Perspectives on Magic: Scientific Views on Theatrical Magic

7/24/2019 Perspectives on Magic: Scientific Views on Theatrical Magic

1/162


2/162

Perspectives on Magic

Scientific Views on Theatrical Magic

Peter Prevos

ThirdHemisphere

Publishing


3/162

c Peter Prevos (2013)

Third Hemisphere Publishing, Kangaroo Flat, Australia

thirdhemisphere.net

This work is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution-ShareAlike3.0

Australia License. You are free to Shareto copy, distribute and transmit the

work under the following conditions:

b Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author

(but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

a Share Alike: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may

distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

ISBN 978-0-9875669-1-1 Paperback

ISBN 978-0-9875669-2-8 eBook

Typeset in LATEX

Edited by Marissa Van Uden MarissaVu.com

Cover design by Pair of Aces Design PairOfAcesDesigns.com

Cover photo Vincent Giordano Dreamstime.com


4/162

Contents

Preface v

WHY THIS BOOK?

Acknowledgements x

WHO HELPED ME WRITE THIS BOOK?

1 Introduction 1

WHAT IS MAGIC?

2 The Science of Magic 12

HOW DOES MAGIC RELATE TO SCIENCE?

3 The Art of Magic 23

IS MAGIC A PERFORMANCE ART?

4 Magic Networks 37

WHAT IS IT LIKE TO BE A MAGICIAN?

iii


5/162

iv

5 The History of Magic 54

WHAT ROLE DID MAGICIANS PLAY IN THE PAST ?

6 The Power of Magic 70

WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL USE OF CONJURING?

7 The Magic of Teaching 81

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM MAGIC TRICKS?

8 The Deception of Magic 97

HOW CAN WE BE SO EASILY BE DECEIVED?

9 The Future of Magic 112

WILL MAGIC BECOME OBSOLETE?

10 Epilogue 124

WHAT IS THE SCIENCE OF MAGIC?

Bibliography 134

www.magicperspectives.net


6/162

Preface

WHY THIS BOOK?

For as long as I can remember, performing magic has been a part

of my life. To be more precise, I am an occasional conjurer and

use sleight-of-hand and other forms of deception to feign being areal magician. I started adding magic to my life as a schoolboy in

the Netherlands. I devoured books from the local library, collected

magic sets from the toy shop, and constantly attempted to amaze

friends and family. My passion for magic was unrelenting in those

early years, and I showed magic tricks to anyone who was interested

and, in my enthusiasm, also to those who were not. I performedin many local talent contests and at family birthday parties and even

some paid performances. Magic was, however, not the career I chose

to follow.

After completing an engineering degree I took on a job that al-

lowed me to travel to exotic places where communication was of-

ten complicated by language barriers. In those situations, magictricks and balloon animals were the perfect tool to overcome these

barriers and make instant friends. Soon after I started my career

I achieved my personal goals in engineering and began a degree

v


7/162

Why this book? vi

in philosophy to study the mysteries of existence. Because of all

the serious thought involved with this study, I became disillusioned

with the triviality of magic. I was no longer able to see the meaning

of conjuring beyond the mundane trickery and clichs employed by

magicians.

Much of magic has a look at me aspect, and it can be an

egocentric performance art. In retrospect, I was disillusioned be-

cause at that time I did not have sufficient insight to move beyond

the stereotypes. As such, I replaced my passion for magic with a

passion for philosophy and completed a degree in this subject. It

was only years later that I realised that my interest in philosophy

was actually strongly related to my interest in magic, and that magic

is an inherently philosophical performance art. I read some books on

the history of magic which described the connection between magic

tricks and divination and other esoteric practices. I began to realise

that the ancient shaman, the tribal philosopher, was also a conjurer,

a master of sleight-of-hand.

A magic performance is in essence a theatrical experience that

challenges reality as we know it, which is an inherent philosoph-

ical quality. Magic challenges the mind in a way that no other

performance art can. My passion was rekindled when I discovered

the works of Jay Sankey, Tommy Wonder, Eugene Burger and Jeff

McBride, some of the magicians that inspired me the most. Their

work displays a passion and a philosophical understanding of the-

atrical magic that takes it beyond mere trickery. Reading their books

and watching their videos renewed my enthusiasm for this quaint

performance art.

I still occasionally perform magic shows, but now my main in-

terest in magic stems from what it can teach us about ourselves and

about the world around us. My passion for academic research has



8/162

Why this book? vii

never waned, and at the time of completing this book I am a PhD

candidate at La Trobe University in Melbourne, researching organ-

isational culture and customer service. Being a graduate student

provides me access to the ivory tower of academia and its immense

knowledge networks. During my research I discovered an article by

professors Terence Krell and Joseph Dobson from Western Illinois

University, advocating the use of magic tricks to teach theories of

organisational behaviour. This started me on a quest to establish an

annotated bibliography of scientific and professional literature re-

lated to conjuring. To my pleasant surprise I uncovered a vast num-

ber of journal articles and scholarly books that discussed magic from

many different perspectives. Studying magic scientifically started at

the end of the nineteenth century with psychology experiments. The

last few decades there has been a renaissance of scholarly research

into magic, with publications in many different fields of science.

The idea to write this book came to me when I discovered that

anyone not formally associated with academia can be charged more

than thirty dollars to purchase a short article from an academic jour-

nal. This places access to much academic knowledge outside the

reach of most people. It is unfortunate that the collective knowledge

of the world is locked up behind ironclad copyright contracts and

is not available freely to the taxpayers who funded much of this

research. Another motivation to write this book is that science is

sometimes just as esoteric as magic. Scientific knowledge is of-

ten shrouded in an obscure language that is only comprehensible to

those initiated in its traditions, and each field of science is a subcul-

ture with its own language and methods. The main purpose of this

book is to unlock the literature on theatrical magic to non-scientists

who are interested in this ancient performance art. My objective in

writing this book is to show that theatrical magic has much to offer



9/162

Why this book? viii

beyond frivolous entertainment. This book is an attempt to unlock

the professional and scientific literature on conjuring for those with

an interest in deceptive theatre.

In order to provide a broad understanding of the art of conjuring,

this book contains the collective musings of a wide range of pro-

fessionals and academics, including teachers, psychologists, occu-

pational therapists, mathematicians, and sociologists. Magic tricks

are used by health care professionals to aid them in rehabilitation

programs, by teachers to illustrate principles of science, and by psy-

chologists to better understand how the mind works. Magic research

also provides a unique perspective on cultural history, and in recent

years there has been a steady stream of scholarly works interpreting

the role of magicians in society. Studying this extensive collection of

literature about magic has uncovered many interesting insights into

magic, its past, present and possible future as a performance art.

Given the variety of scientific subjects covered in these pages,

this book is also an enquiry into the nature of science itself. The re-

search described in this book shows that there is no such thing as the

science of magic but that artful deception can be investigated from

many diverse angles of human enquiry, ranging from the humanities

and psychology to software engineering and nursing. My journey

through the wide variety of literature available on this subject taught

me that only a multidisciplinary study can provide a meaningful

understanding of a social phenomenon such as magic. Each field

of intellectual endeavour provides a unique perspective on magic as

an art form, as a psychological curiosity or as a means to achieve

practical goals beyond entertainment.

