouTube video, is not typical of reactions and response in everyday life.
I understand that you personally are only interested in how your next paying audience may react and what they will pretend to appreciate.

However, the questions of this thread are about changes in people's perceptions of magic and their expectations "in general" - in real life.
This might be important to those performers who choose to perform for small, unknown audiences about whom little can be assumed.

You have the experienced ability to adapt rhythm, volume, timing, humor, etc. during a performance. Most folks today do not have those skills.
While they are developing such audience engagement skills they can have alternative Effects and Endings well practiced and ready.
They can be tuned into verbal and non-verbal cues that provide clues as to how best to proceed during the performance.

I find it amazing that you, and a couple of others, seem to feel that only a well-known personality, performing for large, paying audience can have a opinion on how to deal with other groups or settings.
This is like saying only that only a medical specialist at a large hospital can develop new medicine. Research scientists, general practitioners and clinical workers must be ignored.

I spent a couple of years observing every table-hopper/walk-around performers that I encountered (or followed). After they left, I was able to observe and listen to reactions of that small group.
Sometimes, I could compare that with what the performer thought was happening. These perceptions were rarely the same. Applause does not always mean they liked what the magician did.
Sometimes it is appreciation that the performer is finally done. Was there any reaction of "must be magic?" Rarely. I have learned that every unscheduled performance is in constant competition with other possible "entertaining things." You can loose focused attention or "sense of awe&wonder" in an instant because of an interruption or disruptive guest. It is a challenge. Or opportunity.

You keep tying to change what I say into something I did not - and then attack your own made up assumptions. Is that magic? Is it even respectful? Perhaps read my eBooks first.

If you do not understand what I am saying, why not ask a question for clarification instead of guessing or projecting? Weird.

Thanks for the more civil posting, though.

You do know that it doesn’t matter how big a word salad you toss it won’t move your position any closer to correct right?

You have changed the entire focus of this to you and your experience instead of what a modern audience may perceive as opposed to others in history. Weird indeed.

I think we know more about people now than ever before in history because everybody is on the internet talking about themselves.

Amazon is a great mind reader.

and why should we trust that any of that is true or accurate? We do not "know" anything - and much is even hard to believe.

I think it is funny that a time-traveller is speaking about keeping up with the times but somehow it all seems to make sense.

This is your problem. You want to twist everything to fit your model of how the world is.

That is just not how life works whether you ever see it or not.

You mean "how Danny's life works." The fact that you have a problem with what I post does not mean I have a problem.

Thanks for proving my point, though. All of your posts on this thread contain inaccurate information - mostly made-up stuff.

But, it is all for entertainment, right? No one takes you seriously. Me either, probably.

No, wrong! It is not all entertainment. The two things: Magic and Entertainment, are opposites things.
Polarity remains fundamental.

Gentlemen, can we please agree to disagree?

But we have all just agreed that Ken is wrong.

Well, it became silly anyway. Imagine any of us being able to define or limit what others may think - or pretend at it.

"Opinion"ain't what it used to be

Glad you are agreeing with my post above, tommy. Too many performers today focus on entertainment with little concern over magic (by any definition)

Perhaps each person must ask, "Do I wish to offer illusion in an entertaining way?" or "Do I want to be an entertainer with little illusion tossed in?"

A rare few have shown the ability to do both (Whit and Danny among them). But, from my grasp, only under controlled conditions for a paying audience.
Performers in other settings and for unknown audience may have to consider other factors or methods.

Just an experience opinion that is directing the way I present new Routines and Effect to magicians worldwide.
I have no clue as to what they might do with new Sleights or Stratagems or Moves. Some seeds will possible fall on fertile ground ...

I offer several FREE eBook to help students decide whether of not to get involved. They get to make up their own mind.

I thanks the other posters here for demonstrating he diversity of opinions about performance magic.

Some interesting points have been brought up in this thread and while I don't believe magic is dead, far from it, I can agree the it may have lost a bit of itself through cultural changes and audience perception as time has passed. Their capacity to appreciate awe and wonder might have been diluted as was mentioned. It's not necessarily an issue that everything is available online.. that means more people can witness what you do if it is posted or streamed online though that does mean more people can comment and tweet their skeptical views, search Google, spread false news and try to expose it. I also don't think technology has advanced to a point where everything we do is achievable through it though there are certainly instances where that would be a go to explanation in their for the demonstrations we might perform. But although it's harder to create legends like the Loch Ness monster, there will always be the human need to believe in something or witness something extraordinary and we can still achieve that. I'd argue that instead of making big claims and doing demonstrations that encourage your audience to expose or unravel them, we should put out stories that they want to retell and create our legends that way.

Obviously times have changed and performers need change with them. The point made above how science brings a new magic is very valid: but it is presented with sincerity and honesty and not to show off. The main issue I see is that performers often perform to feed their ego and in doing that is where they make a big mistake. There is a difference with how science is repeatable and teachable common to many and so the magic should be more extraordinary and mysterious but if we present it in a way that is less showing off and more sharing an experience then the audience might be less eager to break the illusion or show skepticism. If they think you're out to fool them they'll be on guard but if you present it as just sharing the impossible with them then they'll understand that you're not trying to show off you're smarter than them and that they can take it easy. Another great point was made about relevance, think of how so many performers are just copy pasting a store bought trick as opposed to sharing something relevant to the audience. Making a card jump to the top of the deck is definitely not.

