Monday Mailbag #46
/
I know that you prefer performing for people one-on-one or for just a couple of people, but I was wondering if you had any thoughts about performing for small groups of friends (5 or so)? I am much more likely to be in a situation to perform magic for friends in these smaller groups than with just one or two. Excepting my wife, who at this point is more like performing for another magician (although I’m slowly training her to change her expectations as I have been changing my style closer to your suggestions).
If you are in a group of people and some have seen you perform before, but some have not, would you cater your performance specifically to the people who have seen you before or to someone who has not (e.g., something short and visual mainly involving a friend who hasn’t seen you perform)?
What sort of qualities do you look for in tricks for a handful of people? Do you lean towards tricks or presentations that directly involve more people (e.g., one person names a color, another the suit, another the value) or perform more or less the same as if you were performing one-on-one? —DW
Up until receiving this question, I never realized how little experience I have in this sort of situation. Primarily because I prefer performing one-on-one. And probably also because, for whatever reason, I don’t run into many situation where a few people have seen me perform and a few people haven’t. It usually skews heavily one way or the other.
But if I’m at a small dinner party or game night with three people who know me and two who don’t and I decide to perform something, this is my general thought process:
I would go for something mid-level weird. Like, for example, I wouldn’t go for something totally traditional, like a 4 Ace routine. And I wouldn’t go for something way out there, like a two-hour immersive time travel adventure. But I would sort of split the difference with something that takes a few minutes and has a mildly bizarre premise. “Oh, sure. I can show you something. Let me think… Well, I have been reading up the subject of ‘induced deja vu.’ This is kind of crazy….”
I find you can push the envelope a little more in group settings, even when they include first-timers. If I’m performing one-on-one for you for the first time, and I start off with something too weird, then your guard is up and you might not be able to go along with the experience like I’d want you to. But if it’s the first time you’re seeing me perform and there is a group there who seems comfortable with me and what I’m showing them, then you’re going to trust their judgment.
I would gear my performance toward the new person or people. When your friends or family pimp you out to show something to someone who hasn’t seen you perform before, it’s because they want to watch that person’s reaction. So in the specific case where you have some newcomers and some old-timers, I would gear the material towards the newcomers and let the others enjoy splitting their focus between the trick and the person’s reaction.
As far as material goes, there are obviously some tricks that require.a group, and some tricks that are perhaps too subtle or intimate to be done any way other than one-on-one. Beyond that, I tend to keep the “sillier” stuff for groups, because the fun tends to build with more people there. And I keep stuff with a more intense emotional element for one-on-one performances, because if one person in a group doesn’t buy into it, it can ruin the atmosphere for everyone.
I was reading your May 7 post on the false shuffle and this came to mind: In Annemann's book 'Shh It's a secret' there's an entry called 'the $1000 test card location'. Quickly described, you hand the stacked deck to them and innocently hurry them through a quick shuffle. Turn around, have them cut the deck, take and remember the top card, put the card anywhere in the deck. You turn back around, take back the deck, peek the bottom card, reveal their card per the stack. About 80% hit. If not, repeat and you will almost certainly hit. I can vouch for its effectiveness. —RC
Yup, that works. The issue with that in a casual situation is that there is no good way to “innocently hurry them through a quick shuffle.” In a formal performance it makes sense to move things along at a good clip. So handing the the deck to shuffle and quickly taking it back works fine. In a social situation it can be a little awkward. What’s the hurry? It’s just us here hanging out.
When it comes to things like shuffling or examining objects, people have their own internal metronome. And if you rush them, they can feel it. So rather than trying to force someone into your own pacing for the sake of a method, I find it’s better to make note of people’s predilections and then take advantage of them at a further date. If you notice when you give someone a deck to shuffle that they just give it a few overhand chops and hand it back, then you know you can utilize that Annemann technique without it feeling internally “off” to them.
Similarly, you’ll find people who examine objects rather cursorily and others who take a deep dive into the object. Once you know that about them, you can choose material that takes advantage of those proclivities.
There are many effects and methods that rely on a certain pacing. Whenever possible I try to save those effects for people who naturally interact at that pace.
Just wanted to report my experience trying out Yento recently. I have never felt such an exciting atmosphere when sharing magic with people as this. It just felt different. Something truly magical. Thank you. I actually slightly messed up the trick itself, but IT DIDN'T MATTER. They were enthralled by the story and I am starting to see how much more powerful that can be than just busting out moves. I've attached a pic of my package and I look forward to trying out some more of your effects soon. —TC
Nicely done.