In contrast to most other books about magic, this book does not

contain any descriptions of how to perform magic tricks. There are

no explanations of new moves to make a card change from black



10/162

Why this book? ix

to red, no sleights to make a coin disappear, like is usually the case

in books about magic. One chapter is dedicated to why magic tricks

work, but not discuss any details on howthey work. This book has

been written for both experienced magicians and people with only

a passive interest in magic. My aim is to provide magicians with

a deeper understanding of their craft and to inspire them to keep

evolving the performance of magic. For people with only a passive

interest in magic, this books aims to provide insights into a quaint

performance art that is generally surrounded in secrecy and muffled

by clichs, without breaking the magicians code.

Magic and science have in common that they both are driven

by questions. The inherent nature of scientific research means that

with every answer many new questions arise. It is my hope that this

anthology of the existing literature on the science of conjuring will

raise new questions and spawn further research into this fascinating

performance art.

Peter Prevos, Kangaroo Flat, May 2013.



11/162

Acknowledgements

WHO HELPED ME WRITE THIS BOOK?

This project has taken me almost four years to complete and would

have been impossible to publish this book without the help of oth-

ers. I owe a gratitude to the many scholars in different fields thathave taken the effort to publish papers and books on a niche subject

such as theatrical magic. I also need to acknowledge the many

anonymous subjects of experiments conducted by psychologists and

occupational therapists. They are the unsung heroes of some of the

research described in this book.

My magician friends from Melbourne and overseas have beenvery supportive during this long project, and although many may

have wondered whether this book would ever be published, their

continued interest is what sustained my motivation to keep working

on this book. Thanks to Tom Stevens for his permission to use

one of his Facebook updates. Also, a special mention for Alex

de la Rambelje, who gave me invaluable feedback on my thoughtsabout magic and let me use his university thesis on the theatrical

aspects of magic performance. The invaluable feedback provided

by magicians Nicholas, The Honest Con Man, Johnson, Gary Co-

x


12/162

Who helped me write this book? xi

hen and Brendan Croft, all from Melbourne, and Tony Barnhart, a

cognitive scientist and magician from Phoenix, and Fritz (with a Z)

from Amsterdam, kept me motivated to continue working on this

project. Also a word of thanks to my wife Sue, who was so kind

to proofread the text and had to endure conversations with me from

behind a laptop screen.

This book was edited by Marissa van Uden, my secret weapon

in completing this project. It is only through her insightful feedback

and critical reading of my drafts that I was able to transition an oth-

erwise tedious annotated bibliography into a readable book. Lastly,

my thanks to Susan Hobbs of Pair of Aces Design for her patience

with me in designing the cover for this book and the artwork for the

associated website.



13/162

Chapter 1

Introduction

WHAT IS MAGIC?

The magician introduces three cups and three balls. Using a magic

wand, he commands the balls to dematerialise from his bare hands

and rematerialise under the cups. The balls seem possessed by super-

natural powers as they appear, disappear and penetrate solid matter

at the mere whim of the magician. This supernatural choreography

ends with pieces of fruit appearing under the cups where the ballsonce were. The spectators applaud after witnessing this ancient

miracle. Although they are impressed and entertained, a nagging

thought lingers in their minds: How did he do it?

Among the spectators is a group of university colleagues who

reflect on what they just experienced. They enjoyed the show as

much as everyone else, but they have very different questions thanthe rest of the audience. The psychologist wonders how it is possible

that his mind was so easily deceived by the performer. How can it be

that we are tricked to be seeing something that contradicts our com-

1


14/162

What is magic? 2

mon sense view of the world? The psychologists friend, a professor

in humanities also enjoyed the show. She wonders how the fruit

appeared under the cups, but also ponders the cultural significance

of magic and the reasons it has remained popular for millennia and

across different cultures. Her husband, who works as an occupa-

tional therapist at the local hospital, is also an amateur magician.

He contemplates the incredible hand-eye coordination and muscle

control required to perform the trick he just saw, and he wonders

if magic tricks could be used in occupational therapy. Meanwhile,

another magician sitting in the back of the room has a very differ-

ent perspective. Although she is fully aware of how the performer

directed the attention of the spectators and used sleight-of-hand to

create the illusion of magic, she was nevertheless impressed and en-

tertained by the performance, in particular by the flawless execution

of the Vernon Wand Spin and other technical manoeuvres. She is

even more impressed by how the performer was able to hold the

spectators attention with his beautifully executed choreography and

enthralling presentation.

This anecdote illustrates how the performance of magic tricks can

have very different meanings to different spectators, depending on

their personal perspective. It also shows that the question ofhow

a magic trick is done and what specific techniques have been used

to create illusions is only one of many questions that may be raised

in the minds of the audience during a magic performance. In the

following chapters, we will explore the many facets of conjuring

and discuss the many questions raised by scientists and professionals

from diverse areas of expertise. But before we can delve into their

research, we need to define what it is that magicians actually do and

review the different interpretations of what constitutes magic.



15/162

What is magic? 3

The relationship between magic and science is a complex one.

On the one hand they are considered each others opposites, while

on the other hand they can be seen as stages in a continuum of human

knowledge. The word magic is usually reserved for anything that

contradicts what we consider to be the laws of nature. Some adopt

a less confrontational view and think that the difference between

magic and science is related to a lack of knowledge. This confusion

is as least partly created because the word magic can be used in

different ways. The meanings of words, especially those ingrained

in the cultural fabric of society, evolve as the values that underpin the

culture change. Magic is, in the words of philosopher Walter Gal-

lie, anessentially contested concept: terms that describe a complex

aspect of humanity (such as culture and religion), that are laden

with value and whose meanings can be debated at length without a

final definition ever being agreed upon.

There are three ways of looking at essentially contested concepts

such as magic. The dogmatic view places magic in diametrical

opposition to science. A belief in magic is usually seen as a rejection

of science and vice versa, thinking scientifically as a rejection of

magic. This is the view of many scientists who use the term magical

thinking to refer to theories that are contrary to the principles of sci-

entific thinking, such as astrology and homoeopathy. In thesceptical

point of view, no claim to truth is made, and magic and science are

seen as equally subjective personal perspectives. It should be noted

that the philosophical use of the word scepticism in this context is

different to that used by the many sceptic societies. In philosophical

scepticism, all claims to truth are considered equally invalid, both

magical and scientific. The popular sceptic societies, such as the

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry or the Skeptics Society, are not

philosophically sceptical as they only question paranormal theories



16/162

What is magic? 4

and assume the primacy of science. However, neither the dogmatic

view nor the sceptical view is insightful regarding the relationship

between magic and science. Both lead to either diametrically op-

posed views, where one side aims to annihilate the other, or to ni-

hilistic views devoid of all meaning. Gallies third option, an eclectic

view of magic, gives credence to both magic and science as valid

aspects of the human experience and as ways to make sense of the

world. In this interpretation, magic and science dont compete with

each other but are complementary world views. The eclectic view is

more productive because using value judgements for either science

or magic prevents a full understanding of magic as a phenomenon

of human culture. Magic has always been an integral part of human

culture; it still plays an important role and will, despite advances

in science, continue to do so in the future. What is perceived to be

either magical or scientific will, however, change continuously along

with cultural perspectives.

