Helpers, Healers, and Guides

It has always been true that, in seeking guidance, the many have depended on the few. In every time, in every place, there is always a "creative minority" to whom others turn for leadership, for guidance, for courage, for understanding, for beauty. These few who guide stand before the many, not as the ideal bearers of final truths, but simply as the most extraordinarily human members of the community.

Sheldon B Kopp, Guru: Metaphors from a Psychotherapist.

The world's oldest profession is that of the shaman or first professional, the shaman is ancestor not only to both the modern medicine man or doctor and the religion is priest or divine, but also ancestor in direct lineage to a host of other professional types. It would seem odd that both the doctor, the most secular-minded, and the divine, the most sacred-minded of modern helpers of people, should derive from the same source. But we can readily understand the seeming paradox when we recognize the basic nature and function of the primitive medicine man of shaman.

Weston Le Barre, Shamanistic Origins of Religion and Medicine.

The origin of Showmen are found in the shaman. The shaman was the first incarnation of the One Who Faces the Other Way. In these early prehistoric times men, and no doubt woman too, discovered the true power of shared attention. In developing and studying shared attention we as a species became who we are. The preoccupation eventually hard wired us for culture.

Showmanship: more than 'Mere entertainment' - a power to Change

That something "more" which is created in the interaction between a group, led by One Who Faces the Other Way, is a strange power. It is an example of something from nothing. Creatio ex nihil. A whole that become greater than the sum of its parts. All of this "extra" comes through process. Like when wood is ignited, an astounding amount of energy in the form of heat is released. In reality the heat does not come from nowhere, but looking at wood you would not believe such great energy could be released.
When the Showman masters the mere Attention grabbing aspects of addressing a group he can begin to grasp the deeper and more potent aspects of his Craft. As he steps beyond the how-to and technical sides of addressing the many a new and more potent level than 'mere entertainment' appears. 
 If tuned in certain ways this power can be used for healing purposes. In medical terms this power has been called placebo. It is the strange and elusive effect which gives as many as 1/3 patients relief from symptoms. {American Cancer Society.} In the past this tool was often the only thing that could be used in healing a particular sickness. I believe that as we get a better grasp on what the placebo effect is we will find that all alternative modalities tap into it in some way. Modern medicine have, for ethical reasons, a very limited use of placebo. I can imagine litigious patients should be able to make a case against a hospital if they were given homeopathic sugar pills. There is something inherrently dubious in giving someone nothing for their pain and then saying you gave them medicine and on top of it charging them as if you had administered some kind of active ingredient.

Psychic surgery.

The placebo effect is still relied upon in pentecostal and other religious settings. When a group gets together led by a Master Showman be it in the guise of a Filipino psychic surgeon, a revivalist preacher, an acupuncture or general healer including today's doctors this power can be harnessed and used to the sick's benefit. The truth is that individuals does receive benefits from these sessions. But in case of serious illness one should not rely on Showmen of the entertaining or religious/new age kind.
With the advance of science based medicine we have outgrown most uses of performance rituals to heal our pathological illnesses. Although much research is currently being done and more is needed to establish exactly what the mechanisms are for this effect. When it comes to the types of illnesses treated by today's psychologists there can still be found a use for the Craft of the Showman.

The Showman's ancestor's task was to make occasions special. Not in the way of modern day when we Showmen appear in jaunty hats at children's parties, but to make a passage from one phase of life to the next. Birth, sexual maturation, becoming a hunter, a woman, a man, or in death, in victory and triumph as well as in defeat and loss of face the many (the Crowd), needs to stand together facing someone who can channel their attention and guide them. The One Facing the Other Way creates gravitas, he makes the occasion something more. Words will be spoken, songs will be sung, there might be dance, there might be tricks and magical appearances but most importantly the One must make the Many feel. Feel as one, and feel the experience. The hearts of the Many must be caressed and kindled hope of dreams fulfilled, of healing, of certainty in the face of chaos. The One is a light in the darkness of a cave shining as bright as any flame. 

Perhaps that is why so many feels it natural to include a Showman, in the form of magicians, jugglers, comedians, and musicians in their celebrations. They know that they belong, we know that we belong, but most have forgotten why. In the deep recesses of our neolithic minds we have the feeling that the fire we feel thumping in our chests does not belong in the corner entertaining the children, it belongs at the center stage, leading the Crowd.

This power speaks directly to our hearts and creates a loophole in the worlds organization. It is the trickster and the leader, the chosen one who against all odds pulls the sword from the stone the one who might become a charismatic leader. (The following is an excerpt from Sheldon B Kopp's book Guru.)

Charismatic Leaders

Among the best of the helpers, the healers, and the guides are those who can be described as "charismatic." To have charisma is to possess the gift of grace. The Greek origin of the word lelates to the Graces of mythology, those lovely godesses of talent who brought joy, brilliance, and beauty into the lives of men.

It is not enough then that a Guru be a gifted magician. His talents must not be used merely as a celebration of his powers, no matter how remarkable. His gifts  fin meaning only when they are used in the service of offering an opportunity to another. 

Max Weber introduced a sociological meaning to the concept when he developed his "value-neutral" image of such extraordinary men. He delineated three bases for the authority underlying leadership in a community. These included Traditional, characterized by "patriarchal... domination"; Bureucratic, a legalistic defining of authority; and finally Charismatic.
Charismatic leadership always stands over against the other two bases, as it is "strange to all rule and tradition." The charismatic leader comes to power as one to whom others submit because of their belief in his extraordinary personal gifts. He may be a prophet, a shaman, a magical sorcerer, or even a leader of hunting expeditions. His followers are committed to belief in his having qualities far beyond those of other men, qualities that in the past were valued as being supernatural.

It does not matter whether these extraordinary personal qualities of the charismatic leader are actual, alleged or presumed. Such a leader arises when the people need him, at a time when the old order is to be challenged, when he has reason to stand in opposition to the traditional powers.

