Eh... actually street magic as a genre is not debatable, it is not a genre at all.

I think many of us would start to think there is such a thing as "street magic" after watching Blaine on TV. But after some time, we realized the thing we called "street magic" is really close-up magic, only it's done on the street. In that sense, if we do close up in the toilet, we don't call it "Toilet Magic", right? When I perform for my friends at their house, I don't call it "My Friend's House Magic".

Just to make things clear, the Street Magic we are talking about here is "David Blaine Style Street Magic".

"Genres are vague categories with no fixed boundaries, they are formed by sets of conventions, and many works cross into multiple genres by way of borrowing and recombining these conventions."

I'm not sure if genre is the right word, but there is such a thing as "Street Magic", at least in the eyes of the laypeople.

I think "Street Magic" is much more than that. If I'm on the street wearing a formal suit and performing close up tricks like using props like boxes, I don't think it'll give most people the feeling of "Street Magic".

"Street Magic" is not just about the venue. Like what I mentioned above, it is more than that. That is the reason why people don't call it "My Friend's House Magic" when you performed at their houses. I have people said that I was performing "Street Magic" when I was doing magic in their house. It is not the venue, but the "feel".

The magic community in general might not have recognise "Street Magic" as a genre. But for me, I think I should spend time trying to classify it as a genre of magic. You might ask why am I doing this? The reasons are simple. My audience like "Street Magic" Some even think "Street Magic = Real Magic".

So what is "Street Magic"? Like what you said, David Blaine is the core figure that arguably created the kind of "Street Magic" we are talking about here. He is the one that bring this idea of "Street Magic" to the laypeople. So an easy way is to just watch his performance and find what is so special about it.

Here are some things I noticed.

Clothes: He wears T shirt and Jeans most of the time. He gives people a very casual feeling.

Performance Style: He doesn’t put in much effort trying to "present a trick". He is just showing people magic. It makes his magic look unrehearsed and real.

Effects: Most of the effects he used are short, simple and high impact.

Of course there are other things that you guys might have noticed.

Toilet Magic? Why not? If I make my flush activate at will, or turn off my tap using my mind... it is toilet magic. I make things disappear down my toilet bowl everyday. If that baffles people, it's toilet magic.

It's just a matter of definition whether you want to call it close up magic or street magic. Since public perception and the use of language changes over time, so should our use of language. If we are conveying the same message and definitions with the different use of words, there is not much difference really. To the average spectator on the street, Street magic sounds more marketable then close-up magic right? Tell them you are performing street magic, they associate you with the Blaine or Criss Angel. Play on that perception and market yourself.

For $10... Some ideas

1. A deck of Cards (The most versatile)
2. A bunch of forks to bend
3. Rubber Bands Magic
4. Perform Watch magic like stop reverse time or time predictions, or TSCTW(If you have a watch)
5. Get some loops
6. Sponge balls, Coin sleights, Magic with a $10 bill (If this is your thing)
7. Loops.

Basically anything you are comfortable or familiar with.

Good choices there i must say.

TSTCW is awesome, but i think the DVD is already over 10 buckeroos though. Loops too.

Personally, i would say go buy a book with the 10 bucks and see how you can work with anything lying around the house. 10 bucks can only bring you that far if you're just buying a gimmick or a prop.

By the way, side-tracking, here's just my 2 cents about the discussion on street magic. Street Magic is really a finer division of close-up magic to me, sub-genre if i can put it that way. There's still no harm in calling it that. Just as i would define: stage- kids; stage - family, stage - adults, stage - corporate and so on. So to me, street magic is just close-up you can perform off the table, on the street, in your car, in your house, wherever you might be. Because there IS afterall a form of close-up magic that is table magic.

Yup, so to me, street magic is a sub-genre. As long as people understand which type of magic you are referring to. As to whether there's a need for such a sub-genre, it's up to personal preference.

ACE is right in saying that 'street magic' is more a feel than a actual type of magic. One would imagine that by saying this, street magic is not just magic you can do off the table. Street magic would be different from magic performed standing up, walk around type at a cocktail party.

As street magic is only a feel, there are many things can could fall under this grey area. It is therefore difficult to give Jason any sound advice as to what $10 can buy. He did not make himself clear. He may be a newbie to magic, but I don't think he has difficulties expressing himself.

What Axl is trying to say is not to debate whether street magic is a genre on itself. He is trying to advocate the fact that we magicians should not use or encourage the use of such a term within our circle. Street magic is a term for laypeople, like Ace said, and i fully agree.


Zi An

I'm just guessing that he is a newbie. And the reason why he cannot express himself clearly is because he is a newbie and don't have a clear idea on the Street Magic genre.

Imagine someone whole is totally new to movie; he goes into a DVD store and said he wanted to buy a movie DVD under the violence genre.

There might not be such a thing like "violence genre" (I have never heard of it).

The store owner will then try to explain to him that there is no such thing as "violence genre"; however, there are genres like "Adventure", "Fantasy" and "Science Fiction" which may contain some violence. After knowing more about movies, the guy can express himself clearer and tell the store owner exactly what kind of movies he wanted to watch.