The discourse on science versus magic is complicated by the fact

that the word magic itself is deceptive. This simple word can be

used to describe different aspects of the human experience. The

word magic can refer to either the theatrical illusion of magic or

supernatural magic. The often paraphrased definition of a theatrical

magician by the nineteenth-century French conjuring legend Jean

Eugne Robert-Houdin illustrates this duplicity: A magician is an

actor playing the role of a magician. This quote has been cited

by numerous magicians to remind themselves that showmanship is

tantamount in a good magic act. However, if it wasnt for the double

meaning of the word magic, this sentence would be a tautology:

a statement that explains nothing. It would be like saying that a

scientist is an actor playing a scientist. The magician seems to be

both a pretender and a real magician, both the deceiving conjurer and



17/162

What is magic? 5

the powerful wizard. A more precise version of Robert-Houdins

definition can be found in an 1877 translation of the phrase by En-

glish magician Professor Hoffman: A conjurer is not a juggler; he

is an actor playing the part of a magician. Before the eighteenth

century, before science became the dominant source of knowledge

in Western culture, the word magic was reserved for the dark arts

or witchcraft. The terms juggling or legerdemain were used to

describe the performing of innocent conjuring tricks by entertainers

pretending to be magicians. As the belief in the metaphysical foun-

dations of magic began to wane, so did the distinction between su-

pernatural and theatrical magic, until eventually the words juggling

and legerdemain faded from the English language, with respect

to references to magic. The more specific terms, such as conjur-

ing, legerdemain and sleight-of-hand are still used in theatrical

magic circles, but rarely used in common language. The distinction

between the entertainer and the true magician has, however, been

maintained in other European languages. For example, the Dutch

word goochelaar, which has the same origin as the word juggler,

is used specifically for a person pretending to be a magician to en-

tertain people. The English language is unfortunately burdened with

using the same term for wholly different concepts.

The contemporary uses of the word magicreferring to either

theatrical conjuring or supernatural magicare quite distinct from

each other, and the proponents of each type of magic form their

own subcultures. Theatrical conjurers tend to meet in magic clubs

and share their secrets through conventions, books and more re-

cently through video and on-demand Internet videos. The believers

in supernatural magic also enjoy meeting regularly to share infor-

mation. Modern day witches organise themselves in covens and

their community has spawned a cottage industry of instant spells,



18/162

What is magic? 6

instruction books and courses on how to control your life through

these forces. Although both subcultures are based on the idea of

magic, they are quite distinct from each other. One major difference

is that conjurers tend to be sceptical of supernatural explanations.

Research conducted by Peter Nardi, emeritus professor of sociology

and regular author on conjuring-related matters (not to be confused

with a magician of the same name) showed that magic performers

are more sceptical about the existence of magical phenomena than

the general public, and by extension even more sceptical than those

who follow New Age beliefs.

If a conjurer is an actor playing the part of a magician, then

what is it that magicians claim to actually do? Attempts to define

magic in strict terms have not been very successful, and there exists

a myriad of theories explaining what magic is. According to the

anthropological view a belief in magic is the belief that supernatural

forces can be invoked by a qualified person (such as a shaman or

magician) through the power of spoken words or the appropriate

actions, usually performed as part of a ritual. Magic in this sense

contrasts with scientific theories. Science is deeply rooted in the

philosophy of cause and effect and focuses on material causes that

eventuate without interference of the scientist. Science is an imper-

sonal and passive philosophy, while magic is based on active human

interaction with metaphysical powers. It is in this aspect that magic

and science seem diametrically opposed.

An alternative view was proposed by English science-fiction wri-

ter Arthur C. Clarke, who considers magic and science as parts along

the same continuum of human experience. He expressed this suc-

cinctly in his Third Law of Prediction, which states that Any suf-

ficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In

Clarkes interpretation, the demarcation between magic and science



19/162

What is magic? 7

is not a fixed point; rather, it moves depending on the level of sci-

entific knowledge of the person experiencing the magic. The Third

Law carries in it a presumption that magic will be increasingly eclip-

sed by science as the level of knowledge about the universe in-

creases. All magic is, in this sense, reduced to science that has

not yet been made intelligible. For example, appliances that are

commonplace in a contemporary house, such as a vacuum cleaner

or microwave, would most certainly seem magical to a housewife

of the nineteenth century. The Third Law portrays an optimistic

view of science in the sense that it will progress towards a complete

explanation of the world around us. However, Clarke is wrong to

place magic and science along the same continuum. Magic is not

in opposition with science or an extension of science, because they

both seek answers to different questions. Supernatural magic is a

belief system that aims to provide answers to questions related to

themeaningof things, while science is a system of knowledge that

seeks to explain things, their origins, functions and so on. Magic

provides an answer to the question why?, while science provides

explanations and answers to the question how? Science and magic

are, as such, not incompatible with each other but complementary

aspects of the human experience.

The position one might take in the discourse of magic versus

science does not actually matter. Magic, as a supernatural occur-

rence, might or might not exist factually, it most certainly exists in

a cultural sense. For those with a belief in magic it is a vehicle to

provide meaning to their lives. The key to understanding magic as a

human phenomenon is neither to explain magic as an alternative to

science nor to discount it as irrational nonsense, but to understand it

as an integral phenomenon of human existence. By viewing magic

as a normal part of human culture instead of a physical phenomenon



20/162

What is magic? 8

that needs to be explained, we can form a much richer understanding

of social reality. Magic provides the hope that the unrelenting and

unpredictable forces of the natural world can be overcome. In this

sense magic shares a purpose with science and technology, in that

their purpose is also to make the world more understandable and

controllable.

Besides the duplicitous meaning of the word magic as either a

supernatural occurrence or a form of entertainment, the word is also

used for something that causes astonishment, even when obviously

caused by explainable physical processes. Magician Paul Harris sees

astonishment as our natural state of mind; he associates it with a

childs mind-set in which there is little knowledge of the world and

everything is magical. This mind-set is the reason that performing

magic tricks for children below four years of age is difficult: they

do not perceive the presented reality as special because, to them, the

whole world is already magical.

The word magic is often used in advertising to communicate

that a product has properties beyond what can normally be expected.

Numerous gadgets, such as self-inflating balloons, cloths with aston-

ishing absorption rates and numerous others, are called magic by

marketers because they possess properties that appear miraculous.

A search in the American trademark register reveals thousands of

entries that use the word magic. For example, a company produc-

ing herbal nutritional supplements uses the name Jungle Magic

to communicate the idea that their herbs have properties beyond the

regular garden herbs, and a series of cooking appliances sell under

the name of Cook Magic. Using the word magic in the branding

of products and services taps directly into the human desire for a

magical world where mundane activities can be undertaken almost



21/162

What is magic? 9

effortlessly. Just as primal cultures believe magic can help to ensure

a bountiful hunt, modern day marketers use magic in their hunt for

new consumers.

Another range of products in this category are magic toys de-

signed around natural processes that seem magical to the casual

observer. For example, levitating rings that use magnetic repulsion

to defy gravity, or a set of concave mirrors that creates the illusion

of a coin that is so realistic people try to pick it up. English physics

teacher David Featonby laments this use of the word magic in these

cases. He writes that it hides the fact that these so-called magical

toys are based on known principles of physics: Take the mystery

out of physics, but leave the wonder, is his advice. Featonby dis-

tinguishes between two types of magic: the first is sleight-of-hand

and trickery, or conjuring; the second is hidden science, which relies

on the audience having no full grasp of the science involved. Given

that most people are not aware of the science behind the illusions

or do not experience similar effects in their daily livesthe toys are

considered magical because they cause astonishment. For practising

magicians, however, there is no difference between these two types

of magic: both sleight-of-hand and hidden science are considered

valid methods of creating the illusion of magic.