Perhaps each in his own way can help to free the people whom he guides.
It is, indeed, the guru's own freedom that inspires others to be free and may point the way. One of the sources of charisma has been described as lying in "the apparent unpredictability of the leader's behavior and his seeming indifference to the most awesome obstacles and dangers. THis combination of unpredictable arbitrariness with naive fearlessness is very similar to the innocent spontaneity of the child...

...[T]he central quality in this spontaneity is that such a man trusts himself. It is not so much that he is responding i ways which are beyond other men (or lesser therapists). Rather it seems that he is past worrying about how he is doing. No longer expecting to be unafraid or certain or perfect, he gives himself over to being just as he is at the moment. He accepts his fear, lives with his uncertainty, finds his imperfection sufficient.
Unconcerned with being more than he is at any iven moment and satisfied to be able to do what he can, he is able to do far more than he could if he were still distracted by the question of how well he was doing. Of course, disciples of such a gifted guru will at first be awed by the difference between his seeming confidence and poiwer, on the one hand, and their own helplessness and inadequacy, on the other. The guru then tries to help his follower to see that there is no differnce between them, except as the follwer diminishes himself to give the power to the guru. THe follower maintains the imbalance to avoid the awful reponsibility of being equal to everyone else in the world and completely on his own, while retaining the hope that the guru will take care of him. To maintain his own freedom, the guru must try to free the disciple from himself.

...

Of course, any form of personal power is subject to abuse. The trust of others is a responsibility just because there is a temptation to exploit it. Some gurus are corrupt, and those that are not may become corrupt. In time any form of help that works, ultimately does become corrupt. Each type of guru can only be effective for a time whitin a given setting. The success of every kind of gifted guru inevitably contains within it the seeds of its own failure.
Yet, nothing else lasts. Why, then, should we expect more of those to whom we turn for guidance than we are capable of ourselves? In this ambiguous world, made up as it is of moments, fragments, bits and pieces, we must learn to take love where we find it. And then we must learn to grieve its passing so that we may make room for the next moment.

   

Sheldon B Kopp

Live, private sleight-of-hand magic lessons via Skype

I started out in the entertainment field as a close-up sleight-of-hand magician. I worked my way through college by table-hopping at a variety of restaurants, from casual Mexican to high-end and high-priced cuisine. And, really, there is nothing more fun than when someone hands you a cigarette, or coin, or napkin and says, "do that magic thing," and they end up yelping in amazement at what just occurred right under their nose.

Now, through the miracle of technology, I will be taking on a limited number of people to teach them fun and funny sleight-of-hand magic with common, everyday objects like playing cards, cigarettes, coins, napkins, salt, matches and lots more. Throughout the lessons, I also like to include some magical effects which, although amazing, are very simple to learn without a lot of practice.

Over the years I developed not only a repertoire of the magic effects which worked very well in a restaurant setting, but also the comedy that I added to each routine (called "patter" in magic circles). When doing close-up, sleight-of-hand magic you should not just do "tricks." Instead, you need to put together a routine which consists of a string of different fun, amazing and funny bits of business. I will work with you to find your own personality and collection of magic effects that you are comfortable with.

A magician shouldn't approach an audience with a "look-how-cool-I-am" attitude, but instead share the wonder and amazement of each stupid little trick you do. :)

If you're interested in trying out a lesson or two, just visit this link. You can sign up for 30 or 60 minute private lessons, and I will do my best to set up a time that is convenient for both of us.

Books and DVD's are a great way to learn sleight-of-hand magic and I still recommend both, but in my past I always found that I could tackle much more ambitious prestidigitation manipulations when someone taught me one-on-one. With a personal, private lesson you get to see exactly what it's going to look like, and I get to see (and objectively critique) how it looks to the spectator. Until together, we create that Wow! factor.

Hope to hear from you.

Currently, I am only accepting adult students.

Talent and Theory

{The following ideas are inspired by Tommy Wonder's Book of Wonders Vol.1. See Mr Wonder in action here.

For those of you unfamiliar with these works they have been described as such:

Never has there been a more articulate manifesto declaring magic a true art. And never has one man offered a more detailed and coherent plan for achieving art by the practice of magic.

Penguin Magic}

-->

The point has been made again and again, with various paths of reasoning, that to theorize about the arts of the Showman is a waste of time. Talented Showmen don't need theoretical knowledge to create their acts. The good ones just know what's right. They simply go with the flow and follow what they feel is right. And no amount of theoretical knowledge will land you a great act if theory is all you have. In the following post we will examine these proclamations and the value of intuition vs theory.

Talent

These are valid points and are raised by Tommy Wonder in his first chapters. A certain amount of instinct, or talent, as Wonder calls it, is needed to get anywhere with your act.
Anyone can create an act but not everyone can create a great act. A great act excels not only in its originality, but also in its execution and in its connection with the Crowd. Great act are often described by those who have witnessed them with a feeling that words can't describe what they saw. They are experiences that you "really have to be there," to fully grasp. (Something which I believe, in these times of the internet, TV and radio has. The time for societies desire for live experiences by Master Showmen has returned again.)
After performing my signature act people often ask: How did you know that you could do that? As if they think the act was something I woke up one morning and did. But the truth is, Great Acts does not spring from nothing. There is no spontaneous generation of great acts. All acts you see are this way because of the hard work, endless shows and rehearsals of the Showman. The repetition of, for example magic tricks, make them into experiences of true astonishment in the minds of Crowds, no matter its size. No amount of talent makes for a great act without development. For talent is also not something that springs from nowhere. Talent develops. You can polish and amplify your talents and make whatever little talent you have shine. Tommy Wonder likens it to a diamond.

The raw diamond of talent.

"Talent is like a raw diamond. An uncut diamond is not particularly interesting, but once it is polished to perfection it becomes a thing of beauty. The same is true of talent. The more talent, the bigger the raw diamond, the better one can become. But it still requires polishing."

