Talk:Magic (illusion)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "Learning Magic" section is a bit of a mess, gramatically. Someone should fix it.
Shouldn't Harry Houdini be included somewhere in here?
Suggest adding mentalism (of the 'mind-reading' or psychological form) as one of the categories of magic. It is clearly not represented by any of the categories. If magicians were only performing the visual magic covered by the listed categories, Derren Brown is merely an entertaining psychologist. As much as he'd like to be thought of that way, he's a magician, and his brand should be included.
How about simply using the term illusion instead of the ambiguous term magic altether when talking about magic (illusion)? It is much easier to directly link to illusion in an acticle than magic (illusion). --Anon
- Illusion is also a flawed term. A mirage in a desert is an illusion, but it is not magic. --CYD
- Wouldn't work, magic is the most used term and that's what people will use to try and look it up. Vote to keep it as is. - MGM 10:00, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
Just added a stub to Illusion which will hopefully cover these various cases. Bryan Derksen
According to http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=illusionism
illusionism:
- The doctrine that the material world is an immaterial product of the senses.
- The use of illusionary techniques and devices in art or decoration.
Neither of this refers to magic. I have never, ever heard of magic being referred to as illusionism before; it's simply called magic, at the risk of being confused with the supernatural version. -- CYD
Both "illusion" and "magic" may have an intentional motive behind their production. There is no question here regarding "magic" but "illusion" does not necessarily carry such connotation; noting above what is said about mirage.
In dungeons and dragons illusion magic is a separate type of magic that conjures illusions. Obviously in D&D magic is "real" but still. --209.226.132.140 16:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi there, IMO Illusions are the humogous big magic tricks or the ones laymen just don't even have an explanation for even if their small. I've started the WikiMagic Project to sort the magic pages out and I appreciate your input. Unfortunately, I feel the disambiguation is neccesary... Expect changes... - MGM 10:00, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
Removed this:
- Magic is a mystery entertainment
On the grounds that it's just restating the first argument in less explicit wording. If this is a quote of some sort, attribute. JRM 12:48, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
[edit] Sleights and Gimmicks
Don't you think that the badmouthing of gimmicks is a little to much. Also, closeup magic is not "based mostly on sleights". This is dependent on the act.
[edit] Additions to the List of Magicians
I found the list of magicians to be somewhat lacking, mostly consisting of modern magicians. So.. I'd like to use this talk area to discuss other magicians that should be in this list. My first suggestion would be Dai Vernon. He's the man who fooled Houdini with an Ambitious Card Routine.
- great. but what happened to list of magicians? shouldnt it be listed on the page? Tiksustoo 23:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- It's in the info box at the bottom of the page. I expanded Template:Magicbox and thus made the See also section obsolete. Sorry for any confusion. -- Krash 01:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Monetary value of magic tricks
Re the secrecy section. I have been told (by a magician who worked an event I hosted) that the key reason for magicians not revealing their secrets willy-nilly is that they are valuable. One magician will sell another magician the secret behind a trick based on the "wow factor" of the trick. With this in mind, it comes obvious why the circle of secrecy is maintained - if you blabbermouth about a trick, no-one will sell you any more, because you are devaluing their product. The article currently doesn't say this and seems to imply the aims are more noble! Pcb21| Pete 12:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is simply not true, to keep NPOV, you can put this in, but if and ONLY if you can find a source for it. I have been doing magic professionaly for four years and have never heard of such a thing. Most of the tricks/secrets to come out in the past fifty years have just been repeats of tricks already created. As evidenced by books such as The Trick Brain, there are only a finite amount of ways to do tricks anyway. The reason that secrets aren't given away IS because of the wow factor, but not because of the money. If the secret is out, there is no more wow factor for this audience. This will make the effect essentially useless for the magician. (Anonymous poster)
- It makes sense, and may very well have been an early reason for such secrecies. One could also say secrecy was maintained because it allowed magicians to retain a certain power of their audiences or communities. Even nowadays, no matter how many times a mentalist will insist openly and emphatically that their magic is very simply a blend of art and science, some audiences member will, as if they had never even listened, believe and insist that the magician has some kind of supernatural ability. So I agree with the second commentator who says to include your reason only if you can find a good source for it. For I can tell you, from firsthand, up close experience, that a large number of people already know how things are done, and a good portion of the rest of them can often figure things out on the fly. What matters most is not the "WHAT" of the secret, but the "HOW" - we know what happens in most cases, but when it is done SPECTACULARLY, it is a real joy to see time and time again. Sam Freedom 23:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- "The Trick Brain" should not be used as evidence in any direction. It's an dangerous book that should be read with several shovels of grain of salt, or even better, be taken out to be burnt. The main theory in it is wrong. Follow the templates in the book, and you will get crap.