The final way the word magic can be used is to describe the

quality of an experience. Watching films or plays or walking in

a forest can be a magical experience, meaning that these expe-

riences have an ephemeral quality, a feeling that only poets can

reconstruct in words. Magicians may try to invoke this feeling in

their audience through their theatrical performance. For example,

Australian magician Raymond Crowe creates a mesmerising display

of shadows on a projection screen using nothing but his hands and

a spotlight. Although no deception is used to hide the method by



22/162

What is magic? 10

which the shadows are created, the audience often describe seeing

his performance as a magical experience. He also uses mime

to enhance the magical illusions that he crafts on stage. Crowe

masterfully manipulates a ball to create the illusion that it is floating

while never really letting go of the ball with his hand. Through his

performance, Crowe emphasises the narrative of a floating ball that

tries to escape from him, not the impossibility of the method. Crowe,

who calls himself an unusualist instead of a magician, expressed

the magical nature of his art in a lecture to a group of magicians in

Las Vegas: The older I get, the more I like magic that is not a trick.

Magicians use the word magic in all four of the previously described

interpretations: to describe their performance art as well as to in-

dicate the supernatural world they are simulating. Magicians not

only create the illusion of magic in the supernatural sense of the

word but also create a sense of astonishment through their theatrical

performance and provide audiences with experiences that have a

magical quality. In this book the words magic and conjuring are

used interchangeably in the context of theatrical magic, which is the

craft of creating illusions. Theatrical magic is the performance art

which blurs the boundaries between magic and science. Although

spectators are most often placed in the frame of the scientist and ask

themselveshowthe magic is performed, as a performance art magic

has the ability to shift those questions towhyit is possible that they

have occurred.

The following chapters of this book cover the work done by the

many scholars who have written about theatrical magic in an attempt

to better understand magic as a performance art itself and how the

performance of magic tricks helps us understand human behaviour.

The essence of science is asking questions, and in this book some of



23/162

What is magic? 11

the answers to the questions that can be asked about theatrical magic

are described. Is magic a performance art or simply a playful form of

deception? What is it like to be a magician? What role did magicians

play in society of the past? What is the practical purpose of magic

and what can we learn from magic tricks? And, the question most

often asked by scientists, how it is possible that we can be so easily

deceived?

The answers to these questions not only provide a range of per-

spectives on magic, they also provide an insight into the diversity of

the sciences. This books shows that there is no such thing as the sci-

ence of magic. There is no single science of magic but rather various

scientific perspectives on magic, and these perspectives leave many

questions still left unanswered. The final question asked in this book

is about the future of magic itself. Will magic slowly disappear as

technology renders all miracles common, as predicted by Clarkes

Third Law of Prediction, or will there always be a role for people

who are able to entertain through artful deception?



24/162

Chapter 2

The Science of Magic

HOW DOES MAGIC RELATE TO SCIENCE?

The foundation of all science is to ask questions of the reality around

us and of ourselves. Because of the inherent complexity of the nat-

ural environment and of the human mind, a wide range of different

sciences exist, each asking their own questions and each using their

own specific methods to find answers.

The fields of endeavour most often portrayed as being represen-tative of science itself are the physical sciencesmost importantly

physics, chemistry and earth sciences. Physics and chemistry are,

on one hand, in stark contrast with what magicians aim to achieve,

while on the other hand magicians thankfully exploit the gaps be-

tween the audiences knowledge and scientific knowledge to create

the illusion of magic. The relationship between magic and the dif-ferent fields of science is bidirectional. Magicians use the principles

of the natural sciences, linguistics, psychology and formal sciences

as methods to create the illusion of supernatural magic and schol-

12


25/162

How does magic relate to science? 13

ars in these fields study theatrical magic as a phenomenon. Many

self-working magic tricks are based on principles of chemistry or

physics, and, in mentalism, information theory can be used to create

the illusion of miracles such as clairvoyance or telepathy. In sleight-

of-hand magic, illusions are created by exploiting the psychological

peculiarities of how we perceive the world. Because the words a ma-

gician uses can subtly alter the perception of the spectator, linguistics

is also important, especially in mentalism, which is essentially magic

with information. Magicians also use the engineering principles of

the applied sciences to construct self-working mechanical tricks and

grand illusions performed on the large stage.

Magicians also regularly rely on the formal sciences, such as

mathematics and information science, to perform magic tricks. The

formal sciences have no subject in themselves and bind all other

sciences together as almost all sciences rely on mathematics. The

subject of mathematics is not about physical things in reality, but

abstract concepts such as numbers, geometric shapes and computer

algorithms. It is in this way that mathematics can be considered

magical and mysterious. In the early days of mathematics, geomet-

rical knowledge was guarded as an esoteric secret and was known

only to the initiated. Even today, mathematics and conjuring are still

closely intertwined as many magic tricks rely on the principles of

mathematics.

What scientific research and magic shows have in common is

that the spectator of a magic show is akin to a scientist observing

a natural phenomenon. Both scientists and spectators are observing

something that they dont understand. However, a spectator does

not have access to a laboratory with the necessary tools to uncover

the truth, like a scientist would. The magician presents an alternative

version of reality in which the known laws of physics can apparently



26/162


be broken at his will, but spectators must observe passively, without

being able to investigate everything in detail. Spectators consciously

know they are being fooled and will instinctively seek out the true

cause of what they experience. Their subconscious mind will cre-

ate causes for what the spectator sees, even if those causes appear

magical. The magician, as the prime-mover of his own temporary

universe, has a home-ground advantage over the spectators and can

direct the spectators observation, preventing them from extracting

the truth from their perceptions. The relationship between a scientist

and the phenomena she studies is very different to that between a

spectator and a magic trick. Nature cannot deceive scientists in the

way a magician deceives audiences. Scientists force the truth from

reality by interrogating it with complicated equipment and sophisti-

cated techniques, a privilege the spectators of a magic show do not

have.

Magic and science are, from a methodological perspective, each

others opposites. While magic relies on secrets and deception, sci-

ence relies on transparency and open communication. Scientists are

keen to explain their latest findings to the public to obtain recog-

nition, whereas magicians thrive on secrecy and mystery and hide

their knowledge from public view. Hiding the real physical causes

creates the illusion that supernatural magic is at play because, even

though the audience does not rationally believe in the supernatural,

the magician has removed all other logical options. For example,

there are logically only three ways in which the illusion of levitating

somebody can be achieved: either the person is resting on some-

thing, is hanging on something, or is propelled by an upward force.

It is the task of the magician to make all three possible explana-

tions seem implausible to the audience. This is usually achieved

by using a hoop or similar prop to emphasise that the suspension



27/162


is fully independent of any supports or wires. Given the current

state of science, using an upward force is not plausible as a method

because technology to cause objects that are heavier than air to fly

are extremely noisy. The audiences minds are convinced by the

theatrical rhetoric of the magician that none of the three possible

methods are used, even though these are logically the only solutions

available. A fine example of this is the flying illusion as performed

by David Copperfield. His illusion is theatrically beautiful because

it is as close as possible to our own experiences of flying in our

dreams. Copperfield subtly reminds us in different ways that the

use of supports or wires cannot be the method used to fly across the

stage, leaving the audience in a state of pure astonishment.

Magic and science also have a lot in common: magicians and

scientists share both a curiosity about the world around us and a

desire to untangle its many secrets. Albert Einstein, the archetypi-

cal scientist, is quoted as saying, the most beautiful thing we can

experience is the mysteriousit is the source of all true art and

science. It is in the reverence of the mysteries of nature that magic

and science find each other. Scientists force an answer from nature

by using the scientific method and freely share the outcomes of their

work with others. Magicians also have an understanding of the

physical world and the mind, but rather than using this knowledge to

explain how reality works, magicians use it to distort reality and do

not share their knowledge with the audience.