But what is talent? I guess it might be a cousin of Charisma, something we have looked into previously on this blog.
It is an elusive thing. Hard to pin down. It is that certain something that makes a Showman captivating. Be it his way of swearing and spitting but yet somehow being nice, the way he fumbles his way through his act yet remains in full controll, the way she makes people laugh at themselves by making you laugh at her, the thing that makes a joke told by one person bring the house down with laughter and told by another elicits nothing but groans. It is a person's schtick.
I think talent might be connected to truth, and truthfulness, (see Originality post for more on this). Talent could be what makes something appear as truth when presented by someone. It is that something that makes the Crowd feel like the material of the Showman springs from his heart.
It is the expression of the Little Candle of enthusiasm that burns in a young Showman's heart. When a budding Showman acts on this burning feeling to step up and face the others the first expression is interesting and captivating, like a toddler playing the violin or a precocious reader reciting Shakespeare, it has novelty and a naive truth. Something I recognize in myself when I look at early footage of myself performing. Many of the themes and feelings that I would develop and explore are already there, but only dimly and crudely.

Polishing

Tommy Wonder does not believe that you can be a Showman without talent, but he also believes that everybody has some talent. Not everybody has been endowed liberally, but there is talent in everybody. To Mr Wonder it is important that a Novice Showman, not gets bogged down in how big their raw diamond is, but rather focuses on how to polish what they have to perfection. I find this a fascinating thought.
Mr. Wonder also warns Showmen not to use their supposed lack of talent as an excuse for not polishing what they have. For in Showmanship as in life we will get nowhere if we worry by comparing ourselves to others. You are but one person and the world is filled by many Masters in many fields, if you compare your talent to their talents in their respective fields you will always fall short. This is no Way to go through life. It is a game that can't be won. Instead we should undertake the challenge of finding and defining our talent and get to work on refining it. Polishing that Raw Diamond will make your act great and will step by step lead you toward Master Showmanship.

How to Polish

The best way to make the raw diamond shine is to do shows. Perform the act as much as possible. Under as many different conditions as you dare. As innocence turns to experience you will develop a feeling for what is right for you. The more experience you have as a Showman the stronger this feeling will become. Developed enough you should be able to form ideas for acts and how you should do them simply by imagining it. As you then take the stage with your new ideas you will feel whether your thinking was right and what you should do to improve. This experience becomes you guiding compass and you choose your way by a feeling that doing it a certain way is "just right" as Wonder calls it. It's as simple, yet as complicated as that. Its the wisdom that only comes from doing it for 10.000 hours.

Theory

Many performers does not go beyond this indistinct feeling of things being just right. It is unclear to them why what they do is working or not. They are inventors of the Edison school rather than Tesla. Both get there in the end. The feeling is absolutely necessary for any showman that wants to become a Master of his Craft. It is as mentioned his compass. But there is more to exploration and journeying than the compass, there is the map. Maps are drawn out by those that have perused these landscapes before. It is those that have not only topographically understood it but also knows the ways and more importantly knows the shortcuts. The sum of collected and well thought out recounts of experiences and previous explorations of your chosen territory have always been tackled before. General ideas and skills which has been synthesized by early Masters and these maps are the theory. Another invaluable tool in the Showman's toolbox. 
The development of your inner compass is absolutely essential on the way to Mastery and it must always be developed with more direct experience, ie. doing shows and practicing.

Your compass will guide you through the territory of theory. But if your compass is already pointing out the way what good is the map of theory? If you think you have nothing to learn that others can teach you, you obviously haven't read enough or met enough people. Theory can help you understand why something you feel is right is right. There are patterns and lessons that synthesizes structures of routines, ways shows should run and tricks should be learnt. Without these lessons you will be stabbing in the darkness all alone. You might get there, but often you as you get there you realize there are Showmen waiting for you that could have gotten you to the top of the mountain much quicker and thereby given you the opportunity to spend your time and energy to climb beyond them rather than catching up.

"After your intuition tells you what to do, theory can become a great aid. Once you have decided that something feels particularly right, thought guided by theory can give you important insight concerning your decision. Understanding why something feels right can lead you to more precise or effective utilization of your insight. ... Intuition is a great step towards accomplishing good magic, but intuition alone is unlikely to achieve the full potential of the ideas it generates." {T. Wonder}

The seed comes from you

Let your compass guide you to where you want to go. Then study what you can about the matters to get as far as you can with your idea.
Let it start with your feeling. When your idea for an act feels just right you will know you have something to work with. Theory and suggestions from elders and others will not make a great act without the initial input of your feeling and belief in your idea. Your feeling for what is right for you is the foundation upon where to build your finished act but theory is needed to fully form and finish it.

Intuition first; theory second. This progression is essential!

 It is important to remember that theory is not just something you get from others. It is not some infallible wisdom passed down as religion and to be taken dogmatic. You yourself create theories by analyzing why your own work works. If you take a step back and look at what your favorite, or your audiences favorite, routines and comparing them you might be able to gleam some piece of wisdom from them. Your creations are not just random events. They are the way they are due to the pressure of natural selection with your audience serving the role of death. If the crowd doesn't like it, your acts die. With experience you will be able to see why your material is working and what it is in each act that makes that work. Is it what you say, how you say it, the way you use your face, the way you interact with the Crowd, all this knowledge is the building blocks of your own theories. The theories only you can perfect, the theory of what made you a great Showman. Polish your talent and your theories.

Don't just do, think about what you do. This makes the Crowd think.

Hustlers, Hoaxsters, Pranksters, Jokesters and Ricky Jay

Any magician worth his salt is a little bit on the sideline, not in the main stream. And you bring him in when you want to be entertained or you want to be healed or helped but you are not going to consort with him on a daily basis. He is a little bit to strange and too scary. 

Bob Neale

"Hustlers, Hoaxsters, Pranksters, Jokesters and Ricky Jay" is a documentary about a Master Showman. A prestidigitator of world class. He is a gentleman, showman and scholar. A performance historian author of such inimitable tomes as Learned Pigs and Fireproof Woman and Cards as Weapons as well as Jay's Journal of Anomalies.  

He does a few tricks, others talk about his skills and knowledge in awed and glowing terms, including Steve Martin. Simply another forgettable 'TV spot' style film. But the documentary travels this familiar path until somewhere into the second half, when it suddenly asks the question of what type of person might be a magician.

