Joe Givan provides lots of food for thought in his recent e-mail to me, which he has allowed me to publish here. Is magic entertainment or pure illusion? What expectations do audiences have of magicians? You can read it here.
I've got to weigh in on this one. I personally am involved with Dan Sperry in this routine, as he used our prop in the show. Of a number of problems that occurred, here's my take on the biggest one:
Piers Morgan is an ignoramus when it comes to judging. He buzzes any juggler who misses a catch, or a bike-riding stuntman who stumbles on a trick. Peirs doesn't seem to understand that the occasional mistake actually enhances the skill involved. I don't see him buzz a musician when a wrong note is hit, or someone has a moment of being 'pitchy.' Why give them a break as opposed to magicians/variety artists?
Magicians, by the very nature of the term, have to do something impossible. That's what we do! In the sense of doing something fantastical, regardless of what the method is, we are not allowed to be anything less than amazing. If there is an explanation to the layman, we fail.
Dan defended himself regarding the "fake arm" in that it was a fantasy, and people should judge it for that. It's not the most mind-blowing illusion in the world - but who cares? It's fun, unexpected, and has a story to tell. I don't think the lay public gives a rat's *** if it's a mind-numbing illusion - they just want to be entertained.
That being said, I think there is an inherent problem in being termed as a "magician;" it limits many of us, and what we are trying to do with our "art." Kevin James' arm illusion is a perfect example. While we may think the method is clever and the visual effect dynamic, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on. The audience is way more savvy than many of us have come to believe.
So why portray yourself as a magician, if you cannot deliver the impossible? Isn't there room for another term that doesn't demand the same requirement? Our art form is largely based on the visual, and the lines between deception and eye candy can be blurred, all in the name of entertainment.
The bottom line is to entertain and engage the audience. If they see an arm stump as fake, so what? They also see the wires when Peter Pan flies! It's the stories that we tell; the situations we make real. The fantasy of it all. We might be cursing ourselves by using the term "magician," as audiences/judges expectations think we are button-holed into the term 'magic,' and if we don't deliver the absolutely impossible, then we fail.
Sad that it comes down to this, but apparently it does. So - what do we call ourselves? We want to enchant and create wonder, but should we be limited by 'judges' who think they know what our art should be? Without being demeaning, or misconstruing what our special, potentially sophisticated art is about, what do we call ourselves?
More Reading:
Las Vegas Magic Shows
More Magic on "America's Got Talent" (June 25, 2010)
America's Got Talent: The Las Vegas Eliminations (July 13, 2010)
Murray SawChuck Talks About Las Vegas Magic and Lance Burton
Comments
After reading this thought provoking post, I looked up the definition of the word “magic” on dictionary.com. Here’s what I found:
“The art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.”
That definition, in turn, prompted me to look up the word “illusion:”
“Something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.”
Therefore, I agree that if our art does not deceive, and does not create a false impression of reality, then we are not, by definition, performing magic.
What to call it then? Indeed, that is an interesting question. How about “special effects based performance art?”
In any case, I still aim with every effect I perform to leave the audience unable to discern my method. Granted, I don’t always succeed. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. I still think we should aim, however, to fool most of the people most of the time.
The false conceptions that prevail in reference to magic are largely due to the looseness of phraseology which, among other slipshod characteristics, has been fostered by performers and public, alike. In most subjects the theory has been amply investigated, the essential principles have been clearly demonstrated, and the meanings of technical terms definitely prescribed. In magic such matters have received but scant attention, with the result that chance and not system has governed its development and progress. Thus, we find the subject interwoven with ill-arranged ideas which, in turn, have given rise to a vagueness of definition.
Magic does NOT solely consist in the doing of tricks; nor is the object of a magical performance the offering of puzzles for solution. But, so long as magicians insist upon miscalling their feats by the name of ‘tricks,’ so long will the public insist upon regarding magic as being primarily intended to invite speculation upon ‘how it is done.’
It is the cause which produces a certain result, and cannot possibly be both means and end together. Therefore, to describe a magical presentation as a ‘trick,’ is a ‘terminological inexactitude’ of the first order. It is an offence against good sense and artistic propriety, deserving the fullest condemnation.
Modern magic deals exclusively with the creation of mental impressions. Since those effects are not really, but only apparently, due to miraculous processes, there is no difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory definition of the meaning now applicable to the word ‘magic.’ Here it is:
Magic consists in creating, by misdirection of the senses, the mental impression of supernatural agency at work.
That, and that only, is what modern magic really is, and that meaning alone is now assignable to the term.
Extract taken from ‘Our Magic’ by Maskelyne and Devant (1911)
Dan Sperry is quite a talented Magician indeed.
I think the problem lies in his unique original character.
It is great for grabbing attention,& being remembered.
But with that we expect to see something original,bizarre,or twisted.
Therefore,it is expected,& needed to have “realism”,along with the fantasy.
Maybe AGT,did not allow the realism,that would explain it.
We do need to see a realistic arm;even a moving arm.
It does not have to be overtly gross,just real.
For his real show,it should be real , & as bloody as possible.
Colored birds or one thing.But unless he takes the head off one colored bird and places it on another;it only becomes a bird act you see any magician do.
For his finale,shouldn’t he produce a Raven,or Crow,or a huge Saw blade,or something that connects with his character?
It is good to add humor in the act,as it lightens up the moment.It also shows his personality.Even with a sly smile,while something demented is going on.
He does this well,with Music and acting.But he cannot do,as seen on some of his videos,become a comedy act.
He uses some standard routines,in the same way,with the same jokes and gags,as all of the other Magicians.If you are going to commit and stand out,you need to be the character 100%.
Well said Eddy. A strong, passionate, and truthful message to us all!
Keep it real!
I had a couple of problems with this illusion. THE CONCEPT BEHIND THE ILLUSION WAS GREAT! The securing of Nick Cannon’s Arm at the beginning of the trick seems to take to long, even with Rudy Coby’s Robot girl walking across stage. I kinda wondered if maybe Dan had interacted with the Robot girl while Assistants would have secured nick would have been a better misdirection. Seeing the his back for as long as we did was driving me nuts. Also I like the idea of using nick, but also wondered if using the rubber gloves arm separation would have been a better way to go with this trick. So that Dan would have the “gloves” on, but also be able to show the hand movement away from the body. Obviously this wouldn’t have worked with Nick and Dan. Maybe invite “someone” up from the audience to leave his lasting impression from his show on.