- There are many reasons why a magician will not talk about the inner-workings of his material. Of those, there are only two that can be judged as valid:
-
- It's not his to discuss. In shareware, you are free to use the software in any way you like, but not the source code. It's something similar in magic effects. You are allowed to perform the effect, but it is the creator's privilege to decide how (or if) the "source code" should be discussed. Most creators, in an effort to avoid getting their names separated from their creations, tie the "source code" and the performance rights to a manuscript. Meaning, the magician is free to tell anyone about the inner-workings, but then he would have to hand over the manuscript as well, thereby loosing the rights to perform said piece. Of course, this is based on a honour system. But if you aspire to become a known name in the field, you are a bit careful about the risk of pissing off a creator you admire.
- There's not enough time or interest. I mainly perform my own creations, meaning that I am free to explain the inner-workings to whoever I want. Which I'm happy to do, because I'm quite proud of several of the pieces, and are flattered when anyone takes an interest in my work. However, in most cases, people ask in the middle of a performance, and that's not a good time for me to stop. So I usually answer that they should ask me afterwards. If they do, I tell them that I'd be happy to discuss my creation, if they are really really sure they want to listen to it. Because I've noticed that most people believe that I can summon it up in a single sentence, which - of course - is an odd thought. But people usually don't know that there's quite a difference between amateur material and what they've just seen. If they still insists, I tell them. It usually takes one hour to explain one item. Many of the curious ones find out already after 15-20 minutes that they were not really interested in the inner workings after all, but by then, I don't let them off the hook. I take pride in my work, so I don't simplify it. And afterwards, they usually are even more impressed, but very tired (some of the concepts are rather hard to understand). My offer to explain the other pieces they were curious about is usually turned down :-)
-
- Most other reasons are nonsense. The ones who claim that the "secret" should be protected at all costs are nuts - because how would they themselves have gotten their knowledge if that were true? In many cases, the magician are lazy, and relies on simple (but effective) amateur tricks, and have no desire to reveal his lack of skill in the craft. The real stuff works no matter if it just has been explained or not (something I regulary prove in my university lectures). A third usual reason is that there can be a psychological need to hoard "secrets", a way of making oneself important by knowing something few others know. And finally, there's a bunch of amateur magicians who have been fostered by some kind of profit-based magic shop, who has the mistaken assumption that a magic "secret" must have a monetary value. That's nonsense. Most of the items, created by others, that I've added to my repertiore during the last 12 years have been gifts from the originators. And most of my own published material have been given away to people that I like and respect. I've not spent a dime on "secrets" for many years. Have hardly earned a dime on my own "secrets" either. :-) So, there are valid reasons for not discussing the inner-workings, but if the claimed reason isn't any of the two I mentioned, someone have misunderstood something. --TStone 23:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blaine And Brokaw
I saw David Blaine and Tom Brokaw talking for an hour during the Times Square New Year's Eve programming from NBC a few years ago. Isn't that the sort of thing that should be included to give an idea of the status of magic in today's society? To expand, cf Hong Kong or Korean Sunday paper magazine photos of floating ninjas presented in an emotional timbre that is more or less equivalent with Normal Rockwell. Is House of Games mentioned in the article? Or Pachinko? Putting your kid through an Ivy League school from winning at Pachinko or the horses is where magic becomes concrete.McDogm--64.12.116.72 14:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Images - lack of!
It really is exhilirating to see such an EDGY and contemporary take on magic. I cannot be alone if appreciating being introduced to magicians other than the usual in magic history.
The page however starts losing colour - literally! - halfway down. I have repositioned Houdini's picture so that it starts an alternate. 'left-right', pattern of images down the piece. I have also placed images in the Categories and Specialities section. I am using as 'List of magicians' and existing articles on Wikipedia as an editorial guide on WHAT images to include.
More colour please...
Viziermeister Viziermeister 12:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Types of magic performance
I brought this up at Talk:Street magic just moments ago:
- What is parlor magic and does it need its own article? I would contrast it with stage magic (redirects to magic (illusion)) and street magic (has its own article). But there aren't really clear-cut definitions that I can see and many classifications seem to overlap each other. This article makes no particular mention of parlor or street magic, even in this section.
- -- Krash 13:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I too am copying our discussion from Talk:Street magic
-
- Krash, the difficulty with definitions is that geography determines who or what counts as street magic. aladin may be known in some circles and probably does cross over into the category of non Western street magician, but it is not enough to have a sole representative of that side of it; we must seek greater balance. Ironically Jeff Sheridan and aladin are best placed to contribute! But certainly contributions and contributors from further afield are needed. As for parlor magic - this seems to be a genre including 'Close Up' surely? Or perhaps 'Parlor Magic' dignifies the other?! Lynrdandersen 01:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Parlour magic is what most of us do. Before TV it was far more usual with performances in people's homes, and the performer seldom knew beforehand if he would be surrounded, if it would be cramped and tight of space or not. You had no idea if it would be 5 spectators or 75... The format required the evolution of a formal act that could be performed successfully, no matter how the performing area looked like, and that could be performed without setting up beforehand, and without leaving anything behind afterwards. These day, the term is used for any venue with a medium sized audience (25-250 spectators), where you don't depend on knowing how the stage will look (or even knowing if there will be a stage or not). Another word for the same thing is "Platform magic".--TStone 23:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] vandalism anyone?