I receive a fairly consistent flow of emails from people relating their performance experiences of tricks I’ve created or presentational ideas I’ve suggested. I sometimes feel like I should post more of these emails because it might encourage people to try some of the odder ideas if they knew they were working for other people as well. At one time that was going to be a new series of posts, but I kind of abandoned the idea because it felt self-serving and self-promotional, and I’m sort of grossed out by that stuff. (Probably not a great trait to have if a portion of your livelihood depends on people supporting your work.)
That said, I always like seeing people’s Yento packages. Send me a picture of your package!!!
WAIT NO, FUCK…. THAT’S NOT WHAT I MEANT!
I’m going to end today’s mailbag with an email from Jonathan S. As a stupid person, I’m not sure I understood it 100%. And as the person whose creative work it comments on, I’m not sure it’s productive to spend too much time dissecting my own work to find out how “integral” or “Metamodern” it might be. But as a general way of thinking about the performance of magic, I think some of you who enjoy taking a more studied approach to this sort of thing might find it interesting.
Regarding your discussion of the differences between male magicians and female magicians I thought it might be valuable to offer up a framing we use in our transformative media classes, which emerges from work done by psychologist Carol Gilligan. She identifies the principles of Agency and Communion, which are masculine and feminine principles respectively (not necessarily male and female). Agency is about doing things: think about "guy" films in which (usually male) heroes take action to affect an outcome. Communion is about relationships between people, often seen in films thought of as "chick pics" which involve personal development of characters through interactions.
A work we think of as Integral will tend to combine Agency and Communion, characters taking action to affect an outcome but often in the service of a personal evolutionary arc which changes the way they relate to the world and other people. Game of Thrones, Source Code, the Lord of the Rings trilogy...these are examples of cinematic works that combine Agency and Communion throughout.
Although these are thought of as masculine and feminine qualities they don't necessarily line up with male and female characters or creators. Some men are into relationship fields and some women are more action-oriented. Nevertheless, they tend to follow gender lines, though on a continuum.
Where this principle applies to magic is that the field has been dominated by males, who generally think in terms of Agency: Do things, so other things happen. As women are entering into the magic space we are indeed seeing more communion in magic, more exploration of relationships and emotions, beauty and rhythm. I think women in general just tend to have this type of orientation more than men and I am quite thrilled to see it start filtering through the magic world.
When you see a female magician picking up the worst habits of male magicians, often it's because they are learning to privilege Agency (action, eye candy) over Communion (meaning, connection). My working theory is it's quite noticeable when women magicians "act like male magicians" because we intuitively tend to expect more emotional complexity from women. So my speculation is that the superficiality common to so much of magic seems even more pronounced when it's a female magician embodying those same bad habits.
I think what is now being referred to as "the Jerxian style," the kind of informal presentations you are pioneering, are much more communion-oriented than typical magical works, though still with sound Agency-type magic impacts. So you're also more Integral than most.
You're also Metamodern, in the academic sense of a new artistic phase after Postmodern. (The term has also been hijacked to mean the broader developmental phase also sometimes called Integral). In its academic usage Metamodern refers to a kind of oscillation between Modernism and Postmodernism, "sincere irony," a constant tension between absolute absurdity and deeply felt sincerity. In that usage, Jerxian magic is extremely Metamodern, and you're at your best when your presentations are not merely deconstructive and absurd but also reveal some deeper beauty, meaning or hint at almost existential depth.
If you have any desire to dive deeper into this subject the best book to read by far is Hanzi Freinacht's The Listening Society, which is metamodern itself (it's often hilarious and irreverent but also deeply purposeful and serious) and designed to help evolve the reader's consciousness so they can perceive greater breadth and depth. It's a very zeitgeisty book amongst people in the Integral and developmental metatheory communities.
“To unite the many struggles
of the exploited bodies of the poor
with the struggles of the lost,
suffering souls of the rich world.
And to expand that struggle
to sustainability across time and space.
And to expand that solidarity
to fathom the vast suffering
and multiplicity of perspectives
of the animal realm in its entirety.
And to deepen the struggle
until it is reborn as play.”
Thanks for reading, if you made it through this. Sorry for the long rant; I'm rather steeped in this world though I must admit the application of Integral thinking to magic is a pretty tough nut to crack. Carisa Hendrix has lectured a bit about the academic phase of Metamodernism (the "sincere irony" oscillation that runs from Coen Brothers to Wes Anderson to TV shows like Rick & Morty) but I don't know of anyone who's really thinking seriously about the evolutionary stage after Postmodern deconstruction and how magic can be used to help accelerate the societal transition.
I'm with Terrence McKenna: The artist’s task is to save the soul of mankind; and anything less is a dithering while Rome burns.