Probably the same way you connect your anecdotal evidence about your performance. Skewed perception and very incorrect. Way to keep proving the point.

More entertainment, just for your Danny.


a magician came to our school
so many years ago,
and did wondrous skits with balls and rings
that our teacher said were tricks;
and that we must be wary of strangers
who promise impossible things.

But I recall some magic yet,
for he called me to the stage
and transformed me for a moment
into someone bold and brave –
for his eyes were kind and flecked with gold,
and treated me with respect,
though I was only nine.

To address the OP's original question, that is entirely based on what the
person is trying to do.

For example, Mr. Copperfield is going to vanish the moon. Most likely, as soon
as he does it, he will be made fun of massively online, from the illusion itself,
(which will most likely be exposed immediately, if incorrectly) to the way he
moves and looks.

If his goal was to build some sort of impenetrable legend about himself, he is
going to have a high hill to climb. Regardless of how good (or bad) it is,
he is unlikely to pass the reputation he got for the statue vanish.

But he will still get massive media attention, probably interviews, increased ticket
sells to his show, etc.

The lack of a legend forming isn't going to hurt him, and for the lesser professional
the audience not seeing "real" magic is unlikely to hurt either. (the perception
of magicians not withstanding)

But if the goal is this mythical moment, be it for a drunk lady in a bar you thought to hand
your cards to, or that random group of teenagers you thought wanted to see your coins across
for some reason, you will probably have trouble selling it.

Yes, let's start with some common ground here.. there is a difference in what we do. But I've already agreed what we do isn't the same or equivalent to each other, how many times do I have to say it before you notice? You can read my earlier posts, it's what I've been saying all along. I don't know all the intricacies of professional work and won't pretend to but I'd expect some kind of honesty from you too. You professionals don't know all about the environment I perform in, yet you're arguing that we need to listen to you and that what we're doing is inferior. You say it's my perception but read some of these comments yourself and tell me they don't sound even a bit condescending, perhaps I'm wrong. I don't know if you'd be in favour of others saying these kinds of things about your way of performance yourself.

"anytime you have amateurs, hobbyists and beginners trying to go toe to toe with a working professional, let alone someone with Danny's heritage and legacy, it is not even a real discussion". Not even a real discussion, that's not putting anyone down eh.. we're not even worth entertaining or having a say apparently, and that's not condescending? Not even about OUR experience in OUR performing environment that WE work in, not you. If I was arguing with you about stage work or walk around or any form of professional magic then I'd agree.. but we can't even contribute to a discussion with the things we actually know and practice? Okay.

"You really do not kwow or understand what magic is until you are performing regularly and consistently (full shows not a series of tricks) for paying audiences with expectations backed by their time and hard-earned money.". We don't even know or understand what magic is, you have to be a professional to. We can perform just as regularly or even more and be just as passionate and studious for those performances yet we'll still be clueless as to what magic even is. Terrific.

"I’m not sure when a casual environment became something to aspire to but yay for progress.". As if to say your way of performance is superior and what you do defines progress. As I've said, it's fine to acknowledge you don't understand the space we operate in but to disregard it like this is just disingenuous. You have different goals and definitions of progress and that's okay, we should strive for the greatness we believe in but to say one size fits all is strange and, again, not very inclusive.

"The circumstances you encounter happen because you have to somehow con people into watching you in the first place. Nobody has made a conscious effort to see your interpretation of magic.". Sure, we're not performing for ticket buyers but that doesn't mean that the only possible alternatives are to force people to watch your magic at gunpoint or scam them into seeing something they don't want to. This, again, is revealing of your lack of understanding of what we're doing. Or at least what I'm doing, though I am arguing in defence of casual performance as a whole. If you want to have a fair discussion, don't pretend like I'm just hallucinating and it's my perception because of which I'm offended. There must have been some things said that I found to be distasteful.

OK. I am not going to go through that because I thought I read you to say you wanted to start over from common ground. Going back and hashing over ask this is the opposite of doing that.

My goal in asking was to not fixate on the negative and argue, but rather start from a common place that can be grown from. Nothing but negative argument will come from doing what has been happening, and you seem to be continuing.

So, can we start from common ground?

