This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while and I’m in the process of writing an essay on the subject, but has magic lost a bit of ‘magic’ in the modern age? And by the modern age I mean the 2020s, when everything is available at the drop of a hat, everything is streamed online, there are multiple outlets for video and content, two people on different sides of the globe can immediately jump on a video call and showcase something. Not to mention technology has brought us to a point where pretty much anything is achievable.

Now this is not exclusive to magic per se, think of the Bermuda Triangle, the Loch Ness Monster, etc, these things are relics of a time when people wanted to believe something and things couldn’t be disproved simply by Googling them. But to stick to magic I’m talking about the likes of the Indian Rope Trick – a beautiful legend and amazing story that must have started so many people on a ‘quest for knowledge’ type magical path. The fact that a journalist could simply invent something and put it in a newspaper was enough for it to become a truth.

Fast forward to the 1950’s and you have the likes of Stewart James’ Open Prediction, apparently shown to only a couple of people, that infiltrates magical folklore. At this point we are not really interested if it’s true or not, but that as a concept is simply exists. Moving on, David Berglas’ eponymous effect is another example, the legend of it has become bigger than the trick itself. Even in the early days of this forum the like of Armando Lucero and Thomas Baxter were able to create a mythology with their Card Prediction and A Dianoetic Rage respectively, without any real evidence of their existence.

So how does this happen in 2024? No one is going to believe anything they haven’t seen for themselves these days. And there’s no excuse not to see it. Everyone has a camera in their pocket, anything can be streamed online, anyone can jump on a video call to showcase something, the social media age just doesn’t allow for such legends to be born. One of two things will happen to them, the method or the hoax will become immediately exposed online.

I’m not sure there’s a solution to this, maybe I just pine for a simpler time when there was still a bit of magic in the world, and the ability to experience disbelief. I put a similar comment on a thread about Copperfield ‘vanishing the moon’. This is the kind of thing I’d have been obsessed with as a kid in the 80s/90s, but now I just can’t help but think the guy is setting himself up for ridicule. Sadly, like everything else, it doesn’t go back in it’s box, we’re in a modern world now and “real” magic needs to find a new way of penetrating it.

Do you mean the art of performance magic or make believe phenomena that have been debunked?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make comparing the Loch Ness Monster to performance magic.

Has magic changed in the modern age? I Hope so. Do performers need to change with it? Absolutely!

But to your point you might think almost nobody still believes in the flat earth or the mom landing hoax or whatever. But guess what? They have entire conventions devoted to these things.

Maybe your perspective is what has changed?

I am a bit confused also. Consider that magic is "inexplicable phenomena."
Alchemy, modern science and rational thought has changed much of what was once attributed to magic to scientific fact, laws, theory and practical rules.
These came activities have brought forth new "inexplicable marvels." So, if anything, "magic" has increased in recent decades.

My experience is that people today we more willing to talk about inexplicable events in their lives - or make them up for ego satisfaction. Let is say, "real for them."

But then we have the pretend stuff. Performance magic pretends at it for entertainment or education. Marketers and Hollywood pretend at it for profit.
Religion and politicians pretend at it for control or manipulation. There is more pretend stuff today because there are more people to influence.

You bring in another factor - social media drivel. The opinion of any ethernet stranger (or a million of them) is neither science nor magic. It is superstition.

If a person claims something to be magic and it is demonstrated to be repeatable, teachable or "common to many," then it is science was always was.
People claiming something is not magic because they don't understand it or like it is only a different form of superstition.
If it was a hoax or fake news or a published fantasy, then it was never magic or science at all.

So, the number of commenters or channels of communication has nothing to do with whether something is magic or not.

Now, there has been a change in what is considered "impossible for science," "not possible for most humans", and "non-possible for an individual."
Some folks find it impossible to get to work on time. Getting a louder alarm-clock may produce a result consider as magic by your employer.
Your friends may consider it magical that you keep a job for a month.

Do any of these have an "experience of disbelief" related to anything inexplicable? No! All they have done is mess with the definition of magic -
and perhaps diluted their personal ability to recognize actual magic if is comes along. Is that what you mean?

Has the capacity to appreciated awe & wonder all around been diluted by cultural changes, electronic technology addiction and a reliance on believed things over knowledge? Yup!

But, that is just superstition too, and has nothing to do with the magic. Fact is (opinion) that most folks just want someone or something to blame, along with a desire to take credit for things never done at all."

"real magic" does not need any new way to "penetrate." Magic does not "do anything." People calling something magic does not make it so. Their denying it does not extinguish it either.

So, people can pretend that something is magic for them, and performers and marketers can pretend to provide a magical solution. They are better at illusions than I am.

Danny is correct that if you wish to succeed as a performing magician you will have to tune into what your planned audience might consider to be magic or impossible or weird.
That has nothing to do with real magic or its increase or decrease in the world. But, it is just a word, right?

I'm going to jump in on this one.

Yes, magic -- a lot of the "magic" we see nowadays -- needs to change because so much of it comes across as totally irrelevant. Many "doers of tricks" come across like they want to impose their store-bought one-trick-pony "miracles" on others and have them go, "WOW, how'd you do that?" I went through that phase when I was a kid starting out (back in the late 60s) and could never understand the lack of interest.

Yes, people can look up anything (tricks, in this case) online nowadays, but there are still many live entertainers who sell out ginormous venues even though their material is available on the radio, on CDs, and recently on vinyl. Take Taylor Swift for instance. Her songs are all over the place but she still sells out. The late Tina Turner too, and many others. Why? Why do people lay out money for expensive tickets to see these performers when they can get the same material on the radio or on subscription services? And in many many cases, when they already know the words to the songs by heart?