Before the mid-eighteenth century, the performance of magic was

heavily steeped in the occult. Magicians presented themselves as

heirs of the ancient traditions of sorcery, alchemy, and divination.

They performed in mystical outfits, mumbled magical invocations

and related their performances to a belief in supernatural magic.



28/162


After the scientific ideals of the Age of Reason began to take hold

and industrialisation spread across Europe, Robert-Houdin reinven-

ted the magic show and changed it from a fringe activity that was

viewed with suspicion to a middle-class form of entertainment. He

based his magic shows on science instead of the occult and ever

since Robert-Houdin, the large majority of magicians have distanced

themselves from their occult roots. Magicians began to embed their

performances in a scientific aura instead of referring to mystical

occurrences, which evolved into the abstracted type of magic we

know today.

Robert-Houdin was one of the first to abandon the mysterious

sorcerer outfit of the past and replaced it with a fashionable gen-

tlemans suit. He portrayed the image of an entrepreneur of the

industrial age, and was a magician for a new scientific age. He wrote

that in order to be a good magician, it is necessary to have studied

the physical sciences, such as chemistry, mechanics and electricity.

Many of his tricks were based on his knowledge of science and

technology and he presented these feats as scientific demonstrations.

However, unlike a scientist, Robert-Houdin did not share his knowl-

edge with the audience. In 1856, after he had retired as a performer,

Robert-Houdin was asked by the French colonial government to

perform for some of the leaders of the Arab tribes in Algeria. Magic

was one of the problems colonising nations had to face when trying

to pacify the exotic cultures. The Marabouts, religious and spiritual

leaders of Algeria, were perceived by the locals to possess magic

powers. The French, who perceived this as a threat to their authority,

invited Robert-Houdin to help them neutralise the Marabouts influ-

ence by staging a magic competition. For this performance, Robert-

Houdin did not portray himself as a man of science as he would

do in Paris; instead, he compared himself with the local traditional



29/162


magicians. In one of his tricks, he humiliated a strong Arab by invit-

ing him to pick up a box that was held down by an electromagnetic

charge, and later humiliated the volunteer further by giving him an

electric shock. His performance was enough to convince Marabout

magicians that the French occupiers were more powerful than them,

thereby thwarting colonial unrest.

The event did actually take place, but the details are lost in time.

The political nature of the performance set-aside, the story is deeply

symbolic for the self-image of European magicians at that time.

In his writings, Robert-Houdin portrays the Marabouts as primi-

tive tricksters who were not able to compete with the science-based

magic he and his contemporaries performed in Paris. His story has

the structure of a traditional mythological story in which an archety-

pal conflict between scientific civilisation and magical beliefs is fought

out. This performance can also be interpreted as a symbol of Robert-

Houdin reckoning with the past, demonstrating that magic has moved

away from the esoteric and into the enlightened age of science.

With the popularity of the shows by Robert-Houdin, embed-

ding a magic show in the principles of science became increasingly

popular. Robert-Houdin himself presented a trick in which his son

seemed to defy the laws of gravity as a demonstration of the pow-

ers of ether as he claimed that inhaling these vapours would make

somebody as light as a balloon. Magicians in the nineteenth century

often adorned themselves with the title of professor, not only to

provide themselves with an aura of respectability but also to indi-

cate that their performances were a demonstration of the miracles of

the natural world instead of the supernatural. They showcased an

ambiguous distinction between magic and science, claiming to use

scientific principles while simultaneously performing magic tricks

that seemingly contradicted the known laws of nature. Magic and



30/162


science were closely intertwined in their performances. Magicians

of that age talked of wonderful chemistry, of recreational mathemat-

ics, and amusing physics in one instance, and of thought transfer-

ence, communication with spirits, and levitation in the next.

In contemporary magic shows, magic and science are still often

intertwined. German magician Thomas Fraps performs a show in

which regular magic tricks are used to demonstrate the principles

of science. For example, Fraps uses a the classical cut-and-restored

rope trick to demonstrate the principles of molecular biology: he

uses genetic scissors to snip out mutated genes and then magi-

cally restore the rope. On the reverse, science can also be used

to demonstrate magic. Many physics teachers perform scientific

experiments that at first instance seem like magic to their students.

Main difference between using magic tricks to demonstrate science

on the stage and presenting science as magic in the classroom is

that in an educational setting the secret of the magic trick has to be

revealed.

One controversial branch of science that has a close relationship with

magic is parapsychology, which is the scientific study of supernat-

ural phenomena. Parapsychology is where the battle lines between

science and magic are most sharply drawn. In this specialised branch

of psychology, researchers investigate the existence of supernatural

occurrences such as mind reading, remote viewing and extrasensory

perception. The term parapsychology was coined by Max Dessoir,

one of the first psychologists with an interest in magic tricks.

Magicians and mentalists have long been actively involved in

exposing fraud psychics who claim to possess supernatural powers.

Magicians play a key role in the many sceptic societies around the

world and regularly assist scientists who are investigating supernatu-



31/162


ral claims to ensure the scientists are not deceived by the subject. To

have magicians in attendance during parapsychology experiments is

only a recent phenomenon; in the past, scientists were often deceived

into believing that a subject possessed supernatural abilities. Men-

talists can be so convincing that they fool even scientists who are

trained in critical thinking to believe that they have real supernatural

powers.

Feigning psychic abilities is frowned upon by conjurers, and

there is a long tradition of magicians (most famously, Harry Houdini

in the early twentieth century) exposing fraud mediums. Magicians

enjoy playing this role because, as previously mentioned, they tend

to have a lower level of belief in supernatural phenomena than the

general population does. In contemporary times, American magi-

cian James Randi is the driving force behind this movement. In

the early 1980s, he orchestrated an elaborate hoax named Project

Alpha to show that it is possible to deceive scientists into believ-

ing that supernatural powers exist. The project was mimicked a

deception perpetrated by Uri Geller some years earlier where he

managed to convince a group of distinguished scientists that he pos-

sessed real supernatural powers. Geller was so convincing that the

deceived scientists even published their results in the 1974 edition

of the prestigious scientific journal Nature. In his re-enactment of

this earlier episode, James Randi managed to covertly place two

young amateur magiciansSteve Shaw (who now has a career as

mentalist Banachek) and Michael Edwardsinto a parapsychology

laboratory. The two successfully performed many spoon bending

experiments and were able to convince the attending parapsycholo-

gists that they had psychokinetic powers. The magicians found that

it was very easy to deceive the scientists because they did not follow

strict protocols. Shaw and Edwards employed basic misdirection



32/162


techniques used by magicians. They would drop one spoons in their

lap and bend it below the table with one hand, while simulating to

psychokinetically bend a spoon in their other hand. The two became

well known for their believed abilities in parapsychology circles,

until Randi decided to reveal the true identity of the purported psy-

chics. The revelation of their perpetration sent shock waves through

the parapsychology community because the researchers believed by

them to be genuine psychics. There was so much publicity about

the deception by the magicians that the McDonnell Lab was even-

tually closed. Since Project Alpha it is considered good practice

for researchers of paranormal phenomena to enlist the help of an

experienced magician to be able to rule out the use of deception to

fake psychic powers.

The art of conjuring is practised by an estimated half a million peo-

ple around the world. Most magicians that actively perform are

amateurs or semi-professionals that are otherwise also engaged as

lawyers, occupational therapists, psychologists, computer scientists,

teachers and so on. Most of the works referenced in this book were

written by such scientists and professionals from many otherwise

unrelated fields of science, who share an interest in theatrical magic.