I just spotted this at the base of the page, above the Categories section - should we delete it and block the perpetrator? as usual it is somebody without an account. here is what it says:
-
- See illusion. A trick is something a whore does for money...or candy. 67.165.91.60
makes the page suck.thegirlinwhite 22:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted it. It's pretty clear cut vandalism, as it's just has nothing to do with magic. In general, this is the sort of thing I would just delete on sight. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Revert, which how to (and to an extent when to) revert an article back to a preview version, which is the usual response to vandalism. Silverfish 00:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Silverfish! I am a Wiki ingenue so was not sure about the protocols to do with reverting - leave alone HOW to do it! thegirlinwhite 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Links to Magazines
Do we really need the external links to all those magazine sites? Can someone with a more knowledge about magic let me know whether these really are worthwhile sites for someone interested in the topic? I am afraid it represents a mild case of promotion to these mags through link spamming. Cheers --PhilipO 21:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Also, the first two look suspiciously like spam to me as well. -- Krash 01:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- But why did you remove the links to the magic-related lists and the link to WikiProject::Magic? I don't know of any policy on Wikipedia that indicates they do belong in this article. --PhilipO 16:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- They're included in the (updated) magicbox now. As such, the internal links are redundant. Links to Abracadabra and Magic word, while cute, are not really relevant to this article. I've witnessed removal of Wikipedia namespace pages from articles. As such, I'm following suit. That's why we put this template on the appropriate talk pages? -- Krash 16:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- OK - I didn't notice the template at the bottom of the page. Looks good. Cheers. --PhilipO 00:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Types of Magic -- Street Magic?
I know Street Magic has its own article. But it seems to me that it at least deserves a mention under "Types of Magic," along with a link to its page. I'm perfectly willing to write the necessary paragraph, but I wanted to seek opinions here first, in case this has been discussed in the past. CrayDrygu 03:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Natural and supernatural
A lot of articles here which have "magic" in their titles seem to refer to magic illusions, i.e., Magic (illusion). Sorry if the redirect I did on card magic messed up the naming convention.
Please clue me in if I'm going astray. Elabro 16:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Intellectual_rights_to_magic_methods
Folks who watch this page might be interested in the current debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Intellectual_rights_to_magic_methods; in particular, is it of interest to illusionists? Should it be merged into this article? Should it be linked to, from this article? Or should it be deleted entirely? -Ikkyu2 03:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Elaboration needed
Regarding the following piece in the article:
some performers preferred to renovate the craft on stage - such as The Mentalizer Show in Times Square which dared to combine spirituality and the ancient wisdom of kabbalah with the art of magic
It is necessary to add something about what kind of event "The Mentalizer Show" was. I've went through a number of sources and can not find any references to it --TStone 22:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not sure where to put external links
I've just removed this external link that was recently added to Magic (paranormal):
and I'm not sure where to put it in the articles relating to Magic (illusion), or whether to add it here at all. I'll leave it to you guys to figure out. Thanks, Fuzzypeg 05:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Another possible link to add: I just removed List of magic organizations from the Magic disambiguation page. If a See also page is ever added here, that might be worth a link. SnowFire 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Uri Geller
The 'Misuse of magic' section takes the view that Uri Geller is an illusionist with no paranormal powers. There seems to be a degree of debate on the matter. Whatever one's personal view is, it shouldn't be the role of this article to decide upon that debate and it doesn't appear to be in keeping with a neutral point of view to omit mention of the fact that there is a debate. scotsboyuk
The 'degree of debate' is amongst the general public, not among magicians. Magicians are well aware of Uri Geller's methods for conducting telekinetic stunts. Reporting Geller as anything else would be akin to reporting that there is a debate among the general 'public' as to whether or not most peptic ulcers are produced by stress or Helicobacter pylori. What the public perceives and what the professionals know are often two different realities. Roadshow
As a magician, I will say that amongst magicians, there is no doubt whatsoever that Uri Geller is a fraud. I would say that the POV tag ought to be removed.--GordonLi 08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deception in Magic
Re: "In modern conjuring, it is not considered fully honest to give a performance which claims to be anything other than a clever and skillful deception. "
Can this be justified at all? It's untrue to the best of my knowledge, at least in most areas of magic. To a magician a performance is seen as trickery but many magicians (the more mentalism-oriented) prefer to give the impression of 'something more' going on to laypeople watching the performance. At least, that's what I thought. --Katrielalex 10:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
