I was discussing Vegas Aces with a fellow magician at a gig last night. We were talking about the ‘art’ of magic and if simplification was an admirable goal
Which aspect is more central to the art: The mechanics or the presentation? If we say that the meat and meaning of a trick is its performance and the effect it has on the spectator, then the more simplification of method, the purer the art?
Or does the degree of effort/mechanics/complexity, add or subtract value? Should we, as we develop as magicians, strive to strip away all unneeded, wasteful, or needlessly complex methods, to aim for the most direct, stripped down, pure method for any part of a trick?
Vegas Aces creates an ‘easier path’ to the effect.
Funny what you get talking about whilst the awards/speeches take place…
Later, I received this argument on the subject by Tom Cutt:
This is an erroneous assumption. Simplification for simplification’s sake does NOT make for purer art. The pureness of an art form is in its experience upon its audience. Much of simplification comes with a cost to the magical effect, a cost to that experience upon its audience.
In the case of Vegas Aces the gimmick makes for a much cleaner visual image and, therefore, a more magical experience. The fact that it involves less difficult sleight of hand is a fortunate byproduct of making the effect stronger.
Should we, as we develop as magicians, strive to strip away all unneeded, wasteful, or needlessly complex methods, to aim for the most direct, stripped down, pure method
No, we should strive to present the most magical experience for people, regardless of the method that requires.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below: