The next lecturer at Genii's 75th Anniversary Birthday Bash was Charlie Frye.
As was the case with Mr. Long's presentation, there was a torrent of information broadcast with a similar nervous energy.
Master Genii, Richard Kaufman, introduced Mr. Frye by saying that he had seen him lecture in Asia and had been very impressed. I came away from the Orlando presentation wishing I had seen what Mr. Kaufman had seen. This is not a comment on Mr. Frye's skills as a performer--he put on a hell of a show at the closing night gala--but more about the structure of his lecture presentation.
Not being familiar with Mr. Frye's work prior to his lecture, I had no contect for the torrent of gags and stunts that he demonstrated. That he performs a high energy cabaret act that clearly seems to have been informed by a lot of street performance experience helped to frame his presentation retrospectively. Having just listened to Eugene Burger talk about scripting and the idea of tricks as pictures without a frame, Mr. Frye's presentation seemed a clear demonstration of this idea.
***
I largely kept my notebook holstered for the evening show. It was exciting to see a performance of Thurston's Rising Cards by Jonathan Levit ably assisted by the lovely and talented Mr. David Regal.
The effect was recreated for the Los Angeles Conference on Magic History which is a tough ticket to get so seeing Thurston's signature piece brought back to life was a rare and genuine treat.
***
After the evening show was the lecture I was most excited to see. Magician, writer and skeptic Jamy Ian Swiss was going to talk about mentalism.
This last sentence deserves a second look not because it is so artfully crafted, but because it conveys something of a conundrum. How does a skeptic, an advisor to the James Randi Educational Foundation perform mentalism without irony? As Mr. Swiss repeated near the beginning of his lecture, "Jamy Ian Swiss is not a mentalist, he's an asshole."
Listening to his presentation, it's hard to think of Mr. Swiss as anything other than a thoughtful and passionate advocate for his art. As Rick Maue noted in reviewing Mr. Swiss's book Shattering Illusions, "Mr. Swiss doesn't hate mentalism, he hates bad mentalism."
Mr. Swiss went to some lengths to differentiate between mental magic and mentalism. He referenced a conversation with Teller of Penn & Tell wherein Mr. Teller defined mental magic as being concerned with the revelation of proper nouns ("You're thinking of a_____.") Mentalism, by comparison, Mr. Swiss defined as the revelation of thinking.
As a mentalist, Mr. Swiss claims no special powers which, he noted, was unlike another performer attending the convention. Mr. Swiss accomplished his effects as a result of observation, experience and some specialized knowledge.
It is perhaps because I have been listening to a lot of old radio dramas, but as I listened to Mr. Swiss, I was reminded of one of the old Sherlock Holmes programs. Holmes would make pronouncements about visitors to 221B Baker St. that would, with different framing, rival those of Alexander or Kreskin. As Holmes explains, his pronouncements are the result of a string of observations and deductions.
Holmes was a rationalist and Swiss is a skeptic so is it too much to describe Mr. Swiss as the Sherlock Holmes of Mentalists?
I am not a big fan of mentalism per se, but I am fascinated by the psychology of it. Reading books on the subject, it has always seemed to me that there are so many different ways that an effect could fail and that uncertainty made it very unsettling as a form.
As I write this, it occurs to me that the critical factor in mentalism is the experience of the performer. We audience members imagine ourselves to be wildly individual and capable of an infinite number of choices in response to any situation. To the experienced performer, one closing in on Gladwell's 10,000 hours to mastery, the patterns of response become apparent and the selection of 37 as an uneven number between one and fifty less and less of a surprise.
It would also make sense that, after mastering magic's carefully structured classics that the more bi-directional quality of mentalism would have a strong attraction.
Somebody, and it may have been Mr. Swiss, likened mentalism to performing jazz and the comparison seems apt in that it requires a mastery of skill and technique and the ability to listen and adapt to the input from the spectator.
Mr. Swiss also spoke about the importance of "clarity of effect." The audience should be able to describe what happened in a simple sentence. Too many effects, both in mentalism and in traditional magic, have lots of process and that can undercut the magical moment. As Mr. Swiss said, "Just because the audience is confused doesn't mean they've had a magical experience."
Too often the processes of a magical effect exist to disguise the method and the effect on the audience is not so much magical as confusing. One thinks immediately of the 21-Card Trick and its endless counting and pointing. When you contrast that with magician shows hat empty and pulls rabbit from hat, you quickly understand the difference.