I get you find things distasteful and so do I. The entire point of starting over is to realize that the problem was one of misperception on each side so starting over makes sense. Can we do that? I think it is far more productive. Otherwise it is just silly.

You need to also understand that we have had experience with people who do magic in the fashion you are. Not a single one of those experiences has been positive in the least. Is this experience not valid because it is different from yours? In saying start over.

Again my idea is to start over. Why are you reluctant to do so?

Because I'm responding to what you said "Common ground. Complete agreement on the issue and no misconceptions" which I am all for, let's try and get along and have productive discussion. But how can that start from a place of dishonesty or misconception? In that same post you said 'Nobody is putting anyone down, that is your perception" so my claim is that I'm not dreaming this up and getting offended from nothing, some things were said. It wasn't just my perception which is what you're saying. So rather than skip over the issue, I even quoted examples for you to examine and understand what I'm talking about. I've no qualms with starting over except for doing so without addressing what I feel os important. Every time you've posted I've responded and even agreed with points that were fair, I'd just like you to offer me the same courtesy. I'm not interested in what people who perform in my space have been like, I care for the conversation that is going on right now. When you make valid points I agree and move forward with all due respect, but what you're doing when I make my point is dismissing it or not accepting your own faults. I'm willing to do so myself, why are you reluctant to do so?

Oh my God why do you want to argue?

I have said there are misperceptions and that starting OVER with all those gone is the thing to do. To quote them is POINTLESS as I’ve admitted to them, and want to move PAST them and start fresh with all those gone and look with new eyes.

Since YOU INSIST on going over and over them the only conclusion can possibly get to is that you want to argue. I don’t. I want to start from the beginning with no preconceived notions.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

It actually diminishes your point unfortunately.

Okay, I'll drop it. Though as I said, I didn't bring them up to argue endlessly it was to refute your misconception and give you examples of why I'm being argumentative in the first place. I've made my thoughts clear to you, all is well.

I want to clear the slate.

I want to hear your thoughts about what you do with no preconceived notions on my part.

That seems to be what was being asked for. I think it makes sense.

Why did I not get that respect? You, being professional, should be able to do that ALL of the time.

We’re having a discussion. Please stop trying to jump in.

Maybe it is because you sound like a two-bit amateur shaman who has lost a bit of his charm.

Anyway, to cheer you up a bit, here is a little film that might fit the bill:

City of Wind

https://cineuropa.org/en/video/rdid/447963/

Trying to stay on theme of what a lay person considers to be magic, I will try a single example from one of my Routines.

There are two metal rings in the hands of spectators. You retrieve them, link them together and immediately hand them back out to another spectator. An Effect that can produce astonishment.
Whether or not any reader here can do this or desires to is not the issue. Some questions as to impact, entertainment and perception of this as magic by a lay person:

1) how important is the handing of the rings by a spectator prior to the impossible linking to the astonishment? How about Whit's "must be magic" desired conclusion?
2) how important is the handling of the rings immediately after the linking to the same criteria?
3) Does providing both enhance the perception or appreciation of magic? Or does this risk overwhelming folks with little experience with live magic performance?
4) How does having everyone handle the rings compare with one person serving as a Witness for others?

Simple questions that can be answered with no reference to any previous post.

I'm going to weigh in on this one, although I am making some assumptions as to the venue, the spectators, and the situation.

1) I would think the spectator handling the rings would add to the "that's impossible" response.

2) Same as above.

3) Here's where I get hung up on relevance. If the spectators anticipate that they're in for a magic trick and are expecting one, then I think they would appreciate seeing something impossible. But otherwise, based on my own experience, I think they would just go, "Okay, cool, but so what? It's just a magic trick." As far as appreciation of magic in general? That depends on the spectators themselves. Back in college, I quickly learned that you can -- literally -- lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. That big black horse, Flintridge, would have kicked me into the next town.

4) I think "everyone" handling the rings adds to the mystery, although I've seen too many performers pass stuff around for examination with an attitude of "I dare you to find something tricky there."

My feeling overall is that if it works for you and for the audience in that particular performance, then sure, go for it. But, again, I've seen too many performances where the guy comes across like he's performing for himself and not for the audience.

Thanks George, I value your experience. I personally prefer a storyline that provides a reason for them to have the rings instead of me,
but many seem not to like story-based presentations. As mentioned earlier in this thread, your first Effects can provide information about the audience's
experience and appreciation of magic before offering a complicated or intense routine.