The same thing might be happening here. Yes, no doubt Jason might have some difficulties expressing himself regarding the kind of magic props he wanted, but if the lack of clear expression is due to the lack of magic knowledge, then I guess we should help him instead of giving him harsh comments

From Jason's post I don't see that there is any attitude problem. He is saying "Sorry" when people asked him what he meant by "Street Magic".
But obviously there seems to be some miscommunication, as he failed to tell us what kind of street magic he wants. I am assuming he cannot tell us what he wants simply because he doesn't have a clear concept of the magic genre.

Yes, if we all start talking about "Street Magic" this, "Street Magic" that, it will make us look quite unprofessional as the magic community in general does not see "Street Magic" as a genre.

However, I feel that there is a need to talk more about "Street Magic". In fact I encourage people to think and talk about it.

There are magicians who are not impressed with David Blaine at all. I used to be one of them. I'm sure there are magicians in SMC who can do better sleights than him, know more effects than him and have a more structured and solid presentation than him. That is why most magicians don't think that David Blaine is good, and "Street Magic" is not a genre and obviously not worth the hype.

But why are laypeople so impressed by him? There must be something that the audiences see that we magicians missed.

After being magicians for a long time, we tend to forget what it is like to be layperson. We started to see things from the point of view of a magician, and not from the point of view of the audience. It is ironic as we are not performing magic for ourselves to watch, we are performing magic for the audiences.

We had classified all the magic into various genres and we let ourselves get trapped inside these definitions. So when there is something that does not fit into our classification, if there is something that is outside the box, we tend to leave them alone and don't talk about it. But hey, our audiences are so interested in that thing that is outside the box.

Magician A: So why not go outside the box and check out "Street Magic"?

Magician B: No way!! If I go outside the magic box, I won't be seen as a professional magician anymore! There is no such thing as Street Magic in the box. I'm staying here.

I think sometimes we need to be a little more adventurous, even if that means we would get laughed at by the rest.

I fully agree with Ace about this. I'm a newcomer to the forums too, and was quite taken aback to the harsh reply to the thread starter.

As for 'Street Magic', I do understand that street magic was not a term used, until the appearance of David Blaine and the likes - and in fact it was probably more for marketing purposes than anything else that such a term was used.

I am no professional magician but i do think that if the laypeople can come to class a certain type of magic as street magic, it might actually be better that there is such a distinction (genre - loosely speaking). People reading marketing would know that it would do better to understand how and what people believe and work using that, then to fight people's belief. Probably amongst the professional magic circle, there will not be a genre known as street magic, but it may be worth to look into what the lay-people expect of a 'street-magician' if they do know you as such. As such, this distinction may be still useful.

Of course, these are all my own opinions, worth of no more than a 2cents - definitely not any sort of a debate.

:off:
I remember a looong time ago there was already a discussion about this. Go dig it up from the archives if you can. I'm too lazy.

But I think at the end of the discussion, we agreed that Street Magic = Camera Magic.

"Street magic" is not possible without the camera cuts and editing and close-up shots followed by ridiculous audience reactions. Not to say that it's fake just that it is more than just presenting the magic on a street or maybe even more than just the feel of it.

Doing magic on the street is just doing walkaround magic. Would you call Criss Angel a street magic practitioner? A lot of people would but that guy regularly uses Humvees and huge equipment, even on the street. So what gives right?

Yes a newbie is a newbie, but I agree with Zian somewhat that if he can find the forums on the Internet, he can research a bit and be more precise in asking for what he wants, especially after we told him that using the term "street magic" is confusing.

Incidentally, we don't use the word "street" in Singapore leh. So are we all doing Pavement Magic? Sounds cooler lah... I want to start a campaign to make everyone start saying "Pavement Magic" instead.
:off:

Back on topic. Jason, just get a deck of cards. The remaining $5 or so, save it and wait till you have about $20, then buy Royal Road to Card Magic. From Street Magician David Blaine to Giant Illusionist David Copperfield to Animal Magic Masters Siegfried and Roy, they ALL use cards in their act. Go rock the world... on the pavement.

Which I hope he is doing right now. If we can explain to him the term "Street Magic" right here, why not? SMC can be part of his research too.

Anyway, I'm glad that a simple topic about buying magic props can turn into a discussion of the term street magic. I mean that is what a forum is all about, sharing ideas and opinions and in the process everyone of us will benefit.

I remembered that discussion, but cannot seem to find it. It would be nice if we can move our current discussion there.

In my opinion, it is too simplistic to say that Street Magic = Camera Magic. No doubt there are camera edits in the Street Magic, there are certain scenes with little to zero camera editing. There are tons of camera cuts and edits in Harry Potter, but do you think of Street Magic when you watched it?

I'm not saying camera editing does not play a part. Of course it did. I can imagine that they will cut and censored some of the failed performances. We see "Street Magic" through this "lens"(camera editing and cuts) which might be distorted.

But that does not equate Street Magic to Camera Magic.

This might sound familiar to some magicians. "Hey you are doing Street Magic!"

