Posted by Ian on 2009-11-07
in Analysis
I’ve just read a thesis that argues in the post-internet era the view of the average spectator has changed in relation to magic. He doesn’t exactly spell out how the change has come about or even what the change is particularly. But I think his argument is that spectators are now much more sophisticated about sleight of hand and therefore we have to rely more on what he terms ‘sleight of mind’ in order to fool people.
It’s of course a common consent that through the internet you can discover anything about everything. And the fact that you can look at videos on YouTube and see numerous tricks both explained and performed so badly that an explanation is probably unnecessary, would seem to support this. However I think this is far from the truth.
Firstly the number of people who actually bother to look at magic tricks on the Internet is almost certainly extremely small. Probably about the same number who used to flick through magic books in mainstream bookstores in pre-internet days.
And, it could be argued, that reading, for instance, Professor Hoffmann’s Modern Magic in 1876 – which essentially had most of the tricks performed at that time all neatly condensed into one volume – was a far better research tool than googling individual tricks on the Internet.
Secondly, and this has always been so with any sort of magic exposure, the chances that the exact same trick that the spectator has been fooled with in ‘real life’ can then be found on the internet presupposes not only an extremely enthusiastic researcher but also the ability to recall the trick in its exact detail.
Suffice to say that many tricks actually have more than one means of achieving the effect; and the chances of coming across the exact method becomes increasingly problematical.
Finally the truth is that there isn’t actually that much exposure of magic. There’s an awful lot of exposure of the same tricks with the same pieces of equipment (coins and cards abound).
But, compared to the literally thousands and thousands of tricks written up in books and magazines, the Internet is only scraping the surface of exposure.
PS Don’t anyone take this essay to mean that I’m in favour of exposure because “it doesn’t harm magic.” I’m passionately against exposure of any sort and might indeed explain why in a later blog.
It’s of course a common consent that through the internet you can discover anything about everything. And the fact that you can look at videos on YouTube and see numerous tricks both explained and performed so badly that an explanation is probably unnecessary, would seem to support this. However I think this is far from the truth.
Firstly the number of people who actually bother to look at magic tricks on the Internet is almost certainly extremely small. Probably about the same number who used to flick through magic books in mainstream bookstores in pre-internet days.
And, it could be argued, that reading, for instance, Professor Hoffmann’s Modern Magic in 1876 – which essentially had most of the tricks performed at that time all neatly condensed into one volume – was a far better research tool than googling individual tricks on the Internet.
Secondly, and this has always been so with any sort of magic exposure, the chances that the exact same trick that the spectator has been fooled with in ‘real life’ can then be found on the internet presupposes not only an extremely enthusiastic researcher but also the ability to recall the trick in its exact detail.
Suffice to say that many tricks actually have more than one means of achieving the effect; and the chances of coming across the exact method becomes increasingly problematical.
Finally the truth is that there isn’t actually that much exposure of magic. There’s an awful lot of exposure of the same tricks with the same pieces of equipment (coins and cards abound).
But, compared to the literally thousands and thousands of tricks written up in books and magazines, the Internet is only scraping the surface of exposure.
PS Don’t anyone take this essay to mean that I’m in favour of exposure because “it doesn’t harm magic.” I’m passionately against exposure of any sort and might indeed explain why in a later blog.