The word science is usually reserved for the natural sciences, but

the scientific work on conjuring presented in this book shows that

science is a much broader concept that deals with the full spectrum

of human experience and the natural world. To fully understand a

complex phenomenon such as magic, a range of perspectives be-

yond the natural sciences need to be included in the review. The art

of conjuring has been studied by scientists and professionals from

three different domains: social sciences, the applied sciences and

psychology, each providing their own perspective.



33/162


The largest field of study with links to theatrical magic are the

social sciences. The social sciences, sometimes also called the hu-

manities or behavioural sciences, studies everything people do or

believe. While the objective of the natural and social sciences is to

explain the world around us, the objective of the social sciences is

to understand the social world. This understanding is an inherent

subjective state of mind and seeks to find the meaning of actions

from the actors point of view. Scholars in the social sciences are not

necessarily seeking for a final answer to their questions, but are en-

gaged in an ongoing narrative to improve our understanding. From

the perspective of the social sciences, a wide variety of questions

can be asked of conjuring: Why are there more male than female

magicians? What was the cultural significance of the popularity of

magic at the end of the nineteenth century? Is magic entertainment

or a performance art? The social sciences cover a wide-ranging field

of studies that can help answer these questions. Most important to

conjuring are performance studies and cultural history, which re-

searches the act of performing magic shows in the present and in the

past. Researchers in film theory, linguistics and gender studies have

also published their ideas of theatrical magic. The social sciences

place the performance of magic in its historical or contemporary

context. The answers provided by scholars in humanities can thus

help us understand both society itself and the role magicians play

within it.

In the applied sciences, such as health care and teaching, the

fruits of labour of the natural scientists, formal scientists and social

scientists are used to improve peoples lives. Engineers use the

theories of physics to build bridges or manufacture computers, and

health care professionals implement the latest findings in biology

to improve our health, and so on. It is in these fields of human



34/162


endeavour that magic fulfils a practical role. The health sciences are

a fertile field for magicians to participate in, especially in occupa-

tional therapy where magic tricks are used to assist with improving

peoples abilities and self-esteem. Magic tricks are also used in

psychotherapy and as a means to reduce anxiety in children who

must undergo medical treatment. Another applied science where

magic can help professionals perform their tasks is teaching. Many

magic tricks are based on the principles of physics, chemistry or

mathematics, which makes magic a perfect tool for playfully illus-

trating the abstract concepts of these sciences.

Research into the psychology of magic is as old as the science

of psychology itself. Pioneers in this field, such as Alfred Binet,

recognised already in the nineteenth century that studying the tricks

performed by magicians could teach us about how the mind works.

Magicians have extensive experience with using the weaknesses of

our perception mechanisms to create illusions. Research on the

psychology of magic is currently a very active field and a plethora of

journal articles has been published in recent years. In psychology,

the main question being asked is how our brains can be so easily

deceived into perceiving something that is not true. Studying both

magicians and more importantly the reactions of their audiences pro-

vides an insight into how the human brain processes information and

help us better understand how we experience the world in general.



35/162

Chapter 3

The Art of Magic

IS MAGIC A PERFORMANCE ART?

Theatrical magic is the art of pretending to perform supernatural

magic and, thus, is a form of theatre. The performer is not showing

a simple demonstration of supernatural powers, but a theatrical in-

terpretation of what a real magician could be like. Interesting aspect

of a magic performance is that the audience knows they are being

deceived. No ethical boundaries are, however, crossed because of anunwritten and often unspoken social contract between the spectators

and performers. The audience is prepared to momentarily believe in

the portrayal in front of them and willingly suspends disbelief for

the duration of the performance.

Suspension of disbelief is a central concept in theatre and film

and occurs when the audience is enticed to postpone judgement con-cerning the implausibility of what is presented. We suspend our

disbelief when watching a film or stage play so that we can avoid

thinking about what is actually happening and immerse ourselves in

23


36/162

Is magic a performance art? 24

the story. This suspension of our credulity is only temporary and

as soon as the curtain closes or the silver screen goes dark, we are

snapped back to normality. In science fiction literature, the term

cognitive estrangement is sometimes used to describe the psycho-

logical process of accepting a story as reality. As in magic, science

fiction presents a world in which the impossible seems possible:

people drive flying cars or travel through time, objects levitate, and

people can predict the future. Cognitive estrangement involves using

the audiences lack of knowledge to promote their suspension of

disbelief. In science fiction, this lack of knowledge is often created

by the fact that the scientific advances or technological wonders

presented do not yet exist. Magic, as a form of storytelling art, is

very much aligned with science fiction. In magic, the asymmetry

in knowledge between the spectator and the magician is also central

to the art, and secrecy is its main currency. The magicians knows

the secrets and is the only person that knows what will happen next.

The spectators are left in a continuous state of not-knowing, which

moves the balance of power securely with the magician and as such

provides a platform for deception.

One form of magic where a genuine suspension of disbelief is

still possible is mentalism. This is a form of magic in which the

performer appears to demonstrate extraordinary mental or intuitive

abilities, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and so on.

Mentalism is essentially performing magic by enacting impossibil-

ities such as mind reading, metal bending or clairvoyance. The

science of the brain is not as advanced as the science of the physical

world, and, as expressed by Clarkes Third Law of Prediction, there

is ample opportunity for spectators to believe that mentalism could

be real supernatural magic. Many people are prepared to believe that

Uri Geller can actually bend metal with his mind or that John Ed-



37/162


ward can actually communicate with deceased people. Some believe

so strongly in the existence of the paranormal that they proclaim

that English mentalist Derren Brown actually possesses supernatural

powers, even though he openly admits to being a magician and using

deception.

Cinema is a form of art that has a lot in common with magic.

Cinema is an inherently deceptive art. Both in magic and cinema, the

viewer is deceived into temporarily believing something is occurring

that, in reality, is not. The deception created by magicians is explicit

as the inherent purpose of conjuring is the transcendence of what we

know about physical reality. In cinema, the deception is implicit and

occurs in three layers. Firstly, our brain is tricked into interpreting

the continuous stream of still pictures as a moving image. Secondly,

relying on the principles of ventriloquism, the mind is tricked into

thinking the sounds emanating from the speakers are actually com-

ing out of the actors mouths. And lastly, audiences suspend their

disbelief and embrace the idea that they are watching real people in

a real world.

The magician and the film director have similar problems to

solve: both seek to create an alternate reality that the spectator can

temporarily believe to be real, both seek to create a high level of

believability, and both aim for the spectator to suspend disbelief and

accept the narrative presented as real. Given the social contract be-

tween spectators and magicians, which acknowledges that deception

will be used, nobody truly believes that the performer has genuine

magical powers. The audience knows that subterfuge and deceit

will be used to create the illusion of magic. This is also the case

with cinema: viewers are consciously aware that they are sitting in a

theatre watching a two-dimensional screen, but they are conditioned

to suspend disbelief in order to immerse themselves in the story.



38/162


No matter how similar magic and cinema are in their deceptive

aimwhich is to create a temporary reality that seems plausible

these two forms of performance art are separated by distinct dif-

ferences. The major difference is that audiences watching a magic

show continuously ask themselves the question How is it done?,

while visitors of a cinema are more likely to wonder What happens

next?. However, this difference did not exist in the early days of

cinema, as will be discussed in chapter five.

Magic is a form of theatre by virtue of it pretending to be a

manifestation of supernatural magic, without claiming it to be real.