And most of the time, there is no lens between you and that audience who gave the comment. There are no camera editing and cuts. The camera is not even there and yet they said you are performing Street Magic.

So what is Street Magic exactly?

What makes it so appealing to the audiences?

I sat down and think about it.

Here is what I think.

Audiences like Street Magic because they think that it is real. So what gives them the impression that Street Magic is real?

My answer is: "The magician's sincerity in trying to convince that the magic is real"

Think about it. If you really have magical powers, how do you show it to people?

For example, look at the scene where David Blaine vanished a coin from a kid's hand . You will notice that he had this "stone look" on his face after he vanished the coin. He just doesn't give any expression not even a smile. Imagine that David Blaine gave a cheeky smile after he vanished the coin and said the word "Magic" while doing an elaborate "magic gesture " to the camera. Can you feel the difference?

For me, the first presentation gave me the feeling that the magic is real. The stone face gave me the feeling that he showed me something real and serious. He just defied the law of physics by making a coin vanished into thin air. That is something serious, nothing funny about it.

The second presentation gave me the feeling that there must be some trick behind it and that cheeky smile seems to reflect the magician’s satisfaction in fooling me with his clever trick.

If I really have magical powers, I won’t have a well prepared script or story when I show people my magical abilities. I won’t need to dress myself up with the magician suit and hat; I can be in T-shirt and jeans. I’ll be dead serious when I’m showing people “magic”. I’ll be a little afraid of my own abilities. I won’t need a stage; I can show people my abilities anywhere even on the streets. I don’t need a lot of words to convince you or entertain you; I’ll just show the magic to you.

I have moved the things here. I think it's better to separate this from other topic.

Anyway... we did sort of talked about it before:

http://forums.singaporemagiccircle.com/ind...?showtopic=6575

I do agree with Ace that it may just give a very authentic real unrehearsed feeling.


But, with your arguements, i'm really not sure what you mean because you seem to advocate that rehearsed magic, or magicians that are hired cannot elicit real-ism in their magic and they cannot give the audience the 'stone' face?

Sorry I may be wrong about your interpretation.

Its funny how people market everything these days with "Street", "Xtreme", "X" or someother word like that to make it cool to the masses.

Card manipulation has become XCM and walkaround/strolling magic has become "Street Magic" when the original definition of street magic had a different meaning.

So, that Olympics event, where the athletes fast walk on the street, are they "streetwalkers"? :P (Just joking)

Good question. I think they can, but it might be more difficult to make the audience feel that the magic is real.

I mean if you really have magical abilites, I don't think you will be doing magic tricks for birthday parties right? Just imagine Jean Grey (from X men) was hired to show people that she can levitate objects for a birthday party. Hard to imagine right?

Some people commented that I was doing "Street Magic" when I was the hired magician of a wedding dinner. So I guess it can still be done.

Of course, well rehearsed magic can still be very entertaining. Magicians who used humour and comedy in their script get great reactions too. But will that make your magic look real? Yes, it might. But I think if I take a more serious approach, people might take me more seriously and it is easier to make them believe that the magic is real.

In my opinion, in order to elicit realism in your magic, you must first believe that you are doing real magic.

It is a sad thing, but we cannot stop them from doing it.

If you look at all those "Street Magic" instructional DVDs, they don't really explain what "Street Magic" is. Those DVDs just have tricks that were ripped off from some other places and were given some cool fancy name.

I see i see, okay, I just want to make sure what I am comphrending is really what you mean.

So if you had supernatural powers, you will be performing on the streets cos it has a real factor?

Or did you mean something else?

Oh by the way Ace, I think you might want to edit and remove the name of that bird in your post about Blaine making a coin disappear. Seems to me to be bordering on exposure? I don't know. Just saying...

Hmm... This is a discussion very, very, very close to a perennial debate in mentalism - do you present yourself as someone with real powers or as an entertainer. I think we can save a lot of time and energy if we can find out a bit about that debate.

Ok here's a thought. Youtube Rene Lavand and Ascanio. Watch them and tell me they don't make you think their magic is real. They blow my hats off man... And I don't even own hats!

I think "Street Magic" to people is just a term they associate with ANY kind of magic done outside of a certain context or setting. No one would call any stage performance Street Magic. Even if David Blaine went up to the stage and did his "I just made a coin disappear and I'm like... a member of Oasis" coin trick exactly as he had done, complete with intensely stoned face and all, no one... NO ONE will say that is Street Magic.

On the other hand, no one will call Gazzo's stuff Street Magic. And that guy is really performing on the freaking street all the time. Like all the time. Really.

So there are two things I can discern from the above:
1) Where you perform seems to matter
2) But how the performance is structured matters more

I go up to a lady and say, "Hi, you have a minute? I want to show you some magic." and then I lick my eyebrows and perform a card trick. No street magic.

I go up to a lady and say, "Hi, you have a minute? I like to show you something. Just watch..." and then I wipe my eyebrows dry of my saliva and perform a card trick. Whoa... Street Magic Man!

A friend brings me to his company dinner as a guest and announces, "Hey guys, my friend Maddened's a magician and he'll like to show us a thing or two." No street magic or lorong magic.