The last thing I wrote down was "You have to talk away the box."
To be frank, I no longer recall the context in which the remark was made, but as I reflect on my impressions of Mr. Swiss's presentation the comment makes sense to me as integral to the creation of a piece of theatre. Absent supernatural forces, every effect will have a method that creates boundaries and limitations on the performer. It is therefore incumbent upon them, through their scripting and presentation to deemphasize those limitations for the audience.
More easily said than done, but foundational to the creation of magical experiences.
Dare I say, "elementary?"
I was privileged to be in Orlando for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of Genii Magazine.
Genie-in-Chief, Richard Kaufman has clearly been paying close attention as he has travelled the world attending magic conventions and that education paid off in spades at the event.
Every detail appears to have been carefully considered.
The selection of the Florida Hotel and Conference Center proved to be inspired. Not only was there ample room for the lectures and performances (the dealer room might have been a little larger) but as it is connected to the Florida Mall, there were lots of dining options beyond the hotel fare. In my experience, the hotel staff was unfailingly courteous and helpful and seemed bent on creating a positive experience for their guests--even the magicians.
I can't really talk about the convention without discussing the generous "gift bag" that was provided to each of the registrants.
The "bag" turned out to be a deluxe portfolio with a 1-1/2" three-ring binder, notepad, calculator and pen included. The folio needed to be that large in order to include all of the swag provided by the magazine and its partners. It came stuffed with DVDs and cards and gaffs and manuscripts for all manner of tricks. I still haven't managed to get through the whole thing!
Another important choice made in the planning stages of the conference was to keep all the participants on a single track for the majority of the event. This meant that, by and large, the participants were having the same experiences at the same time and did not have to choose which presenters they got to see and which ones they had to forgo.
Magic lectures are a unique experience. For a culture renowned for its devotion to safeguarding secrets, lecturers routinely both perform and explain their techniques and thought processes. Want to know how a magician can routinely deal himself a winning poker hand? Come to a lecture and he will freely tell you. And, in case you miss any of the subtleties, there is a video camera standing by to provide a close-up view that even those at the back of the hall can follow.
Somebody asked me yesterday what was the best trick I learned at the event. This was a tough one for me, because I am not a performer, but I am fascinated by the performance of magic. As I have written about elsewhere, the technology used is not very sophisticated, but the thinking is and the understanding of human perception and psychology is something that the so-called "hard sciences" are only now beginning to understand.
Did I come away from the conference with new tricks? Not really. What I did take away was a clearer understanding of how to think about magic.
John Carney: The Invisible Coins from
HMNS on
Vimeo.
From John Carney, I learned about how the actor who is playing the part of a magician should prepare for his role. Carney referenced the Erdnase/Vernon credo of the naturalness of motion--the audience should not be able to tell the difference between an innocent move and a move concealing the "sneaky business." "Over-selling" that the hands are empty, for example, may have the effect of convincing the audience that the performer has something to hide.
Carney also made reference--the first of many--to Scottish magician John Ramsay's statement that if you want the audience to look at something, look at it yourself. He did this in the context of demonstrating a coin vanish routine. His position was that the performer should not call attention to the vanishing moment, but rather that the performer and the audience should "discover" the vanish together.
This is oversimplifying somewhat, but, in essence, Carney's advise was that, long after the sneaky business has happened and the coin has vanished, the performer should continue to present the "coin" to the audience in exactly the same way as he would if the coin were still there. "Show it as you would actually show it," was the note I took at this point in his presentation. If the performer believes that the coin is still there, the audience will too.
This goes to a larger and more theatrical point about the importance of the performer being fully present in the moment. This is a subtext through several of the other lectures at the conference and one that I will keep coming back to. The performance of magic is a shared experience and it is the job of the performer to do all of the necessary preparations so that he can do the sneaky business without thinking and concentrate on sharing something magical with the spectators. The performer should be experiencing the magical moment for the first time right along with the spectators.
Doing something "to" the audience is threatening. Sharing something "with" the audience is powerful. In the October issue of Magic Magazine, Joshua Jay writes about the "atfor dilemma" which is a variation of the same discussion. His position is that it is better for the performer to perform "for" the audience rather than "at" them.
There's lots more to say, but this should do for the moment.