Deception is not the defining feature of a magic show; other perfor-

mance arts also use deception. The defining feature of a magic show

is its ability to provide spectators with a sense of astonishment. With

magic being a form of theatre, magicians prefer to call themselves

artists in the sense that actors and musicians are considered artists.

The fact that magic is a form of theatre does, however, not imply

that it is also a performance art. Not every form of theatre can

automatically be called an art. Magic can, however, not be simply

compared with other forms of performance arts because it has some

special features not shared by other forms of theatre. In the follow-

ing pages, we will review the literature on the performance aspects

on magic and explore whether, and under which conditions, magic

can be considered a fully fledged form of art.

Now that we have characterised magic as a form of theatre, are

we then also justified in saying that magic is a performance art?

Magic has a fairly low status compared to other forms of theatre.

Jerry Seinfeld expressed it in his usual observant manner in his book

Seinlanguage: What is the point of the magician? He comes on,

he fools you, you feel stupid, shows over. You never know whats



39/162


actually happened. Its like, Heres a quarter. Now its gone. Youre

a jerk.

The place of magic in performance art is highly debated among

contemporary magicians. Online magic shops such as Theory11

and Ellusionist call their magicians artists, and the influential ma-

gicians of the McBrides Magic & Mystery School aim to elevate

magic to a serious performance art. The aspirations of magicians to

become recognised as artists are not widely supported by the general

community. Bengali magician Aladin lamented the perception of

magic as a tributary of popular entertainment. In thePerformance

Research journal he writes about how he is caught up within the

stereotypes society holds about magic. Aladin struggles with his

identity as a magician and he sees the magic communitys own un-

willingness to eschew critical, theoretical or dialectical enquiry as

a major cause for its low status as a performance art.

Dramaturgical analysis of magic performances are almost ex-

clusively written by magicians themselves, with Showmanship by

Magiciansby Dariel Fitzkee and Magic and Showmanshipby Hen-

ning Nelms as often-cited examples. The academic literature on

theatre studies largely ignores magic as a performance art. Standard

reference workThe Oxford Companion to Theatre and Performance,

for example, has only one short entry on magic shows and brief

lemmas on Harry Houdini and Harry Kellar. Academic journals in

the field of performance studies are also mostly silent on the perfor-

mance of magic tricks and other types of variety performances. Aca-

demic quarterlyThe Drama Review, a journal that focuses on perfor-

mances in their social, economic and political context, has published

only a handful of articles on magic in the past four decades.

The low status of magic as a performance art has been illustrated

in a short polemic in the journal Stage Directions. Magician Jeff



40/162


Busby wrote a letter to the journal in response to an earlier statement

by theatre writer and educator John Bliss, who criticised a theatre

university graduate for working as a magician. In Busbys opinion,

this gave the impression that being a magician is beneath being an

actor. Even though Busby disagrees with Bliss, he acknowledges

that many magicians are embarrassing exemplifications of amateur-

ish copies of what is considered a minor variety act, and encourages

a change in attitudes towards magic by both magicians and theatre

professionals. Busby closes by stating that being a magician is not

necessarily merely a temporary job for an otherwise unemployed

theatre professional. Magic can be a full form of theatre. The belief

in the character of a magician epitomises, in Busbys view, what a

genuine actor in that part should be.

Theatre director and Shakespeare scholar Bernard Beckerman

takes an egalitarian view of all types of performance art and does

not distinguish between low and high art. Beckerman does not view

magic as a lowly form of entertainment and included it in his review

of all forms of theatre. In his theoretical reflections on theatre,

he includes magic as one of the three types of shows: shows of

glorification, such as parades, festivals and the like; shows of skill,

such as the circus, jugglers and acrobats; and shows of illusion,

such as drama and magic. Beckerman does not equate magic with

circus and jugglers, as is usually the case, but places it in the same

category as drama. Beckerman distinguishes between magic and

drama by the way illusions are used in performances. For example, a

ballet dancer actually extends the human limits, while the magician,

just like the actor in a drama, only pretends to extend them. He

paraphrases Tennessee Williams by saying that a stage magician

creates an illusion that has the appearance of truth, while the actor

portrays truth in the pleasant disguise of illusion.



41/162


Professor of philosophy Warren Steinkraus provided a detailed

analysis of magic as a form of theatre in a 1979 article in theJournal

of Aesthetic Education. In his article, Steinkraus places magic firmly

within the classification of minor performing arts and concludes that

a magic performance is rarely enriching, but nevertheless amuses

and evokes awe. What makes conjuring a minor form of art, accord-

ing to Steinkraus, is that it offers minimal emotional consequences.

Magic tricks do not move us; the only pervasive feelings they arouse

are surprise and wonder. In his opinion, magic is thin from an

aesthetic point of view because once one has discovered the mystery

of how a trick was created, the attraction vanishes. This is not a

recent point of view. Roman senator Seneca once wrote to his friend

Lucillius, It is the very trickery that pleases me. But show me how

the trick is done, and I have lost my interest therein.

In 1974, drama teacher and stage director Julian Olf described the

similarities and differences between magicians and other types of

performance artists. According to Olf, hiding the true method of a

performance is not unique to conjuring; it is central to all performing

arts where, unlike visual arts such as painting, the work is performed

right in front of the eyes of the spectators. We only ever see the

end result of a painting, a statue or a play and not the many failed

attempts that were part of the creation process. In performance art,

this issue is complicated because the audience is present while the

art is being created in front of them. Olf points out that there is a

double concealment in performances: actors need to conceal both

their own personalities and the effort required to achieve this decep-

tion. The craft of the magician is the ability to perform a simple

action that conceals a complex one. In effect, a magician has to play

two roles simultaneously: the part of the performance that can be



42/162


seen by the audience, and the part that is hidden from the audience.

All performance artists use control of attention and concealment to

create the required effect on the audience. Actors pretend to be

somebody they are not, dancers hide the enormous physical strain

they are under, painters create three-dimensional worlds on a two-

dimensional canvas, and magicians hide the real cause of the effects

they create. In the words of novelist Alex Miller, art bewitches us

with its tricks, its illusions, its lies, its forgeries, its sleight-of-hand.

The main difference between a regular theatre and magic is that the

overarching objective of the conjuring performance is to create a

sense of astonishment with the spectators. In other forms of theatre

the objective is to tell a story. Although deception is also used in

drama to achieve this objective, it is only a means to tell a story and

not necessarily used to create a sense of astonishment.

There exists an inherent tension in the performance of magic.

The magician seeks to create an experience of astonishment and

aims to direct attention away from the deception. The audience

is, however, naturally attracted to the deceptive aspects of the per-

formance and seeks out the method used to create the illusions.

Contemporary magicians, such as Eugene Burger and Robert Neale,

stress that the purpose of magic performances is story telling, but

the social contract between the magician and the spectator places

prime focus of the performance on deception. This social contract is

based on the fact that spectators know they are being deceived. Olf,

discusses the inherent tension between the visible and the hidden

performances of magicians, and writes that the audience is bent

on believing [the magician] in spite of themselves, and disbelieving

him because of themselves. The magician is confronted by an

audience fighting for the integrity of their perception and intellect.

Scientific research using brain scanners has confirmed Olfs deliber-



43/162


ations about a tension in the spectators mind. This research shows

that people watching magic tricks are placed into a position where

they focus on method because their brain is seeking to regain the

cognitive control that the magician removed. Olf concludes that this

tension, the cat-and-mouse game between magician and audience,

is essential to magic performances. Without it, the magician would

be unconditionally believed, and his performance would no longer

be considered theatre but a demonstration of supernatural powers.