A friend brings me to his company dinner as a guest and announces, "Hey guys, my friend Maddened can do some really weird stuff. Maybe he can show us a thing or two?" Presto, I'm David Blah, Street Magic Extraordinaire!

What's my point? Compare with these:

I go up on stage and say, "Good evening everyone. Welcome! Tonight, I want to show you a few things about the mind. Now I'm not special, or possess more senses than you. I'm just able to use my normal senses in ways most people cannot. It's purely entertainment and I hope you enjoy it."

versus

I go up on stage and say, "Good evening everyone. Tonight, I like to show you a few things to do with the mind. I cannot say what exactly will happen, and what you will be feeling. But at no time will you be in danger. Some things will feel weird for you and strange. But they might also make you think again about what is means to be human or to be alive. I hope whatever happens tonight, you all will have a good time. Thank you."



Street Magic, I suspect, at the end of the day is just the sum of a person's presentation. And so many people are going around performing so-called Street Magic because there are so many amateurs around. There is an element of the unstaged, an element of possible failure, an element of spontaneity, an element of even-the-guy-who's-doing-it-doesn't-know-what's-going-to-happen. And all those elements come together to give a sense of magic. Amateur magicians I think happen to be able to achieve all these elements easily because of lack of experience, or lack of practice, or a heck-care attitude, or laziness.

Now there are some superb magicians who spend time to cultivate this attitude describe above. So I'm not saying that if someone says you're performing Street Magic, it means you're amateur and lousy. No, I'm saying Street Magic is when you don't care about patter, don't care that you're fidgeting with your cards, don't care about smiling sometimes, and don't care about how you dress, move, walk, talk, look, and so on. The more casual you are, the more Street Magic you are.

Cyril is a magician who performs on the street.
Blaine is a street magician.
Wayne Houchin is a street magician.
Criss Angel is a magician who performs on the street.
Go figure.

My very loong two cents' worth.

It is not so much about the venue, but rather the way you show the magic to people.

It is not as simple as "You have supernatural powers = you will go perform on the street."

It is more about "If you have supernatural powers, how will you show it to others?" Will you perform magic tricks or will you demonstrate your supernatural abilities?

I'm sure some of you guys are performing indoors and yet people are saying you are performing "Street Magic". That means to these audiences at least, "Street Magic" does not have to take place on the street.

I believe that the authentic real unrehearsed unpolished feeling of Street magic is the reason why it captures the audiences.

Let me throw the question back: "If you really have supernatural powers, will you be performing on the street? If you really have magical abilities, how will you show it?"

Depends man. Read up some of the debates on other forums on mentalism presentation. There are a lot out there who present themselves as possessing real powers and are very successful at that. Just Youtube this name: Jim Callahan. Or Kenton! We know him as man who come up with expensive stuff to sell us, but the public knows him as Kenton - man who is mysteriously connected to some higher and very colorful being!

And there are those who take pains to make the point that they are normal people. i.e. Richard Osterlind.

And then there are those who leave you to decide. i.e. erm... Me. Can't think of anyone else at the moment, but I suspect this is actually the default mode for most. Unless you want to appear solely as one kind of a performer, otherwise I think most just avoid discussing this issue.

I think thats a very good advise, because, most people think of street magic as a type of performance that doesnt need careful thought and rehearsal. Like what ellusionist are selling, guerilla magic, hit and go.

The question about magicial powers?

Honestly, I would just rule the world.

If someone can figure out the mechanism workings and secrets of the bird just by looking at the name of the bird, then I think it should be removed. I remembered the bird was mentioned before in a very old thread, so I assume it should be alright. If the mods want to vanish my bird... i mean that bird please go ahead.

Actually for magicians who want to cultivate the attitude, they would be spending time to rehearse in order to give people the IMPRESSION that he don't care about patter etc. That is the paradox, you have to rehearse and script your presentation so that it seems unscripted and unrehearsed.

That is why some "lousy amateur" magicians failed to give people the feeeling of street magic. Even though they don't care about the patter etc, they failed to convince the audience that the magic is real. They might think Street Magic is performing unrehearsed "Street Magic Effects" on the Street. But no, it is not that simple.

Granted to us there's a big difference, but to people they perform for, it might not. To them it's probably just bad Street Magic, but Street Magic none the less.

If I have "god like powers", I might consider that.

But if you can only bend 50cent coins and spoon with your mind, I suggest you leave the world alone :lol:

For me, I won't necessarily be going out to perform on the street. I would only demonstrate my "abilities" when the time is right.

For example, there is once this girl was talking about "strange markings appearing on the bodies" during the 7th month. It was a chalet and she did not know I do magic. I said "That happened to me sometimes, let me try and see if i can do it now." I did stigmata and you guys can imagine the rest.

