Whats the purpose of Magic?

6th

So what is the purpose of magic? Surely at its core it has to be entertainment?

I'm only asking because after reading in the Chris Angel thread that some people dont see the use of camera trickery as magic/illusion? Obviously if the "audience" (those who they wish to entertain/deceive) are watching via their TV then does it make a difference?

Is whats important the ability to entertain by deception whats important and not how its done?

6th

6th wrote: »

So what is the purpose of magic? Surely at its core it has to be entertainment?

I'm only asking because after reading in the Chris Angel thread that some people dont see the use of camera trickery as magic/illusion? Obviously if the "audience" (those who they wish to entertain/deceive) are watching via their TV then does it make a difference?

Is whats important the ability to entertain by deception whats important and not how its done?

I guess it like when popstars mime their songs on stage. Sure the crowd is entertained but it seems lazy on the performers part.
Personally I love people using great skills to accomplish effects, It's a little disappointing when some people have to rely on average camera trick to do them. Imagine how much more spectacular Criss Angel's building to building levitation would be if he could do it to a live audience.

???

Using special effects to acomplish feats is grand, as long as it's billed as such. For example, Hollywood movies.

However, when the layman thinks of magic, they think of a highly skilled form of entertainment. Magic is based on honest dishonesty but using camera tricks and pretending it is the magicians skill is dishonest dishonesty.

6th

??? wrote: »

Using special effects to acomplish feats is grand, as long as it's billed as such. For example, Hollywood movies.

So if its for TV, Movies, DVDs etc then its ok?

thehomeofDob

??? wrote: »

Using special effects to acomplish feats is grand, as long as it's billed as such. For example, Hollywood movies.

However, when the layman thinks of magic, they think of a highly skilled form of entertainment. Magic is based on honest dishonesty but using camera tricks and pretending it is the magicians skill is dishonest dishonesty.

+1

I think camera tricks and dupe audiences ruin the effect. A lot of gimmicks still require some sort of work and effort to pull off. Not to many completely work themselves without any input. So even those that rely heavily on gimmicks still do more than those who turn a camera on and off to hide things. I'm not a snob when it comes to gimmicks and sleight of hand, I used to use both, but camera tricks belong in the movies.

6th

thehomeofDob wrote: »

+1

I think camera tricks and dupe audiences ruin the effect. A lot of gimmicks still require some sort of work and effort to pull off. Not to many completely work themselves without any input. So even those that rely heavily on gimmicks still do more than those who turn a camera on and off to hide things. I'm not a snob when it comes to gimmicks and sleight of hand, I used to use both, but camera tricks belong in the movies.

And TV I presume so I wonder why people have an issue with Chris Angel using camera tricks for a TV show or online videos?

6th

6th wrote: »

And TV I presume so I wonder why people have an issue with Chris Angel using camera tricks for a TV show or online videos?

I think because it's a cop out. Rather than using magicians skills he's just paying a guy to edit footage.
It's like doing a card trick but using video editing to achieve the effect.

thehomeofDob

When I say movies I mean general movies/DVD's/TV shows that are fictional and where the viewer is aware that when someone flies it's done using CGI, green screens, camera tricks etc.

The problem I would have is that a magic performance online, or on TV, or DVD is still saying that what the magician is doing is based on his skill, whether skill in sleight, or in use of gimmicks. When they turn the camera off and switch things around it becomes dishonest dishonesty. It would be like asking everyone to close their eyes for a minute during a live performance. It's laziness tbh.

6th

King Mob wrote: »

I think because it's a cop out. Rather than using magicians skills he's just paying a guy to edit footage.
It's like doing a card trick but using video editing to achieve the effect.

But surely the idea of the illusion and the planning must get them some credit? Of course I dont mean if someone gets filmed walking across a blue screen and they say "hey, video guy ... make it look like I'm walking on water!".

thehomeofDob

The only two Chris Angel tricks I remember right now is his building to building levetation with a duped audience and a crane. Now Copperfield used the same technique for his levetation, but did it infront of a live audience.

Then the pulling a lady in half, grab a "random" lady, switch her with a midget and a disabled lady and pull them in half. No real thought or planning from what I can see.

???

My problem with Criss Angel is that he presents himself as a magician. Do you think anyone would watch his tricks if they knew they were special effects? They are piss poor by hollywood standards! The only reason he get's viewers is they thing he does what he does using skill. The meanest of amateurs could pull off those tricks if they had the budget he does. I think he abuses the financial power of his TV show to pull off efects that many lesser known magicians acomplish with skill and thought.

Should he get credit for imagining the effect? Of course, but only as much as is due. His levitation struck me as utterly pityful compared to Copperfields act.

Magicians have to lie and cheat to do their thing and the audience expects them to lie and cheat, in a certain way. People do not expect magicians to use video editing and by doing so the magician is dishonest about their dishonesty.

I also feel that by using camera trickery that Criss Angel poisons the well for magicians who don't use it. Take Paul Daniels domino effect thingy that was posted a while back. He could have done that much more easily by turning off the cameras for a couple of seconds. I think that any magician who starts doing TV specials will have the special effects card thrown in their face continually and because some blatantly do, they will be unable to convincingly defend their reputation without compromising their efects.

thehomeofDob

thehomeofDob wrote: »

Then the pulling a lady in half, grab a "random" lady, switch her with a midget and a disabled lady and pull them in half. No real thought or planning from what I can see.

I love that trick. But I'm pretty sure there's no camera trickery in that one.

r3nu4l

King Mob wrote: »

I guess it like when popstars mime their songs on stage. Sure the crowd is entertained but it seems lazy on the performers part.
Personally I love people using great skills to accomplish effects, It's a little disappointing when some people have to rely on average camera trick to do them. Imagine how much more spectacular Criss Angel's building to building levitation would be if he could do it to a live audience.

+1 I'd tend to follow this line too.

Is Criss Angel purely an illusionist or does he also practice magic? If he was a decent magician in front of a live audience then I wouldn't have such a problem with his show provided he stated openly that the TV show used effects that couldn't be replicated in a live setting. I do like the fact that instead of using a blue/green screen he goes about it a different way but at the end of the day if it can't be performed live, then in my view it's not really magic or illusion.

For me the key factor is the trick being performed live.

Criss Angel does have a live show as well.
So he's not just using camera tricks all the time.

thehomeofDob

Is his live performance any good? I've never seen it.

Neither have I.
I don't think they film them.

Nevyn

thehomeofDob wrote: »

Is his live performance any good? I've never seen it.

good enough that he won the Academy of Magical Arts' Magician of the Year award in 2005 and the IMS Magician of the year in 2001 and 2004.

Hurrah for wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criss_Angel

He's actually alot older than I thought.