Two answers: one, these performers are real entertainers; two, their material is relevant to today's audiences. They don't sing about cards coming to the top of the deck, or about flowers appearing in an empty vase, or any of what we like to call "magic." They play to what their modern audiences want -- want --and they certainly don't come up to someone who is just sitting there minding their own business and insist on singing to them.

The comic-strip character Pogo said it back in 1970 or thereabouts: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Perform for inebriated folks.

Distrust of patter is the first requisite of conjuring.

Real Magic?? --- here is a thought from a decade ago

https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......512411#0

Illusionists paint no pictures of reality.

Fortunately, observers can perceive a new reality because of illusionists. That is why it is an art form.

Nice post

I think my point was more around people in general seemed more willing to be fooled, or at least more willing to accept the impossible, the further back you go through the years. I get that in the context of a magic show the majority of an audience are happy to suspend belief for entertainment purposes even today, which is great, but the wider world is now far more cynical as a whole.

I would suggest that this cynicism does not come from scientific or technology advances,
but for the "illusion of knowledge" prevalent today, coupled with reliance on vicarious experience over authentic ones.

Folks have no internal 'reality' with which to compare illusions, plus they live a life of fraudulent behavior themselves. (identify, persona, certification, role-playing, etc)
They are skeptical about themselves - and that extends to communication with others.

Yet, that also means that a good magic performance can challenge what a person believes to be impossible - or "not possible" for themselves.
Beyond "being entertained" in the modern sense, they can entertain new ideas, goals, habits and self-actualization.

No, a performer cannot set out` to change another person's view of life or self, but should recognize that every "ah-ha" experience can have an affect.

One factor is that you, a magician, are willing to stand up before a group of strangers and put yourself at risk. Most people will not -
call it "stage fright," "fear of appearing foolish, "a desire to be invisible," whatever. So, you have already shattered their basis for cynicism. Make the most of it.

Point is - what you offer is an opportunity rather than a limitation.

There is nothing new about the charlatan using magic as a coat hanger to hang his very own fantasies on. Charlatans who become cult leaders often punish non-believers and dress up the exploitation as some sort of gift or therapy. It is perhaps the charlatan's need to be believed that drives him to babble disguised nonsense with an air of plausibility about it to take in a sensible man. The legitimate magician, in contrast, babbles patent obvious nonsense, to make sure that his propositions are taken and appreciated for what they are: art/fiction for entertainment purposes only.

For me, the test of whether a trick comes across as magic or not is whether the audience goes, "that's impossible," or "wow, how'd you do that?" I found out, from experiences many many years ago, that magic is not about "fooling" people. But too often nowadays, that's how it comes across.

Pranking or playing the audience (or worse, a volunteer from the audience) for a fool is not usually the best approach to performing magic. On the other hand if the trickery is not deceptive - it's not magic. That's what distinguishes our craft from the other performing arts.

But on the gripping hand if the audience believes you are using real magic...

* remember that at the end of Romeo and Juliet, and Hamlet, the cast gets up and does a jig. It would be different if each performance listed different cast members.

John A Keel in the book "Jadoo" details the methods used for the Indian Rope Trick. It exactly mirrors the detailed description of the effect in Ibn Battuta's 14th century traveloque. The plot of this famous trick was not created by a modern newspaperman.

Charlatans, military strategists, politicians, con men, marketeers, thieves, card cheats and spies all make use of the same technology of deception that the magician uses. Their purposes for these methods are different.

The stakes are also quite different. They range from the disapprobation of an audience to torture and death.

Magic is simply entertainment by preposterous sohphistry and manufactured proofs. As Maskelyne said 120 years ago, "There are no secrets."

Yes, Whit, that is true for Performance Magic from the point of view of the magician. But the question here is what a lay person thinks about magic - or the expectations of an audience today.

A person buying a ticket to see your show will have different expectations than a diner assaulted by a "Wanna see a card trick" table hopper.
All of their personal definitions of magic will be different from folks in 1900 and even a decade ago.

Their confusion of "magic" as used by your alternative list above (plus Hollywood) will certainly impact/bias their expectation of the next performer with a chop cup in hand.
Add to this the fact that many folks are addicted to entertainment and will care little what a magician does as long as it provides an endorphin rush.

Does this mean that magic is dead (by any definition)? No! I feel that a performer today must be prepared to adapt "on the fly" to what is learned about the "audience of the moment" -
at least until they are famous and can sell tickets.

I also feel that every performance is an opportunity to change (upgrade) the audience appreciation magic as art above a "gotcha" level.


So, for the few times I will agree to perform in the future, I will offer a mix of Effects that can entertain, mystify, teach, define, astound, beguile or confabulate.
I will modify that performance based on audience engagement. participation, attention and appreciation (not applause). If at least one person goes home saying, "must be magic," it will be enough.

If you look at any of my published eBooks you know I am offering magic Effects at a level of astonishment above what most magicians desire to learn or perform.
Maybe some will add at least one Routine to their satchel for the rare time they have an appreciate and attentive audience.

Of course, I am no trying to make a living off of fooling or entertain people. If I were, I would have balloon-tying as a back up.

I don’t know.

We sell very expensive tickets and in fairly certain that with few exceptions not a huge portion of the buying public as a rule believe in magic.

Indeed there are no secrets. Just things not everyone may know at the time.

Do you really think it is practical to change your show on the fly based on what you think audience perception is? How do you ever expect to polish a show? It really isn’t practical to do that as in general.