That is one moment when people can feel "Street Magic". The setting is casual (chalet). It looked impromptu (she is the one talking about strange markings appearing), the presentation looks unrehearsed (Actually I spent time trying to make it look unrehearsed and I scripted it so that it looks like an demonstration which might failed). The magic effect chosen is strong and does not look like a "magic trick". The sum of the above elements gave the people around the feeling of "Street Magic"

Did you mean this is a specific key element to street magic or street magic-ness? Because I am sure restuarant performers can captialise on this 'impromtu' aspect. And this is a section in Strong magic that Ortiz wrote.

It is more of street magic-ness. It just gave people the feeling of Street Magic.

Wah if i had real powers, i won't show it to anyone man. Why let others know you are special. They might just put me in a lab and do tests on me.

But if i lived in a comic world like DC's or Marvel's, i would use my powers to save the people in this world. Like Superman or Xmen. I think that feels quite nice. Once in a while, i wouldn't mind demonstrating my powers at a child's birthday party. That's part of being a Superhero right, to make people happy. :off:

Anyway, having said all that crap, I must sincerely apologise for being a lousy amateurish magician, and for being unable to provide for my audience the sence of 'street magic-ness'. I truly feel ashamed of myself right now.

Often, people would ask me 'Zi An, how long you practice everyday ah?'

Or sometimes, people would request to see a particular trick, and i would say 'oh no, i forgot how to go that. Too long never practice already.'

At moments like this, i really feel like sh*t. My audiences do not feel that i am doing real magic, but merely tricks that result from hours of practice. Yes, that's right! I DO TRICKS LIKE MY DOG!

But at the end of the day, they giggle, and laugh, and have a good time. They like to see what i can do with my hands, both the guys and the girls (especially the girls). So how like that?

Sometimes they also give me stone face, although that's because of a certain chemical reaction in their body, and less because of my magic, i mean tricks.

But nevertheless, are you saying your magic is better because people tell you it is street magic, and Lu Chen's sucks because he tells people he needs practice?

ZiAn

Magic Tricks are entertaining! Sometimes even when you failed, people still laughed and felt entertained! If your goal is just to entertain your audience, you don't really need to put much effort to make your magic look real. Is doing "magic tricks" a bad thing? Not necessary, look how entertained they are when you performed magic tricks to them.

But for me, I want to make it more than just entertaining. Some people never had magicians performed right in front of their face. Hence I want them to see something special. Trying to make the magic look real is one of the ways I tried to make their first ecounter with a magician a special and memorable one.

No of course not. I'm not saying Street Magic or "Magic that look real" is superior to other genre of magic or "Magic Tricks".

What is good and what is bad is very subjective.

What do you mean by "better"?

Some audience may like "Magic Tricks" more than "Street Magic". Some may like "Street Magic" more than anything else. Which is better? I guess it is really up to the audiences.

What I'm trying to find out is why "Street Magic" so appealing to audience and yet so unappealing to some magicians. What is so special about it? Sometimes we need to look at things from an alternative perspective. And it happens that this alternate perspective is the persepctive of the audiences. Hence I think there is a need to find out what the audiences see in "Street Magic"

I guess you missed the point of the discussion. It is not about: "You must do "Street Magic" in order to be a good magician. If not you are a "lousy amateurish magician."

The point is to see what is so special about "Street Magic" that make our audience love it.

Hence the factors of "Street Magic" that were mentioned are not criteria of a good magician, but rather the factors that make Street Magic appealing to the audiences. So no need to feel ashamed of yourself, you are a good magician.

I thought we were discussing what exactly Street Magic is? And I thought the features that were listed were not the reasons why Street Magic is so appealing to others but what makes people call certain things "Street Magic"?

As I recall, we were still trying to iron out what exactly Street Magic is since what sparked this off was Axl's comment that Street Magic is not a genre.

We also agreed that some audiences like what they see and call what they see Street Magic. And based on that, we were trying to discover what is it in those performances that make people call them Street Magic.

So how come now we made a quantum leap and began to assume that we're discussing why Street Magic is loved by people? That's secondary I think.


And I just realised this is probably going to be my last post on this topic. Been through one too many of these kind of discussions... Heh...

In my opinion it is almost impossible to have one single definition to define EXACTLY what Street Magic is. It is like trying to define culture, which has different definition from different people.

What I'm trying to do is to define "Street Magic" from the point of view of the audiences, and not "exactly what Street Magic is".

From the point of view of most magicians, "Street Magic" is not even a genre of magic.

From the point of view of some audiences, they like "Street Magic"

From the point of view of film makers (and some other magicians too), "Street Magic" might be like a documentary? (I don't know as I'm not into films making)

From the point of view of some onlinE magic store, "Street Magic" is a great marketing tool and for bul******** new magicians.

Street Magic can be so many things, as there are so many different angles we can look at it.

For me I choose to narrow it down to the perspective of the audience. Because in the end they are the ones who are going to watch our show.

The features mentioned are similar and hence can be confusing.

Let's use an ice cream for example.

If you want to describe why it is so appealing to people, you will use words like "Sweet" "Cold" and "Icy".

If you want to tell people why they call this thing ice cream, you will end up using very similar words like "Cold" "Sweet" etc.

In order to explain why it is so appealing, you have to use words that make people call it ice cream.