And bam, it tugs aside the curtain and gives you a peak behind the facade, behind the showmanship. A momentary glimpse into precisely the type of person that Ricky Jay is. And it ain't pretty.

It is closer to the end than half way and its dark and strange... Yet strangely compelling and beautifully intriguing.

Alan Moore an Illuminated Showman

Alan Moor is a comic book writer. Amongst his most famous are Watchmen, V for Vendetta and the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.  I was watching the documentary The Mindscape of Alan Moore and as he spoke I found myself amazed at how similar our thinking was. He truly is an Illuminated Showman. He too believes that what artists (showmen) does originated in the Shaman, he to believe that we can do real magic, he believes... Just read it for yourselves.
The below quote from the movie summarizes so many of my views it is scary. In the doco he talks about how there comes a time when the world is ripe for a new idea. Like when the steam engine was invented several people came up with it within a few weeks. Perhaps this is one of those. Perhaps we read the same books. Perhaps we both struggle with acceptance of art forms that all too easily are dismissed as "mere entertainment." Read on Illuminated friends and fellow travelers of the Way the words below are spoken by a true Master Showman.

You have to be very careful with what you say because if you suddenly declare yourself a magician, without any knowledge of what that entitles, you might wake up and find that is exactly what you are.

There is some confusion as to what Magic actually is. I think this can be cleared up if we look at the very earliest descriptions of Magic. Magic, in its earliest form is often referred to as "The Art." I believe this is completely literal. I believe that Magick is art, and the art, whether that is writing, music, sculpture or any other form is literally Magic. Art is, like Magic, the science of manipulating symbols, words or images, to achieve changes in consciousness.
The very language of Magic seems to be talking as much about writing or art as of supernatural events. A Grimoir for example the book of spells is just a fancy way of saying grammar. Indeed to cast a spell is simply to spell, to manipulate words to change peoples consciousness. I believe this is why an artist or writer is the closest thing in the contemporary world to a shaman.

I believe that all culture must have arisen from cult. Originally all the facets of our culture whether they be in the art or science were the province of the shaman. The fact that in present times this magical power have degenerated to the level of cheap entertainment and manipulation is a tragedy. At the moment the people who are using shamanism and Magic to shape our culture are advertisers. Rather than to trying to wise people up their shamanism is used as an opiate to tranquielize people. To make people more manipulable. Their magic box of tv and by words and by jingles they can make people all over the world to think the same banal words and thoughts all at exactly the same time.

In all of magic there is an incredibly large linguistic component. The Bardic tradition of magick would place a Bard as being much higher and more fearsome than a magician. A magician might curse you and theat might make you hens lay funny, or you might have a child born with a clump foot. If a bard were to place, not a curse upon, but a satire upon you then that could destroy you. If it was a clever satire it might not just destroy you in the eyes of your associates, it would destroy you in the eyes of your family, it would destroy you in your own eyes. If it was a finely worded and clever satire, that might survive and be remembered for decades, even centuries, then years after you were dead people still might be reading it and laughing at you and your wretchedness and absurdity.

Writers and people who had command of words were respected and feared as people who manipulated Magic. In latter times I think the artist and writers have allowed themselves to be sold down the river, they have accepted the prevailing belief that art and writing are merely forms of entertainment, they are not seen as transformative forces that can change a human being, that can change a society. They are seen as simple entertainment. Things with which we can fill twenty minutes half an hour while we are waiting to die.

It is not the job of the artists to give the audience what they want. If the audience knew what they needed then they wouldn't be the audience, they would be the artists. It is the job Artists to give the audience what they need.

Alan Moore

In 1993, on his fortieth birthday, Moore openly declared his dedication to being a ceremonial magician, something he saw as "a logical end step to my career as a writer".[40] According to a 2001 interview, his inspiration for doing this came when he was writing From Hell in the early 1990s, a book containing much Freemasonic and occult symbolism: "One word balloon in From Hell completely hijacked my life… A character says something like, 'The one place gods inarguably exist is in the human mind'. After I wrote that, I realised I'd accidentally made a true statement, and now I'd have to rearrange my entire life around it. The only thing that seemed to really be appropriate was to become a magician."[58]

Wikipedia

A clip from a BBC interview with this unique voice of magic and Illuminated Showmanship, Alan Moore.

The Mindscape of Alan Moore (the movie link above) is a 2003 feature documentary which chronicles the life and work of Alan Moore, author of several acclaimed graphic novels, including From Hell, Watchmen and V for Vendetta.

The Mindscape of Alan Moore is Shadowsnake's first completed feature project, part One of the Shamanautical / 5 Elements series. It is the directorial debut of DeZ Vylenz. It is the only feature film production on which Alan Moore has collaborated, with permission to use his work.

Alan Moore presents the story of his development as an artist, starting with his childhood and working through to his comics career and impact on that medium, and his emerging interest in magic.

Austin Kleon - Steal Like an Artist

I have previously blogged a post with the title steal like an artist, and this title was artistically stolen from Austin Kleon, the guy in the talk below.
Kleon is an interesting dude, with ideas I very much concur with. In the clip he describes one of his own "original" ideas: What he calls Newspaper Blackout... Someone then tells him that his idea actually was someone elses. Austin Kleon then traces the history of his "Original" idea back almost 300 years.
The ideas he talks about are also similar to what I wrote about in my post about Originality. I find it refreshing to hear someone talk about inspiration/stealing like this. It will cure any one suffering from writers block or show-material-constipation.

Where do you get your ideas? The honest artist answer is I steal them. How does an artist look at the world. Well, first you figure out what's worth stealing and then you move on to the next thing.

There's an economic theory out there that says: if you average the wages of your five closest friends you will be close to your own. The same is true for ideas. You are only as good as the stuff you surround yourself with.

If you try to devour the history of what you do in one sitting you're going to choke. So I think the best thing to do is to start chewing on one thinker you really love. Completely saturate yourself with their work, find out everything there is to know about their work. Then you find three thinkers that influenced your favorite thinker and find out everything you can about them. And repeat that as many times as you can. Build your own family tree and climb it as far up as you can. And once you have a family tree it is time to start your own branch. Seeing yourself as part of a lineage makes you feel less alone.