One of the best writers working in magic is also a working magician. His name is Jamy Ian Swiss. Mr. Swiss periodically reviews books for Genii magazine and, in their most recent issue, he reviewed "Fooling Houdini" by Alex Stone.
To provide some context, let me first share a post about Mr. Stone's book, including a video promo, as it was presented on BoingBoing.net.
Now, let me share Mr. Swiss's review as posted on the Genii forum. The review is posted as part of a discussion regarding the book, so you may have to scroll up to find it. It was posted by Genii-in-Chief Richard Kaufman.
Finally, historian, magician, actor Ricky Jay wrote this review for the Wall Street Journal.
I started to write this blog in part because I was inspired by the work of Mr. Swiss and driven by the idea that I should write about something I know and which holds my interest. I post this sequence about Mr. Stone's book because I wonder whether I am not guilty of the same kind of intellectual tourism.
There is no question but that it is fun to imagine oneself on the side of the angels when it comes to picking on a so-called outsider who imagines himself worthy of entry into one of magic's most prestigeous competitions and then publishes a book disclosing tricks and techniques. It is, however, a form of looting, of saying "are too!" after the primary combatants have staked out their territory.
Truth to tell, I am not so sure where I stand when it comes to the disclosure of secrets. I have made a point of not doing so in this blog because that was never the point. I have also written elsewhere that being aware of techniques and methods makes watching the performances of true masters all the more impressive. It is much the same as how having a visceral sense of what it takes to make a piece of wood do what you want can make you really appreciate the artistry of fine cabinetry.
Does that mean that all secrets to all magic tricks should be disclosed?
Absolutely not.
I don't think that disclosing trade secrets to inflate book sales or television ratings is by any means justified. It would be like staging car accidents for the benefit of rubberneckers. Having said that, I think that there was some merit in the rationalization used by Val Valentino in his role as the Masked Magician. His position is that in disclosing techniques and methods he is hoping to push the art forward, to motivate magicians to create new effects and new methods.
Taken at face value, it would be tough to argue that any endeavor does not benefit from periodic self-examination and reinvention.
Magic will survive this dust-up just as it survived the publication of earlier "exposes" such as "Great Magician's Tricks" in 1931 and "The Discoverie of Witchcraft" in 1584.
But there may be a bigger point missed in this conversation.
As I have said before, in and of themselves, the technologies used by magicians to accomplish their effects are uninteresting. Whereas one might imagine complex technologies employed to accomplish a particular effect, it is more often the case that it is unremarkable--more on the order of a bit of thread and a piece of wax than computers and lasers. And this might explain why, once the secret is disclosed, the trick as a "trick" loses its appeal.
While we may all be familiar with thread and wax and mirrors, we lack the skill and experience to combine these items in a way to create a magical effect. Revealing the secret does not close the gap between magician and audience member, it makes it wider. As Valentino says in the video, the "secret" of any magic trick is only one small part of the "magic." In the same way, Mr. Jay writes in his review," that a performance is often the product of a collaboration between a variety of artists and technicians in addition to the performer, the "secret" is but one link in the supply chain that stretches from the conception to the performance of any effect.
Whether performed on a street corner or in a purpose-built venue, magic is a theatrical form where context, light, shadow, sound, choreography, form and textures combine to create the illusion.
In the same issue of Genii wherein the Swiss review of Mr. Stone's book was published, there is an interview with Spanish magician Miguel Angel Gea. Early on, he imagines a time when magic competitions such as the FISM contest that Mr. Stone entered will have only one category in which all performances will be judged: theatricality.
"Fooling Houdini" is a title designed to attract the casual book buyer, but it is also a reference to an encounter between the renowned escapologist Houdini and the Canadian magician Dai Vernon. Depending on the account, it is said that Houdini was boasting of his expertise with cards and how he began his career billing himself as "King of Cards." Vernon, who made a lifelong study of card techniques, proceded to show Houdini an Ambitious Card effect that complete fooled the king seven times.
While the trick used to fool Houdini was not new, Vernon's approach, the unique way in which his skills as a performer meshed with his skills as a technician, made the effect into magic. This is magic's biggest and only real secret. You cannot pick up a pack of cards and go directly to magic's "Mount Olympus" expecting to be crowned King of Cards. To expect otherwise is to truly engage in magical thinking.