However there are subtle differences between the two. The first one is "Why people like it?" the second one is "What is it?” The "like factor" may or may not come in the second question. For example you might say things like "The ice cream mixture is stirred slowly while cooling to prevent large ice crystals from forming" There is not so much of a "like factor" in the above description.

First of all, it is not so much of a quantum leap. When most people call something "Street Magic', most of the time they like it. Remember we are talking about laypeople here, not magicians. If you asked a magician if he love Street Magic, he would probably say: "Hell no! How can I love something that doesn't even exist?!"

Second, I am NOT assuming Street Magic is love by EVERYONE. But it is a fact that there are some people who love Street Magic. So what makes people love it? But before we can analyze why they love it, we must know what is it in those performances that makes them call it "Street Magic". That is where the link comes in, quantum leap not required.

On the contrary, I think that is the primary. I mean we are trying to find out "Why some audiences love this thing?” The magic is for them; hence don't think it is something secondary. Of course, I'm not saying that it is wrong for you to think it is secondary, as each of us have our own opinions.

To end this off, I have to clarify that I'm not trying to glorify "Street Magic". What I'm trying to do is to take an underdog perspective of "Street Magic". The term "Street Magic" is almost like a taboo and magicians in general don't really recognise "Street Magic" as a genre. But what makes some of our audiences love it? That is something worth discussing I guess.

"The term "Street Magic" is almost like a taboo and magicians in general don't really recognise "Street Magic" as a genre. But what makes some of our audiences love it?"

To Ace: In the first place, I am just saying that Street Magic is not a genre, which you agree that most of us (magicians) think so. But since when did it become a discussion on "what makes audience love it"? That should be totally another topic altogether.

As much as laypeople love the term and the romance associated with it, I think we (magicians) should just recognize for what it is.

Just like many non-christians friends would ask me why do Christians need to give away 10% of their income. I would replied, "No, we don't NEED to but we WANT to." and I would go on to explain about tithing.

To non-christians, the principle behind tithing doesn't really matter to them. They might still think the cross can drive away vampire, and it won't matter one bit even if that's not biblical. But it is important to know all that once they decided become a Christian.

So it doesn't matter if laypeople really understand Street Magic or it's definition, but for magicians, we should know better and should let any budding magicians know the difference.

You can see it as a different topic, or you can see it as a deeper analysis of "Why did laypeople see it as a genre?”

There is a fundamental difference between the two.

The whole thing of being Christian does not require the participation of both Christian and non Christian. Hence the Christian does not have the need to see things from the perspective of a non Christian. In fact, it is better if they see things from their own Christian perspective. They can and most of them choose to ignore things that might contradict with their faith. There is nothing wrong with that.

But the whole magical experience requires the participation of both the magician and the audience. Hence we as magicians need to see things from the audience's perspective.

The relationship of a magician and his audience is like the relationship between a chef and his customer. If a group of his customer likes a certain type of hybrid food which does not exist in his menu, the chef would probably see the need to do some research on that dish which is not on his menu.

To put it simple, being a Christian is about you. You are the one that believes in it because you are the one that sees it. Not the non-Christians.

Bringing a magical experience is about them. The audiences are the ones that are seeing the magic. Not so much about you, as the magic is meant for the audience.

Since it is meant for the audience, why not try to see it from their point of view sometimes?

And if you follow my last post, I did mention that there are other definitions of Street Magic. One of them is how WE as magician see it. I'm not saying that WE magicians are defining it the wrong way. No.

The fact is there are MULTIPLE definitions of Street Magic due to different perspectives from DIFFERENT groups of people. All of these definitions are valid.

I'm not saying our own magician's understanding of Street Magic is wrong. I'm saying other than our own definition, why not look at the audience's understanding of Street magic?

It is not "audience's perspective VS magician's perspective". Instead it is "audience's perspective + magician's perspective"

Having more ways to look at things will give us a more complete picture.

And I'm sure there is no harm trying to look at things from the view of our customer.

Hi Ace,

Thanks for all verbalising your thought.

I really think that if we can get to know the definition of street magic, all of us can be greater magicians.
So i need to see I could ask you to be a bit more clear when you said

But there must be a common factor that links that case about ice cream. Mainly, it satisfies the taste (in your case, various reasons, like sweet or cold).

So in the same sense, there must be something that is common amongst all your description of street magic. If you could verbalise it for all of us, then we will all be greater magicians to capitalise on that.

What i mean is, when we talk about poker cards. There are tally hos, black tigers, white ghost, blue cards red cards bicycle.
There are so many different TYPES of cards, but the common factor of it is, cards.

So whats the common factor for all your description to street magic that other genres cannot fulfill?

I don't know... but I feel we are dicussing on different things.

My stand is Street Magic is not a genre, according to magicians' point of view. Does it matter that I do not see that from a layman's point of view, with regards to this issue?

Most of the things you brought out about seeing magic from the audience's perspectives are valid. But those things would fall into the big question "on how to make magic more magical (so to speak)."

That would be a subject under presentation of magic.