Austin Kleon.

So go on, read books, watch films of all the best artists and get those creative juices flowing. Go forth and surround yourself with all the best stuff and steal, transform and make your own fusion of all the art you love.

If you like his ideas, his art and his approach to creativity there is a longer and slightly more detailed talk here.

the Trick that fooled Houdini

Dai Vernon aka the Professor.

I have recently become the father to a little girl and that has taken over my life to such an extent that I rarely find time to blog and when I do it is posts of a shorter nature.
With my short attention span I have found my interest in magic rekindled, and of late particularly card magic. It is all leading towards my next show which in my head currently has the title: Captain Frodo's Real Magic.
Parts of my research will be appearing and has already graced the pages of this Illuminated Blog.

Houdini Fooled 

"In 1922, Harry Houdini was the most famous magician in the world. The forty-eight year old Houdini was so confident in his knowledge of magic that he had an open challenge to all fellow magicians - 'show me any trick three times in a row and I'll be able to tell you how you did it.' At the Great Northern Hotel in Chicago, Dai Vernon took the great Houdini up on his challenge. But Vernon would not repeat his trick three times in a row - Dai Vernon repeated it SEVEN TIMES and Houdini could not get it!

The trick Dai Vernon chose to fool Houdini with was his own version of the classic ambitious card routine, so named because the spectator's chosen card always wants to get to the top of the deck. Vernon had Houdini choose a card and then sign the chosen card with his initials 'HH'. Houdini returned his card to middle of the deck and, with a snap of Vernon's fingers, it magically appeared on the top. Houdini was astounded and Vernon repeated the trick. And then again, for the third time. 'You must have a dupilcate card!' Houdini guesses, Vernon calmly points outs: 'With your initials, Harry?' Houdini then suggests that Vernon must have used a well-known mentalist's device. But Vernon points out that Houdini's initials are written in ink. 'They make them in ink now!' Houdini splutters but no magician in the room has ever heard of these devices using ink. 'Harry you are fooled!' cries Sam Margules, a Magic Show producer and former assistant of the Whirlwind Illusionist , Horace Goldin."

http://www.mental-magic.com

Tommy Wonder.

Below is a clip of the dutch Master Magician Tommy Wonder performing the trick know today as the Ambitious Card Routine, but apparantly it has also been called the trick that fooled Houdini. Regardless of what it is called this performance stands out as an absolute triumph. It has been said that every magician has their own version of this trick, but it is my belief and experience that it rarely if ever gets a reaction like Tommy Wonder gets, and even more seldom a well deserved standing ovation.
It is a perfect illustration of the old dictum: It is not what you do but how you do it that matters.
 

Below is a video that came up whilst I was searching for the video above. It is not the Ambitious card Routine but either way it is a nice story to a sweet and very clean trick.

Lennart Green

Lennart Green doctor turned card magician.

Green's act [is] an heroic display of skill masked by well feigned clumsiness. 

Alex Stone, Fooling Houdini.

In 1998 a fumbling swedish doctor arrive on the international magic scene as he took the stage in the close up competition of the FISM or world championship of magic. As Lennart Green began his act he seemed like a likely candidate for disqualification due to lack of training, but as he continued he stumped the judges. The esteemed master magicians judging him became convinced that Lennart was using a trick deck, since there was no other way that he could have done the unbelievable things he did. SO in the end they did disqualify him, not for incompetence but for cheating the magicians.
As it was Lennart hadn't used a trick deck. He had instead been practicing and developing an entire new method for handling cards that would completely alter what magicians believed what could be done with a deck of card.
At the next FISM Lennart Green entered again, performed pretty much the same act, and won.
Here he is. Enjoy.

Inventing The Impossible

I have previously posted about Marco Tempest and his inclusion of modern technology in his magic performances. In the video below he give a little insight into his philosophy on creating magic effects and how they cross over with technology.
To start it off he reminds us of Arthur C Clarke's third law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

And goes on to describe how people like Robert Houdin and others also tread this line in the golden age of magic.

Magic is a unique tool for previsualizing the future. Magicians show their audiences what it would be like to fly, read minds, have super powers, teleport, disappear and reappear. Magicians are prototyping the future every day.

Marco Tempest

The final illusion he performs is picked straight out of David Brin's latest book Existence. Glasses that can be worn and that shows you a digitally enhanced world. It gives you a map overlay, a yellow brick road, if you will, leading you straight to where you are going or even telling you who the people are that passes you. This is a technology which is currently being developed by google, (check a teaser here) but with magic we can see glimpses of the future now. It might still be crude, but so was the first brick sized mobile phone i had in 1994.

Steve Martin Funny Man

This guy was a real Showman, still is in some ways, but here we see him doing our kind of material. In a time when there were no avenue for his work he carved it out on the folk music scene. All respects, and what a demon on the banjo.

"I don't have to leave.
I lied."

The Art of Tommy Cooper

Tommy Cooper, master of fumbling and rambling magic. This is a great little documentary about a large child.

Tommy Cooper was a national comedy institution whose catchphrases still remain in the language today. This bumbling giant with outsized feet and hands, whose mere entrance on stage had audiences erupting with uncontrollable laughter, was born in Caerphilly in 1921.
This programme looks at the life and art of the man in the fez, whose clumsy, fumbling stage magic tricks hid a real talent as a magician. His private life was complicated and often difficult, but as far as his audiences were concerned, he was first and foremost a clown whose confusion with the mechanisms of everyday life made for hilarious viewing.

BBC2

 

Dai Vernon: The Spirit Of Magic

Dai Vernon is to magic what James Joyce was to the novel and Einstein to physics.

Max Maven

This is a documentary about the 'Professor' a huge influence of modern magic. Its a bit of a warts and all look at the obsession of a Showman with his Craft.