There's a value that magic can provide beyond just entertainment, I think. I'm not saying convince an audience of anything they won't already believe but I like to introduce mystery and find that more engaging and important than just entertainment. This might not agree with a lot of your positions on performing magic but there's no issue with each performer having his or her own goals and so on. I think it might be another reason for why there's such a difference in how it is perceived, as spirituality and the want to believe in something or explore mysterious things was much more common and nowadays people often just treat magic as some entertainment and don't give it as much value. There's certainly a difference in how a causaul audience, or a paying audience at a show, or a group of people waiting for their food and approached by a walk around worker will respond to magic. There's a set expectation for a stage show, but it's very different how people will react to a table hopper or a more spontaneous encounter with magic.

I also want to point out that I do agree largely with some of your thoughts, funsway, and I don't understand what was so controversial about them. It is a good idea to adapt to the audience of the time if you are able to but I think people are misunderstanding that you're not talking about stage shows. In professional stage work it is impractical and unnecessary to make big changes on the fly but in a casual environment with a smaller group you can and absolutely should get to know the audience and see what would be best for that interaction. I absolutely agree with trying to change the appreciation of magic above the "gotcha" level to the "it must be magic" level, and you can do that if you pay attention to their engagement and participation. Everyone has a natural interest in things that are unusual or impossible so why would you waste it, especially for an audience that really cares to see what you can show them? Opening effects are great for gauging these things.

I'm personally less interested in entertaining and more in what else I can offer people that is more profound than the clever new acaan variation, so perhaps what I do is closer to shamanism than most performance magic nowadays and that's because I simply don't agree with how it's being done. You can disagree with this approach as a magical entertainer but I don't claim to be that and so I'm not going to restrict myself to doing magic to simply entertain. That's not to say I encourage people to believe some supernatural claim, I simply introduce mystery and use it for what I believe are more significant purposes than keeping them entertained while they wait for their food, or just for the duration of the two hour show, or the short encounter. And you don't have to be the star of the demonstration: effects done in their hand, or using an object they handle, or where they cause the magic to happen are perfect for this. With the routines and know how of magic methodology, you have the ability to leave a lasting impression and give them something of real value. Why waste it on showing off or giving them basic entertainment?

Of course when you perform a stage show, for example, people have made an effort to come see you but I don't think you have to "force people to watch magic" if that isn't the case. Just because people don't buy a ticket to see you do what you do doesn't mean that it is necessarily pushed on them or that they won't want to be a part of something, it can be even more intimate and engaging. You can get a more honest reaction, with a real response to awe as opposed to cued applause. You can tailor the routine to each person and leave them with something that was just for them as opposed to sitting in the dark watching the stage with hundreds of other people. You can spend more time with the group and get to know them and achieve things that you might otherwise not be able to. I'm not bashing stage work or professionals in any way here, each have their pros and cons and serve different purposes but I absolutely disagree with casual performances being forced or inferior in any way.. if anything I think they do a better job at achieving things you just can't on stage. At least for my goals and purposes.

Working every night as a professional doing stage shows you will of course evolve with the audience but how much you evolve is still based on how much you reflect and monitor what works and what doesn't, it's the same with any other kind of performer. But paying audience's reaction at a show can be artificial and it is not how people react in every day life, surely we can recognise that. Applause can just mean acknowledging the successful conclusion of our pre planned novelty and that's very different to what I strive for when I perform for smaller groups, socially. The last thing I'd want is for people to start clapping and that's because with my approach I don't want things to feel planned or rehearsed but that's besides the point. The point is that if you really want to inspire awe and wonder then the way in which people naturally respond to that isn't clapping their hands, that's a social cue built into planned performances or to acknowledge the end of a speech or demonstration.. that's not people in awe. It's more "wow that's cool, do another one" than being stunned to silence and leaving pondering it beyond just that encounter. Anyway, "do I wish to offer illusion in entertaining way or do I want to be an entertainer with a little illusion tossed in?". That's a very interesting question that we should think about in regards to what our individual approach and style is.

Why are you putting the parameters of stage show? We are doing a close up magic show that I’m talking about.

When you have to misrepresent the other position you lose credibility.

I get what you’re saying. You don’t work professionally and do not have the parameters to go along with that. You don’t have to worry if an audience is entertained or engaged. They don’t have to get their moneys worth. You can worry about you and your perceptions of what magic is.

Now we know.

Did I misrepresent anyone's position? I only shared my thoughts on the points of discussion that was going on in here and mentioned the difference between the types of performances and what you could achieve with them. There's a big difference between, for example, casual close up environments and a proper stage show and their obviously different parameters.

And to clarify what I'm saying: I don't believe magic shouldn't entertain or that I don't try to be entertaining, I'm saying that that aspect of the performance is for me less important than the other things I hope to achieve. I don't have to worry about if an audience is engaged but I do it nonetheless to fully get the most out of whatever we're exploring together.

Yes that is what I said.

I’m not sure when a casual environment became something to aspire to but yay for progress.

The thing you seem to say is a stage show is the only professional environment. Which is of course ridiculous.

It is the equivalent of Kareoke singers trying to talk with professionals about how to sing on Broadway. It is ridiculous and happens in magic so the time.

As I said, everyone has different goals and there's nothing wrong with that. It is, however, unfortunate when people try to have meaningful discussion and bring up alternative viewpoints only to face snarky replies from performers who think their way is the be all and end all.

I never once claimed stage show is the only professional environment, in fact I explicitly mentioned and had in mind walk around and close up as a profession as well. The only reason I discussed my thoughts on stage work at more length is because that's where the largest contrast lies with what I do and it's also the classic grand way of performance.