Of course there are things we SHOULD be looking from their perspective:
Eg: The design of the effect. The words I am using. The image I'm potraying... etc

But why would they care one bit what I thought of "Street Magic"?

First of all I just need to clarify that it is not my definition of Street Magic. It is more like the various definitions of Street Magic from different groups of people that I came across.

It there something in common among all those descriptions? Maybe yes, maybe no.

If you define "Street Magic" as a marketing tool for certain onlinE magic store, then I don't really see much in common when you compare that with lets say magician's definition of "Street Magic".

There seems to be a common sense understanding when people see the term "Street Magic". One of the understandings is Street Magic gives people the feeling of authentic and unrehearsed magic.

But then again, that is not common among all the descriptions of Street Magic. Just look at the "Street Magic DVD" from some onlinE magic store. It does not really gave my that feeling of authentic and unrehearsed magic.

In short, it is hard for us to conceptualize what Street Magic is by trying to come up with ONE common definition that fits all. Instead what we can do is to have multiple definition of Street Magic so that we can have a more complete picture of the term.

First of all, I already said that it is hard to come up with something such as a "common factor" for all the multiple description of Street Magic.

But I guess the point of your question is "What makes Street Magic different from other genres of magic?" "What is the thing that differentiates Street Magic from the rest?"

Due to the fact that there are multiple definitions of Street Magic, I would have different answer to that same question.

Let’s pretend that I'm just another audience. My answer would be something like: "It looks down to earth... it just feels real... Other magic looks so fake you know they did alot of preparation for the trick" (That comment actually came from a friend of mine when she was talking about Street Magic)

From a magician's perspective, I would say it might not be easy to draw a line to distinguish it from all genres of magic. Take for example, David Blaine performing a mind reading effect. It sure gives people the feeling of Street Magic. Then how is it different from a mentalism effect? If you are talking about the "authentic unrehearsed feeling", the same mentalism effect can be presented in such a way that looks unrehearsed. In this case it is possible for a certain effect to be both a mentalism effect and Street Magic effect. To me at least, it is the "feel of Street Magic ness." How do you get that "feeling?" It can be the venue, the way you dress, the way you present the effect. All this have to give people the feeling of "authentic and unrehearsed"

To Axl:

Nope it does not matter. Everyone sees things from a certain perspective and there is nothing wrong with that.

For me I would want to see things from more perspectives. It is a matter of preference.

If we define "Street Magic" as a certain way of presenting magic in order to give people the real and unrehearsed feeling, then I guess there will be some overlapping between the discussion on Street Magic and presentation of magic.

No, they won't care I guess.

I'm not challenging your idea of "Street Magic". In fact I recognise your definition of Street Magic.

I'm simply bring out other possible definitions of Street Magic, which you may or may not agree with. It does not really matter. The very least we can do is to know that there are other definition. However, there is no need for us to agree on all those definitions.

IMO, The definition of "Street Magic" is "Title of DB's first TV debut". Nothing more. Unfortunately, a simple title like this birthed forth a series of misnomers, worse still, it became a genre.

It's just like the word "Pampers" and "Colgate". You do not hear most people call these things "diapers" or "toothpaste" anymore. The brand has became the item name. Similarly for "Street Magic", the title has become a genre.

At the end of the day, "Street Magic" is just close up magic in a different setting.

My 2 cents.

Kenneth

We cannot blame laypeople who are 'less-informed' to liberally use the term 'Street Magic', but as informed magicians/magic practitioners/magic enthusiasts, we should not be making the same 'mistake' as laypeople.

I notice the words 'authentic' and 'unrehearsed' in relation with your description of 'Street Magic'. Aren't those qualities of Impromptu Magic (which can be classified as a sub-set of Close-up Magic) rather than 'Street Magic'?

Unfortunately (or fortunately), laypeople do not know of this definition called Impromptu Magic. As such, the closest thing they can relate to is 'Street Magic' as popularized by Blaine's TV series. Thus, it is not hard to see why laypeople like to coin 'unrehearsed' magic as 'Street Magic' instead of Impromptu Magic (which is really what it should be).

Of course, there is a whole discussion on what is Impromptu Magic (Is it even a genre? Impromptu in terms of no setup? or Impromptu to the audience?), but that is another story for another day for a different thread.

AdrianLee

The term "Street Magic (TV)" with regards to Blaine seems more like a marketing gimmick to repackage and brand magic for the newer generations. Perhaps the terms like "World Greatest Magic" and such illusions have lost its flavour and no longer appeal to today's audience as much. Maybe the audiences today have a shorter attention span or look at magic in a different context as compared to the past?

If we talk about magicians and laypeople perspective, "Street Magic (TV)" is not so much of a genre than it is a brand. Online shops tend to use the terms "Street magic" loosely to sell to the "Street Magic" generation.

I entirely agree with Adrian's point. I think that current terms such as impromptu, close-up, parlor, stage magic already clearly define the various forms of magic. Moreover, there is a general consensus over the features of these genres. Does "Street Magic (TV)" actually define its boundaries clearly? The lack of a standardised view over "Street Magic (TV)" is perhaps a clear signal that the term itself is ambiguous and unsuitable to describe a genre of magic. Unless of course we can all come up with a consensus of what "Street Magic(TV)" is all about.