When Cliff Green, asked Vernon, "What kind of magic do you do?" Vernon responded by asking the boy to name a card. Upon pulling a pack of cards from his pocket, Vernon turned over the top card of the deck to reveal the named card and replied to the speechless Green, "That's the kind of magic I do. What kind of magic do you do?"

{Wiki}

Limbless Magicians

This card trick, known as Oil and Water, is a piece of card magic which is irritatingly simple yet ingenious. As you watch the magician mix red and black cards in what must be the most straight forward and revealing way possible only to still leave you baffled as the magician reveals that the cards are separate again, three reds and three blacks separated like oil and water.

I believe I saw Rene Lavand for the first time as a guest on the Paul Daniels Magic Show and he did this routine. I was amazed, so amazed infact that even though I had recorded the program on a VHS tape and watched it hundreds of times before I noticed that Lavand only had One Arm. When I finally noticed I loved it even more.

Then just the other day I discovered, through the Deceptology blog, a magician named Mahdi Gilbert which has no hands. Here he is performing the same trick as above.

a New World

-->

1

First there was language.

We expressed truth.

As we saw it.

As it was.

Who was there?

What happened?

- When.

Then there were stories

We expressed other truths.

As we saw it.

As it was -

Imagined in our minds,

Shaped by us,

Not just the world.

More exciting.

More meaningful.

Greater explanations.

Old stories improved by telling.

Reshaped by Crowd reactions.

The teller’s thoughts coloured it.

The hero emerged

No longer just a man

Something more,

So much more.

Without stories

Diverging from the true,

Without the first fictions

There was no religion.

2

A cave.

A fire.

A Shaman stands.

The others look up.

He waits for attention

Eyes meets eyes,

the flickering light

Attention

changes the space.

Quiet.

Nothing

His mouth opens

The beginning: The word.

A 'real' mind reader...

Dave is an extremely gifted clairvoyant who finds out specific financial information.

Mysteries of Magic

The Impossible made Possible

This is a great documentary series from 1997 directed by Mel Morpeth. It features magic luminaries like Penn and Teller and this series was apparently the first time the ever silent Teller publicly let himself be interviewed. I particularly like the first and last of the episodes. The first is on the history of magic, the second on illusions and the third and last is about death defying stunts.

The Learning Channel is known for its informative programs, and the Mysteries of Magic series is no exception. The first DVD in the trio, The Masters of Mystery, takes the viewer on a magical journey from the campfires of ancient tribes to the bright neon lights of Las Vegas and delivers a concise history of illusionists throughout history. Featuring interviews with top magicians of today (such as Lance Burton, Eugene Burger, and Jeff McBride), The Masters of Mystery uncovers the origins of the many modern tricks that still make audiences wonder "How did they do that?" Beginning with the magicians of ancient Egypt who translated age-old beliefs into physical acts of illusion, the DVD offers us a glimpse into the religious ceremonies that gave early magic makers their first platform for performance.
Using clips from modern television specials, the disc provides a definitive history of the classic "Cups and Balls" routine, possibly the oldest magic trick ever recorded. We are also educated about the book The Discovery of Witchcraft, written by a magician to expose the tricks of the trade in order to save many wizards of the time from being burned at the stake.
Technically, the DVD doesn't offer much. In fact, the greatest trick involved may be getting the disc out of the box it comes in--and the menu selection is a bit lacking in extras. The content, however, provides plenty of insight into the medium without revealing any secrets. --Zachary Lively

The old theory that magical illusions are all done with smoke and mirrors is proven in The Impossible Made Possible. This episode of the Learning Channel's Mysteries of Magic series explores the origins of some of magic's most intriguing illusions.

Beginning with the 1790s multimedia show phantasmagoria--a performance using a simple magic lantern and wall projections--the documentary provides insight into the early special effects that made magicians legendary. Peppered with interview segments conducted with many modern artists, the DVD shows us how magicians of the past harnessed the powers of sound, light, optical illusions, and even narcotics to bewilder their audiences.
The program also features the "Allied Arts," which are illusions such as fire-eating and -breathing, and a clip from an old Laurel and Hardy film spotlighting the funny and engaging performance of a regurgitationist. There are marvelous and entrancing automatons, tricks from the early days of electricity, and finally, the invention that eventually brought the death of the music hall performer: motion pictures.
Aside from a simple scene-access menu and a brief summation of the factoids behind the production of the program, the DVD has little to offer technically. It is the content, however, that makes the disc truly magical. --Zachary Lively

Part three of the Mysteries of Magic series examines the fearless magicians who risk their lives for their art and to entertain the audience. Features the sword basket, guillotine, and cannonball escape tricks. ~ Heather M. Fierst, Rovi

In this final episode we get to hear the history of one of the most famous illusions of all time the 'sawing a lady in half', including footage of Richiardi's infamous most gory and grotesque version.

Creating Art FOR the Crowd

--> ..."the reason she'd never heard of me was because I was famous." 

Neil Stephenson, writer and honorary Showman.

{from an online interview (slashdot) with the author Neal Stephenson. It touches on the intersection between art and entertainment, writers as Showmen and about Showman/writer and Crowd. It is about what Stephenson calls Beowulf writers writing not for church or wealthy patrons but directly for the Crowd and masses. He speaks up for Illuminated Showmen everywhere by giving a fiery defense of creating art for the masses. He refuses the word Commercial artist and calls them Beowulf artists...}

[A] while back, I went to a writers' conference. I was making chitchat with another writer, a critically acclaimed literary novelist who taught at a university. She had never heard of me. After we'd exchanged a bit of of small talk, she asked me "And where do you teach?" just as naturally as one Slashdotter would ask another "And which distro do you use?"

I was taken aback. "I don't teach anywhere," I said.

Her turn to be taken aback. "Then what do you do?"

"I'm...a writer," I said. Which admittedly was a stupid thing to say, since she already knew that. 

"Yes, but what do you do?"

I couldn't think of how to answer the question---I'd already answered it!

"You can't make a living out of being a writer, so how do you make money?" she tried.

"From...being a writer," I stammered.

At this point she finally got it, and her whole affect changed. She wasn't snobbish about it. But it was obvious that, in her mind, the sort of writer who actually made a living from it was an entirely different creature from the sort she generally associated with.