Without this tension, a magic performance would lose one of its

most important theatrical tools. The tension of getting caught is

therefore essential to the identity of a magician as an entertainer.

It is, however, also this tension that keeps magic from being ex-

perienced as a genuine form of performance art. When magic is

performed as a challenge, the audience is too distracted by their

quest to seek out the method to be enthralled by the performance

itself. Theorists of the performance of magic such as Tommy Won-

der, Eugene Burger and Henning Nelms encourage magicians to

reduce the urge of spectators to seek out the method by focusing

on storytelling. This way, the spectators mind is drawn more to

the question on what happens next rather than to how solving the

riddle of how something was done. However, because the purpose

of a magic performance is to create a magical effect, and because

the brain is naturally inclined to try to resolve the riddle, magic can

never be a fully-fledged storytelling art. No matter how artful the

performance, the niggling question in the spectators mind is how

did he do it?

One of the aspects in which magic differs from regular theatre is

active audience participation. In a paper published in The Drama Re-

view, Susan Condos describes the act of street magician Jeff Sheri-

dan, who used to perform at the Walter Street statue in Central Park.



44/162


Condos describes how Sheridan interacts with the audience instead

of making them passive receivers of his performance. He breaks the

imaginary barrier between himself and the audience, which is known

in theatre studies as breaking the fourth wall. Generally, the distance

created by the imagined fourth wall is essential to help the audience

accept the fictional work as reality. In some instances, however, an

actor may wish to speak directly to the audience, reminding them

that they are passive observers. This technique was already used by

Shakespeare, but in drama the actors are generally pretending to be

oblivious to the fact that they are observed by a multitude of silent

spectators.

In magic, the fourth wall is often broken when spectators are

asked to assist the magician by picking a card or by lending objects

to be used as props. The spectator then becomes part of the per-

formance, which changes the dynamic of the performance. In Jeff

Sheridans silent act, he directly communicates with the audience

through mime to enhance their experience of the magic. He starts

his act immersed in his own actions, which attracts the attention

from the audience. Sheridan then moves his attention to one audi-

ence member, usually a woman, and the byplay draws the remaining

spectators further into the performance. The chosen spectator assists

with the performance by cutting some ropes, which are then artfully

restored. In this way the spectator forms an integral part of the

show. This is not a specific feature of Sheridans performance, but

is a basic technique used in almost all magic shows. In contrast to

traditional theatre, in magic breaking the fourth wall strengthens the

belief of the audience. Audience participation brings them closer

to the proceedings, which reduces suspicion of trickery, but partak-

ing in the performance actually reduces the ability of spectators to

find solutions to the deception because of the carefully controlled



45/162


circumstances. Audience participation gives the spectators a false

sense of certainty. The closer the audience is to the actions of the

magician, the easier it is for them to accept the magic as unexplain-

able. On the other hand, this closeness also has a negative effect as

it reduces the ability of magician to tell a compelling story.

One of the most detailed scholarly accounts of magic as a perfor-

mance art was written by Alex de la Rambelje, who completed a

Bachelor of Performing Arts before becoming a professional ma-

gician. In his dissertation, de la Rambeljes analyses various ap-

proaches to the performance of conjuring and distinguishes between

three different types: skill-based presentation,dramatic presentation

and theatrical-technical construction.

In theskill-based presentation, the magician emphasises the skill

required to create illusions. This performance style is comparable

to a juggling act as they both focus on virtuosity as a predominant

performance element. In this approach, magic is limited to being

a puzzle, a riddle to be solved. In thedramatic presentation, the-

atricality is increased because the magic effects are presented so

that it engages the audience in some way, usually by attaching a

meaningful narrative to the magic. This approach moves away from

the limitations of the skills-based approach, but De La Rambelje

believes that the dramatic presentation is burdened by the fact that

the magic effect and the storyline can nullify each-other, leaving

the spectator confused about what to focus on. This approach is

often used in so-called Gospel magic, where the tricks are used to

illustrate stories from the Bible. The performance is no longer about

the magic, but about the story which it tells. The theatrical-technical

constructionapproach differs from the skill-based and the dramatic

presentation in that the magician entertains not while doing magic



46/162


but with magic. This approach embraces the challenge aspect of

magic but tempers it by constantly interweaving the theatrical aspect

into the challenges. For example, the magician may react to the

tricks along with the audience. By acting just as surprised as the

audience at each magical occurrence, the magician is performing a

dramatic double act: the figure on stage is at once the agent and the

victim of the tricks, drawing even more interest from the audience.

The technical-theatrical construction type of magic is a format that

encompasses a dual awareness. The magician acknowledges that

technical skill is involved but tempts the audience into believing in

the idea of magic. The audience is constantly torn between knowing

that the magic isnt real and being seduced into the dramatic world of

the act. Within this dual awareness lies tension, a foundational tool

of theatre as a performance art. This dual awareness also creates an

intellectual tension in the mind of the audience where they get the

sense that the performer is two beings at once: a character in a play

and the technician of the tricks. In contrast, when watching a film in

which a character is dangling off a high cliff, the audience cannot be

sure how much of the fear belongs to the character and how much

belongs to the actor. Not knowing the true state of things is what

hooks the curious audience into paying attention to any performance

of magic.

Magic as a performance art often struggles to provide the aesthetic

or emotionally moving experiences that other performance arts can

achieve. An important aspect of magic as a performance art, in the

words of sociologist Robert Stebbins, is its unabashedly commer-

cial nature. Unlike other forms of performance arts, such as dance

and music, there are no formalised aesthetic ideals emanating from

the idea of magic as a pure art form. In the fine arts, such as painting,



47/162


sculpture and so on, the distinction between art and commercialisa-

tion is quite sharply drawn, but in magic there is no such distinction.

Variety artists may have trouble making a living and may suffer like

many visual artists do, but this is not due to a continuous battle

between their art and making money, as is often the case in fine

arts. Professional magicians generally have no problems changing

their performances to suit the needs of their corporate clients or

integrating logos and products into their acts to promote business.

This has, according to Stebbins, consequences for any discussion

related to magic as an art form.

Magic as a performance art provides few aesthetic or emotion-

ally moving experiences. This is at least partially caused by the

fact that magic is embedded in easily recognisable symbols, such

as rabbits and top hats. Magicians are more often than not iden-

tifiable by the clothes and props they use, with little individuality

distinguishing them. They are therefore given the generic stamp

of being a magician rather than being identified as an individual

creative artist. Most people that watch a performance will remember

that they saw a magician, but are much less likely to remember

her name. There are many developments in contemporary magic

opposing its own stereotypes and new types of presentations are

being developed beyond the top-hats and rabbits.

An absolute answer to the question of whether magic perfor-

mances are a genuine form of art cannot be given, as art is dependent

upon its context. As shown by the perspectives presented in this

chapter, the majority of magic performances are not considered art

in the same way other types of performances are. In addition, just

because somebody is an artist does not imply that they produce art

in the aesthetic sense of the word. The English language suffers in

this respect as there is no specific word to denote an artist that pro-



48/162


duces art for the sake of art or an artist performing to entertain. The

question posed in this chapter on whether magic is a performance

art should be answered positively. But as a performance art it is

limited by the stereotypes of magic, preventing it from reaching its

full potential. The question of whether magic is a performance art is

as much related

Date post:	23-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	peter-prevos
View:	230 times
Download:	1 times

Perspectives on Magic: Scientific Views on Theatrical Magic

Documents