One of the greatest accomplishments of magicians in the last century is the ability to take something inherently profound and render it trivial." --Max Maven

I’ve always liked Max a lot. Since his passing I’ve been reading his essays a lot more. Parallax I believe is essential reading.
I keep coming back to the above quote. Max was a very smart guy but I still can’t really get my head around exactly what he thought was trivial, or at least compared to now.
Was it the grandeur of professional magicians that had gone? The restaurant and corporate table magicians? Magic competitions? How secrets are so needlessly given away and exposed?
In a lot of ways I think magic has become much better and standards generally much higher, in other ways not so much. One could argue some of Max’s own creations and performances had elements of triviality. Do we have any idea what was trivial to Max Maven? Did he expand on this anywhere or can we infer?

I interpreted this as referring to the way we perform and present magic. Maybe it is best answered by a rhetorical question.

"Given that magic touches on our fundamental belief system, how many of the last 50 performers you have seen go anywhere near disturbing or disrupting that?"

Did the experience feel inconsequential or trivial?

I'm with Chris on this one. Going strictly by the quote, and thinking about performances of magic over the last century, and factoring Chris' figure into it, I'd say a good chunk of those performers were basically just demonstrating gadgets: big box illusions, smaller stuff, boxes, even close-up. So many props are just one-trick ponies that, unless the performer really puts some effort into treating them as something other than a prop, the performance comes across like a kitchen gadget demonstration at the county fair.

Actually, I've seen many kitchen gadget demonstrators show more character than many demonstrators of magic props.

Profound magic is as dryasdust.

A place to discuss magic, but the Not Magical category has the most topics and the most posts.

If that's not just the most depressing thing you ever saw , I don't know what is. How could that be ? No one has anything to discuss about MAGIC ? A thousand and one places on the internet to discuss any topic under the sun , but here we have a category for "Not magical, but still ..." which is the most popular category on the Magic Café™ ?

And the most popular threads there are childish mindless games, which are not discussions at all.

I couldn't agree more!

I agree with what's been said above about performance depth. There is a lack of existential or philosophical engagement in contemporary magic and you can see that when you question whether modern magicians are effectively challenging or engaging with audiences' fundamental beliefs or just providing surface level entertainment.

The overuse of props and gadgets in magic is clear too. Magic has become overly dependent on tools and less on the magician's ability to weave a narrative or engage the audience on a human level which is why people invest in gimmicks and tricks more than "boring theory" like parallax. That shift from an art form that deeply engages and mystifies to one that just entertains with mechanical tricks is sad to see. The awe inspiring performances have shifted to more commercialized standardized acts where magic has become trivialized in its attempt to be more marketable or accessible.

I think there is an impact of technology and information sharing these days too. The secrecy and mystique of magic are more challenging to maintain. There's ease of access to magic secrets and the mystery which historically was a cornerstone of magical performance is a bit less.. mysterious. But I do wonder if Max is thinking about his personal artistic choices too and whether he saw elements of triviality in his creations. He's too deep a thinker to not self reflect and questioning his role and impact in the trajectory of magic as an art form.

While some aspects of magic may have become trivial, it's also true that technical skill and creativity have seen significant advancements. He might not dismiss these improvements but more so seems to call for a balance between our advancements and the preservation of magic's profound, mystical essence. It opens up a larger conversation about the evolution of magic and its role in society, about what makes magic truly magical.

Yes, but the question is, does it entertain the spectator or the performer? From what I've seen, a lot of times it just entertains the performer. And I can relate to this, having been a clueless kid when I first got involved in magic.

I'm going to push back on the suggestion that there has been a general shift or deterioration in the quality of presentation. It is too easy to hark back to a mythical golden age. Ive been in magic for nearly 60 years and the best magic continues to improve. In the UK there has been a shift from general / comedy /cheeky chappie presentation (Daniels) to Derren Brown quality story weaving / assumption challenging theatre.
I think Max Maven was bemoaning the lack of thought, effort, artistry by 98% of magicians (that's us folks) in going beyond executing the secret mechanics.

Of course, that I can agree with. That is what I mean when I talk about the shift.. the majority of performers are who represent the art form and that's who I refer to when I say that there's a deterioration in quality. Otherwise I totally agree that there's gems out there from people like Derren.

And I also think it's good to question who an effect entertains. Some magic is more fun for us as the magicians to perform because of how we feel or the methods that we utilise but they may not be the best to entertain and engage an audience. That's why we should keep these "magician foolers" to show each other if the quality of presentation and engagement with the audience isn't as strong as it should be.

The anatomy of theatrical magic is the same as the anatomy of nonsense literature of Lewis Carroll.

The wonderful thing about theatrical magic and nonsense literature is that the entirely irrational is proved by entirely rational means.

The nonsense and sense opposites are that which are weaved/crossed to create magic that is both irrational and rational at the same time.

Nonsense is often created by exaggerating the effect of some real or plausible phenomena.

This nonsense does not lack meaning but rather has an excess of meaning due to the exaggeration.

Darren Brown creates his Silly Psycho-babble that way.

The 18th and 19th centuries had science demonstrations as party stunts and theatrical presentations. Think back to Franklin demonstrating lightning follows wires and oil can calm waters. Magic performed as parody of “science as theater” has gravitas. Shifting the presentation to something more akin to dancing accompanied by special effects* loses that gravitas.

* yes, but “dancing with tricks” seemed a cheap shot.