As a kid I was mentored "know your audience." That seems almost impossible today in casual situations.
If nothing else, observing reactions for early Effects can help make good choices of Volunteers for later ones.

Drop me a line and I'll send a complete routine with this sequence when the photos are done.

In the early 1800's the masses were un educated. Most people did not know what a giraffe or elephant were. Bewilderment and magic were as mystifying as learning about the depths of the ocean or space. Circus performances and side shows educated and misdirected around the world.

The masses wanted to be mystified and bewildered.

Today with the immediate answers of the internet and the "must have now" attitude of society, most don't want to invest their time in misdirection and believe in something more powerful. Big name entertainers are set up in large venues, and charge astronomical amounts to be able to see the performance. If you are walking around a venue as a magician or on stage at a fair, the audience is always trying to figure out how its done.... not enjoying the presentation and flourishment's of the artist.

I spent decades at birthday parties, and grand openings, fairs and festivals. I later chose to explore clowning and ballooning, and found the attraction more appealing and lucrative.

I have also been collecting for over 40 years, and am launching a flea circus and flea and insect museum. A side show most popular from the mid 1800's through early 1900's. Combining history, modern technology, and yes some mystifying acts, We are launching The Great Canadian Red Box Flea Circus and Flea Insect Museum. At the end of the show and touring the museum, the audience has an opportunity to get up close and personal with one of the actors.

Yes we will have live fleas. Yes we will be misdirecting when necessary. Yes It is an opportunity for me to use magic, and entertaining to launch a historic side show, that I will present as a main act with it's own side show.

The audience will have all expectations met, and be presented with new facts, and mystifying acts, and death defying leaps of faith.

My point.... yes magic will be used in many presentations. Yes actual fleas will be preforming feats. Yes the audience will believe in the show. In essence... they will believe in the magic for what it is presented as. And so they will believe in the magic.... indirectly, but yes.

That is interesting. I would love to see it whether it is our magic or not.

Considering JerryMN's original post:

I've been thinking about modern times and the way we live these days. With all the terrific modern technology, are we missing out on the simplicity of life? I remember well when we had no television; my grandparents had no electricity, no telephone and no indoor plumbing. As a kid, I rode to town with them in a wagon drawn by two mules. Those were good times, too. Everyone seemed happy with what they had. Life was not easy, but hard work was the order of the day. No one seemed to complain. The simple things in life, sitting by a warm fire, reading a classic book, spending time with family members and friends after a hard day's work were valued times.

I saw Willard the Wizard, Virgil and Julie and other touring shows when I was a young fellow. It was pure magic. I couldn't go home and find the secrets on YouTube. Those images have remained vivid in my memory for 75 years or more. If I had had easy access to the secrets, would those vivid images remain? That's a good question.

Secrets were not easy to come by for me when I was a young fellow. When I discovered Fun with Magic by Joseph Leeming in the public library, I was in hog heaven. A little later, I was lucky to have a fine mentor who introduced me to Royal Road, Bobo, Hoffman and other early classics. I was on my way to a life-time passion for the craft.

The internet information explosion has had positive effects on the craft of magic. A click of the mouse opens instant access to many of magic's most inner secrets. For those who respect the craft, its traditions and axioms, this access becomes a wonderful thing. Excellent performers, historians and collectors abound. But opportunists who have no respect for magic's traditions and secrets make a mockery of the art. They cheapen the art in the public's eye. It's a sad thing, but it is indicative of the world in which we live.

Magic as an entertainment vehicle survives the internet exposure and the unscrupulous antics of opportunists. Performers, who respect the traditions of the craft, study and prepare and go out and entertain the crowds. They bring awe and wonder with the Chinese Rings and the Cups and Balls just as entertainers have down through the corridors of time. I suspect a hundred years from now, our posterity will find the craft alive and well.

Best regards,
Gerald

When it comes right down to it isn’t pretty much everyone (With a few notable exceptions.) living in modern times, ALL THE TIME?

That is, of course, true. But we do live in a time continuum. We do have a past, present and future. Ignoring the lessons of history is part of the problems we face in the here and now.
Regards,
Gerald.