And once I got over the excruciating awkwardness of this conversation, I began to think she was right in thinking so. One way to classify artists is by to whom they are accountable.

Dante holding his most famous book.

The great artists of the Italian Renaissance were accountable to wealthy entities who became their patrons or gave them commissions. In many cases there was no other way to arrange it. There is only one Sistine Chapel. Not just anyone could walk in and start daubing paint on the ceiling. Someone had to be the gatekeeper---to hire an artist and give him a set of more or less restrictive limits within which he was allowed to be creative. So the artist was, in the end, accountable to the Church. The Church's goal was to build a magnificent structure that would stand there forever and provide inspiration to the Christians who walked into it, and they had to make sure that Michelangelo would carry out his work accordingly.

Similar arrangements were made by writers. After Dante was banished from Florence he found a patron in the Prince of Verona, for example. And if you look at many old books of the Baroque period you find the opening pages filled with florid expressions of gratitude from the authors to their patrons. It's the same as in a modern book when it says "this work was supported by a grant from the XYZ Foundation."

Nowadays we have different ways of supporting artists. Some painters, for example, make a living selling their work to wealthy collectors. In other cases, musicians or artists will find appointments at universities or other cultural institutions. But in both such cases there is a kind of accountability at work.

A wealthy art collector who pays a lot of money for a painting does not like to see his money evaporate. He wants to feel some confidence that if he or an heir decides to sell the painting later, they'll be able to get an amount of money that is at least in the same ballpark. But that price is going to be set by the market---it depends on the perceived value of the painting in the art world. And that in turn is a function of how the artist is esteemed by critics and by other collectors. So art criticism does two things at once: it's culture, but it's also economics.

There is also a kind of accountability in the case of, say, a composer who has a faculty job at a university. The trustees of the university have got a fiduciary responsibility not to throw away money. It's not the same as hiring a laborer in factory, whose output can be easily reduced to dollars and cents. Rather, the trustees have to justify the composer's salary by pointing to intangibles. And one of those intangibles is the degree of respect accorded that composer by critics, musicians, and other experts in the field: how often his works are performed by symphony orchestras, for example.

Beowulf

Accountability in the writing profession has been bifurcated for many centuries. I already mentioned that Dante and other writers were supported by patrons at least as far back as the Renaissance. But I doubt that Beowulf was written on commission. Probably there was a collection of legends and tales that had been passed along in an oral tradition---which is just a fancy way of saying that lots of people liked those stories and wanted to hear them told. And at some point perhaps there was an especially well-liked storyteller who pulled a few such tales together and fashioned them into the what we now know as Beowulf. Maybe there was a king or other wealthy patron who then caused the tale to be written down by a scribe. But I doubt it was created at the behest of a king. It was created at the behest of lots and lots of intoxicated Frisians sitting around the fire wanting to hear a yarn. And there was no grand purpose behind its creation, as there was with the painting of the Sistine Chapel.

The novel is a very new form of art. It was unthinkable until the invention of printing and impractical until a significant fraction of the population became literate. But when the conditions were right, it suddenly became huge. The great serialized novelists of the 19th Century were like rock stars or movie stars. The printing press and the apparatus of publishing had given these creators a means to bypass traditional arbiters and gatekeepers of culture and connect directly to a mass audience. And the economics worked out such that they didn't need to land a commission or find a patron in order to put bread on the table. The creators of those novels were therefore able to have a connection with a mass audience and a livelihood fundamentally different from other types of artists.

Nowadays, rock stars and movie stars are making all the money. But the publishing industry still works for some lucky novelists who find a way to establish a connection with a readership sufficiently large to put bread on their tables. It's conventional to refer to these as "commercial" novelists, but I hate that term, so I'm going to call them Beowulf writers.

But this is not true for a great many other writers who are every bit as talented and worthy of finding readers. And so, in addition, we have got an alternate system that makes it possible for those writers to pursue their careers and make their voices heard. Just as Renaissance princes supported writers like Dante because they felt it was the right thing to do, there are many affluent persons in modern society who, by making donations to cultural institutions like universities, support all sorts of artists, including writers. Usually they are called "literary" as opposed to "commercial" but I hate that term too, so I'm going to call them Dante writers. And this is what I mean when I speak of a bifurcated system.

Like all tricks for dividing people into two groups, this is simplistic, and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. But there is a cultural difference between these two types of writers, rooted in to whom they are accountable, and it explains what MosesJones is complaining about. Beowulf writers and Dante writers appear to have the same job, but in fact there is a quite radical difference between them---hence the odd conversation that I had with my fellow author at the writer's conference. Because she'd never heard of me, she made the quite reasonable assumption that I was a Dante writer---one so new or obscure that she'd never seen me mentioned in a journal of literary criticism, and never bumped into me at a conference. Therefore, I couldn't be making any money at it. Therefore, I was most likely teaching somewhere. All perfectly logical. In order to set her straight, I had to let her know that the reason she'd never heard of me was because I was famous.

All of this places someone like me in critical limbo. As everyone knows, there are literary critics, and journals that publish their work, and I imagine they have the same dual role as art critics. That is, they are engaging in intellectual discourse for its own sake. But they are also performing an economic function by making judgments. These judgments, taken collectively, eventually determine who's deemed worthy of receiving fellowships, teaching appointments, etc.