I've seen any number of illusion acts where the performer and two or more girls are (sort of) dancing around just before there's a puff of smoke and the box rolls out. To me, that reads as in introduction to The Box, as in "The Box is the important part here," not the guy who's supposed to be a magician. Again, a demonstration of a gadget (which is often a one-trick pony), and not a magical miracle.

Years ago, right here in the Cafe, someone was stating his opinion about using a hoop with a levitation, and having a display stand for the hoop. His opinion (and I don't remember who it was), was that calling that much attention to the (polished metal) hoop, and placing it on a (polished metal) stand, shifted the attention from the girl floating in the air to the hoop itself. And then it turned out that the hoop cost several hundred dollars and came in an ATA case. So, of course, after spending all that money on the hoop and stand, its owner would want to call attention to it. That thread caused quite a bit of arguing back and forth.

"Magicians use deception and illusions to create effects that allow us to experience the impossible by creating a cognitive conflict between the things we witness and the things we believe possible. Magicians' conjuring techniques can extend the boundaries of what we are willing to believe, and throughout history, magicians have used these techniques to push the boundaries of what we believe possible. For example, ancient Egyptian priests used conjuring tricks to create the illusion of communicating with deities, Victorian spiritualists staged séances that fuelled beliefs in the spiritual underworld, and more recently, magicians have helped perpetuate beliefs in psychic powers. Today, magicians have embraced a new story-telling "packaging", also known as pseudo-explanations, by making reference to pseudo-psychological phenomena.

Derren Brown is one of the UK's most successful magicians. He has developed a form of magic that blends trickery and psychology. He proclaims that his performances work because he uses "Mind Control". For example, in one of his performance pieces, Derren Brown claims to use unconscious primes to control an individual's mind, which enables him to predict, with extremely high certainty, a "freely" chosen object by this individual. This explanation, however, is the story-telling "packaging". Derren Brown uses conventional conjuring techniques to demonstrate scientifically implausible psychological phenomena or exaggerates the effects of established ones. In the past, magicians claimed to read your mind by contacting spirits; today they use the same tricks, but claim to use unconscious primes or to read your body language, and micro-expressions."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6258475/


Such silly psychobabble is utter nonsense but evidently, it can even fool magicians into thinking they are listening to something profound.

"Derren says, “Giving explanations, which we do some of the time, is not about patronising people. It’s about playing to people’s intelligence.” It is actually about misleading people. Having spoken to several very bright people, it is clear that they are completely taken in by the false explanations. When the truth is revealed, they feel cheated."

https://simonsingh.net/media/articles/ma......-babble/

That's a very critical view of Derren's work, reducing it all to simply "silly psychobabble." He has had profound implications and contributions beyond mere entertainment time and time again, how much of his performance have you seen? Whether or not you like how he's gone about things, he's been successful in blurring the boundaries between reality and illusion for both laymen and magicians. With pychological techniques or traditional magic, he creates experiences that make people question the limits of the human mind and perception. This blurring of lines is the exploration into the human psyche that encourages audiences to examine their beliefs and understanding of the world. Demonstrating the power of suggestion and influence too highlights how easily human perception can be manipulated. It's not trivial; it's a commentary on the susceptibility of the human mind.

And while his performances are entertaining, they also have educational aspects. He has also been known for his public stunts and social experiments. Also frequently uses genuine hypnosis and suggestion in his acts, delving into the science of how these phenomena work and their effects on human behavior and perception. He often debunks psychic powers and supernatural claims, showing how these can be simulated through psychological and physical means. That demystification teaches the audience to be more skeptical and discerning about what they see and hear while at the same time giving them things to think about when he performs something convincing. Call it what you want but not many have been as innovative in the field of magic and entertainment. His shows offer complex narratives and theatrical elements, combining different genres and art forms. The innovation in storytelling and performance art is significant and it pushes the boundaries of traditional magic shows. They often have an emotional impact on both his participants and audiences exploring themes like fear, family, happiness, control, he delves into deeper aspects of the human experience, making his work resonate on a more profound level than mere trickery that you usually see.

His success and recognition in the field are testaments to his impact. He has not only entertained but also influenced a wide audience, including other magicians and entertainers. His approach has contributed to a broader understanding and appreciation of magic as a form of art and psychological exploration. He's pioneered so much and brought mentalism to a wider audience for all of us to benefit from. I didn't expect to have to sing praises for Derren bloody brown but to minimise all he's done to "silly psychobabble" is ridiculous.

It is not critical of Derren's work. It is critical of those who don’t know how magic works.

That's a thoughtful and comprehensive response Sunrize.

I'm currently enjoying Pop Haydn's Magic Castle lecture notes, in which he discusses the unique nature of a magic performance, demonstrating seemingly impossible feats to an audience who know that the performer is deceiving them. Such a performance is going to work on many levels including either implicitly or explicitly, an "education" about charlatans and false claims - what could be more topical?

"Does Derren agree with the criticisms?

Yes, at least to some extent. In an interview with Jamy Ian Swiss, Derren said about my article: "… my feelings on it now are actually that it was a good thing. I think his main frustration point was that the show was classified under the science part of the Channel 4 website. Which is a perfectly understandable objection."

I should add that Derren is a brilliant performer, entertainer and magician. It is merely his misleading explanations that concern me. Science and factual television are both precious commodities and I do not believe either should be tarnished or that viewers should be misled.

One recent positive note is that Derren's website has been removed from the C4 science section and put in the entertainment section. I still think that parts of the site are misleading, but at least it no longer has the banner of science to endorse it."

https://simonsingh.net/media/articles/ma......ticisms/

Does Derren agree with you?