Is it a "Mistake" or is it an alternative definition?

It is very easy to label alternative views as "mistakes" and said that they are from people who are "less-informed". Well maybe we have the right reason to do so, I mean we are magic practitioners! What are the audiences? They don't even know what impromptu magic is! What gives them the right to define or even use the term "Street Magic?" They are not magic practitioners and therefore they were wrong. Fine, let's move on.

I myself know what Impromptu magic is. I'm a magic practitioners as well. And now I have a different take on "Street Magic" and I feel that "Street Magic" is something worth studying. Am I less-informed? I don't think so, as I know what is Impromptu magic and in my opinion "Street Magic is not just impromptu magic."

I just pointed out that elements seen in "Street Magic" can be seen in Mentalism too. You are right that there are elements of Impromptu magic in "Street Magic" too. These elements and qualities are not mutually exclusive. And does "Street Magic = Impromptu Magic"? Just imagine a magician doing impromptu effects but gave a cheeky smile and do some elaborate magic gesture. Will that give our audience a feeling of "Street Magic?"

I see that we magicians tend to try to fit "Street Magic" into already established genre and boxes, instead of trying to build a new box for it.

What I see is something more than just "close up magic on the streets" It is more than the choice of effect (close up magic) and the venue (Street).
You have to have a certain kind of presentation too in order to give people the feeling of "Street Magicness"

Is that really what goes through the mind of our audience? I tried to see Street Magic from the point of view of laypeople, the thing that strikes me the most about "Street Magic" is the realism of it. It just feels real. What makes it feel real? The setting, the choice of clothes, the choice of magic effect, the presentation of the effect, the magician's attitude when he was performing the effect. The sum of all these makes me, a laypeople the feeling of "Street Magic".

Your points veer towards magic presentation rather than magic genre.

Magic isn't any less real just because Guy Hollingworth is waving the kings wearing a suit and tie, or because David Stone is giving a cheeky smile as he doing a coin routine.

Wearing a t-shirt and jeans, having a serious (blank) expression on your face, and approaching people on the streets doesn't make your coin-in-soda can / bottle / container of choice (Impromptu Magic) any stronger or more real than if you were wearing a suit and tie performing the same effect at a cocktail party for fellow guests.

It is the choice of presentation, rather than genre, that gives the feeling of realism to spectators.

AdrianLee

I think the large majority of the public experience "Street Magic" from television and not from reality. What is different from David Blaine's magic compared to past TV specials is the fact that the camera now focuses largely on the audience's reaction and this perhaps gives the TV viewer a vicarious experience of magic, allowing them to comfortably empathise and enjoy the same amazement in the screen.

I think that when Blaine and the producers decided to use the term street magic, it wasn't so much as to define a new genre or create one. Rather, it's a form of branding and packaging magic in a manner that connects to viewers and to create the impression that the magic is done on the spot.

Online shops then decided to jump on the bandwagon such as Ellusionist offering "Street Magic" material. Are those material fitting in the genre of street magic? In fact, look at the mass of "Street Magic" products coming out nowadays, how many of these are strictly "Street Magic"?

The point that I think some of us are making is that if we desire to give Street Magic (TV) a genre of its own, then we have to be able to define it clearly and come upon consensus.

If however, Street Magic means different things to everyone, then perhaps we can agree that Street Magic is a packaging, a style, a brand that one can adopt in our way of performing magic. This however does not make it a genre.

You mentioned "Street Magic" is more like a style. But you do not feel that "Street Magic" is a genre.

However, if you look up the dictionary, the definition of genre is "a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content"

The word "style" is in it. If you "wiki" the word "style", you will be redirected to "genre" as well.

I totally agree with you on this.

So you mean magic presentation and magic genre are two different things that is not linked?

Btw, good point. So maybe we can see "Street Magic" as a kind of magic presentation too.

We'll never know for sure unless we do some empirical study on that.

Personally, the "serious" approach will make me feel that the magic is real. Cheeky smiles give me the feeling that I'm being fooled. Maybe it is just me.

Too confusing...

Could I then say: I really like Derren Brown's style..sorry, I mean Derren Brown's genre. Derren Brown definitely defined a new genre of magic. I don't know what it is exactly but it just makes you feel like whoa, unbelievable!

In contrast, the Jay Sankey genre really doesn't appeal to me because he just tries too hard to be funny.
-------------------------------------------
Doesn't work does it?

To take it in the musical sense, jazz is a genre of music because it has a particular style which it follows. However, the musician is free to inject his/her own unique style into playing jazz via personalised embellishments. However, the piece still remains very much what it is, jazz and is identifiable because of certain defining characteristics.

Does Street Magic have any key defining characteristics that allows it to assume a genre by itself? Or is it most similar to close-up magic? Then is it merely a style within close-up magic?

I am asking a simple request and that is, if Street Magic is a genre, kindly define its characteristics and distinguish it from other genres. If we really desire something meaningful out of this, let us establish a consensus of what Street Magic is objectively.