I'm test-driving this theoretical model for magic. This is based upon a discussion in which somebody talked at the Cafe about the importance of strengthening conditions, at which point people immediately responded of the potential dangers for doing so.
Quoth from the Cafe...
There's give and take. The fact of the matter is, not everybody in the audience comes to a show with the same mindset. Magic operates in a sort of Yin Yang duality. The Yin of it is all about the effects, the spectacular things that can happen, being able to see amazing feats and knowing what the world might be like if magic were real. This is how magic applies to imagination. The Yang of it is all about the conviction in the effects, the elimination of non-magical explanations for the feats. This is how magic applies to our rationality. Some performers can operate in both worlds perfectly. Others tend to lean one way or the other in terms of their strengths.
Our audiences are also a mixed bag. Even with sophisticated, logical audiences, there will be a difference between changing $1 into $100, than changing a white piece of paper into a green one, even if the surrounding conditions are identical. The Yin element here is undeniable. That said, many tricks that one might think are lousy can be improved simply by strengthening the conditions. Take the 21 card trick, and change it so that the spectator can shuffle the cards themselves, peek at any card they want, shuffle them again, lay them out in rows themselves, and at this point, when the magician asks what row it's in, they only have to think the answer, rather than say it out loud. If the performer can still find the card, we've got a really good trick on our hands. Here, the Yang element is undeniable.
The key is to remember that the Yin and Yang operate in a balance. Yin gives meaning to Yang, whereas Yang gives credibility to Yin. If we keep in mind Eugene Burger's ideas of texture, and make sure that our effects are able to appeal to multiple different mentalities, we can have a richer show as a result. People who come looking for fun revelations will be happy, people who come looking to be bamboozled will be happy, and people who come looking for both will be very happy.
One might say that routines with such rigid test conditions might appeal to a limited audience. I don't necessarily agree. Magicians are people too, and they can be entertained by a magic show as much as anybody. The difference for them is that experience in dealing with magic and methods has rendered them cynical about the Yin. However, tricks with strong Yang-focused effect can still appeal to them. But magicians aren't the only ones who are jaded. One reason why I hate the term "layman" is that it casts a random spectator into a generic mentality, which experience has told me is a false projection. Do three of your best tricks, different tricks that you feel are of about equal entertainment value, for a hundred different "laymen", and then ask them what their favourites are, and I don't think you'll get a hundred identical responses. Different tricks will appeal to different spectators for different reasons, and while the strengthening of conditions might seem like a boring process to apply to a trick, there will be those who appreciate it if it's done well, and will like it over another trick which is richer in Yin and weaker in Yang.
By the way, I'd been meaning to try to marry this concept with the Erland Elephant Archetypes for a while. Tyler Erickson mentioned that he thought a visual model of some kind would help make the differences between the Archetypes clearer, and the best I could come up with was a sort of Yin Yang symbol, with some archetypes on the Yin side (Mentalist, Reader, Superman, Clown, Charlatan, Manipulator, Allegorist, Bizarrist), some on the Yang side (Jester, Scientist, Magus), one straddling the middle (Mechanic), and one outside the circle (Gambling Demonstrator). At this point I'm not sure it's the right visual model (I'm not married to the locations of the various archetypes on the Yin Yang symbol), but I think it's starting to go in the right direction.
10 comments:
Using the Yin Yang analogy, there is no Yin without the Yang. Therefore the Yang is dominate and strengthening it is wise. Can one go too far? Of course as in all things. To think that one is such a great Magician that they can pull off overdone Yang is a greater problem than going to far with it.
True. Without Yin, then even the greatest Yang may give us complete conviction, but it will be complete conviction in nothing.
However, one can go too far the other way as well. Movies such as Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings give us incredible depictions of Yin, but there is not even the tiniest conviction that any of it could be real.
The success of the films you gave proves that the masses prefer greater Yin and are not that concerned with Yang. Perhaps I should rethink my presentations, cash wise that is.
I don't think it's necessarily that easy. Remember, we can give them something that the films can't.
Why is the Gambling Demonstrator outside the circle? Shouldn't he be in the extreme yang side?
I think, because in his case, the claim is verifiable. Whether or not people are convinced he is doing a bottom deal is moot, because he's really doing a bottom deal. We're not talking about impossibilities or improbabilities, either.
(For the moment, I'm not going to complicate things with pseudo-center deals or anything like that. If that level of deception sets in, then he'd have one foot inside the circle.)
The other question is which side he'd be on. While you're right in that the cheat can provide conviction, on the other hand there is inherent meaning in being able to cheat at cards. The feat itself is compelling.
My point is that the masses enjoy such films, the Yin is what they are going for, spending their $ on, not the Yang. They could care less about the Yang. If they want and will pay for strong Yin over Yang would it not be foolish to sell them what they want and will pay for, even in a Magic Show? Given there must be Yang to have magic but the emphasis should be on Yin, i.e. presentation over technical/physical ability. Why spend time and energy busting your balls over Yang when simple Yang with strong Yin sells so well?
Ah... ok, yes, I see your point. My own position is that I want my audience to be fooled, since without that they can't truly come face-to-face with the effects. That said, I'm with you in wanting to make sure the effects themselves are compelling.
I do think it's possible to go too far with Yin, though, to the point of the effect becoming unsustainable and therefore easy to dismiss. If we could do the things that they do in Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, we'd be locked up as guinea pigs by some secret government agency, and I think everybody knows this.
That would be O.K. as long as I got celery hearts.
I admire the thoroughness of your thinking Andrew! For instance, the visual depiction that combines the Yin and Yang theory with the Erland Elephant Archetypes actually gave me a bit of a shiver. Nice to have some thrill back in magic again.
My own performing style could probably be classed as Mechanic / Gambling Demonstrator. I tend to focus much more on the Yang rather than the Yin. Coming up with interesting Yin feels like a real drag for me.
With your Archetypes, I would like to see a questionnaire. It could be a forced choice questionnaire, for instance, or a Likehart style scale.
The Likehart scale could go from strongly agree to strong disagree. The forced choice scale could do just that: I like to spend time developing a) recondite sleight of hand skills or, b) intricate story lines.
Nice to read your thoughts on the blog. If the other blog postings that you write maintain a similar level of quality, then I will probably be returning regularly.
Post a Comment