The relationship between that critical apparatus and Beowulf writers is famously awkward and leads to all sorts of peculiar misunderstandings. Occasionally I'll take a hit from a critic for being somehow arrogant or egomaniacal, which is difficult to understand from my point of view sitting here and just trying to write about whatever I find interesting. To begin with, it's not clear why they think I'm any more arrogant than anyone else who writes a book and actually expects that someone's going to read it. Secondly, I don't understand why they think that this is relevant enough to rate mention in a review. After all, if I'm going to eat at a restaurant, I don't care about the chef's personality flaws---I just want to eat good food. I was slagged for entitling my latest book "The System of the World" by one critic who found that title arrogant. That criticism is simply wrong; the critic has completely misunderstood why I chose that title. Why on earth would anyone think it was arrogant? Well, on the Dante side of the bifurcation it's implicit that authority comes from the top down, and you need to get in the habit of deferring to people who are older and grander than you. In that world, apparently one must never select a grand-sounding title for one's book until one has reached Nobel Prize status. But on my side, if I'm trying to write a book about a bunch of historical figures who were consciously trying to understand and invent the System of the World, then this is an obvious choice for the title of the book. The same argument, I believe, explains why the accusation of having a big ego is considered relevant for inclusion in a book review. Considering the economic function of these reviews (explained above) it is worth pointing out which writers are and are not suited for participating in the somewhat hierarchical and political community of Dante writers. Egomaniacs would only create trouble.

Mind you, much of the authority and seniority in that world is benevolent, or at least well-intentioned. If you are trying to become a writer by taking expensive classes in that subject, you want your teacher to know more about it than you and to behave like a teacher. And so you might hear advice along the lines of "I don't think you're ready to tackle Y yet, you need to spend a few more years honing your skills with X" and the like. All perfectly reasonable. But people on the Beowulf side may never have taken a writing class in their life. They just tend to lunge at whatever looks interesting to them, write whatever they please, and let the chips fall where they may. So we may seem not merely arrogant, but completely unhinged. It reminds me somewhat of the split between Christians and Faeries depicted in Susannah Clarke's wonderful book "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell." The faeries do whatever they want and strike the Christians (humans) as ludicrously irresponsible and "barely sane." They don't seem to deserve or appreciate their freedom.

...

Later at the writer's conference, I introduced myself to someone who was responsible for organizing it, and she looked at me keenly and said, "Ah, yes, you're the one who's going to bring in our males 18-32." And sure enough, when we got to the venue, there were the males 18-32, looking quite out of place compared to the baseline lit-festival crowd. They stood at long lines at the microphones and asked me one question after another while ignoring the Dante writers sitting at the table with me. Some of the males 18-32 were so out of place that they seemed to have warped in from the Land of Faerie, and had the organizers wondering whether they should summon the police. But in the end they were more or less reasonable people who just wanted to talk about books and were as mystified by the literary people as the literary people were by them. "

  It is well worth clicking over to Slashdot and read the full interview.

Penn and Teller in India

This is an episode from Penn and Teller's mini series called Magic and Mystery tour. There are so many things that are great about this show that I just urge you to check it out.
The journey they take as magicians to meet fellow crafts men living in rather simple ways is very interesting. They set out to discover the Indian Rope trick but the show is much more than that. It's a respectful look at street magicians in India. To put the two intrepid suit wearing magicians in touch with the apparently lowly caste of gypsies to which the street magicians belong they have the author of the superb study of Indian Street Magic; the Net of Magic by Lee Siegel.

It is a beautiful and insightful look at the history and origin of Magic by two of my favorite magicians. Enjoy.

The quest for the Indian Rope Trick

The Great Escape

 This is a nice interview with Yours Truly, which also is the first to mention the Illuminated Showman blog by name. Thanks to The Music.

TheMusic.com.au

THE GREAT ESCAPE
Paul Ransom has always wondered where a contortionist’s bendy spine may take them. He finally gets to ask La Soiree’s Captain Frodo.
Whenever anyone says ‘contortionist’ the first thing that springs to mind is, well, y’know, I mean, do they, would they? Have you? The man on the other end of the line laughs and teasingly responds, “It’s best left to the imagination. I do make a comment about that and do a quick demonstration during my tennis act, so…“

The contortionist in question is Captain Frodo, a Norwegian-born, Melbourne-based blogger, philosopher and bendy showman. As part of the record-busting nu-circ juggernaut that is La Soiree, Frodo has shoved himself through tennis racket heads and travelled the world.

“It is a pretty obscure thing,” he admits of his incredible, double-jointed career. As the child of a professional magician though, a life on the stage was always likely. “I guess every kid thinks their dad can do everything, but my dad kinda could; producing candies at parties and all that sorta stuff,” he recalls. “So yeah, I wanted to be in the show even before I even really knew what that was. I just knew that you went out on stage and stood around for a while. Only later I realised you actually had to do something.”

Encouraged by his father, the young Frodo developed his own magic act based around torn up newspapers. However, before long a developing Houdini obsession led him to contortionism. “I just wanted to do an escape act,” he explains. “Before that I hadn’t been aware of the full range I had with my shoulders and so the first performance I did that was contortion-based was an escape from a straightjacket my dad ordered from America. It was only later I realised that some of that stuff I was doing inside the jacket was actually more exciting than the escape.”

If it all sounds like a vaudevillian throwback, perhaps it is. As Captain Frodo would have it, “I can’t help but see a similarity to the ‘20s, the golden days of circus and the Depression that came afterwards.”

Either way, the astounding success of La Soiree shows no sign of abating. Having already broken Opera House records and had their Melbourne Festival season blow out past six weeks, the burlesque cabaret circus continues to connect with audiences. According to Frodo, it’s because it’s more real. “You don’t have to suspend your disbelief like you do in a theatre. It’s very visceral,” he argues. “Perhaps in hard times people can enjoy the freedom that you see in the show. Y’know, it’s like anything’s possible.”

As an erstwhile philosophy student (and creator of The Illuminated Showman blog), Frodo clearly thinks deeply about being on stage. “Finding myself in an occupation that, when people first hear what you do, they go, ‘But do you have a real job?’ I wanted to demonstrate that what we do is actually as deep or as shallow as you make it.”

Flanked by fellow freaks such as David ‘Bath Boy’ O’Mer, Mario: Queen Of The Circus and lycra diva Le Gateau Chocolat, Frodo is in no doubt about the undiluted power of real entertainment. “With the world becoming more digital, people realise, ‘Ah, that’s how it feels’. Y’know, you sit there, the lights go down and master showmen give you the most polished ten minutes of their life and it’s an experience that happens now.“

WHAT: La Soiree
WHEN & WHERE: Until Thursday 29 November (extended season), Forum

Paul Ransom