I just want to know how magicians feel about Street Magic (especially those who just started).

Back in the days when I started, no one was talking about Street Magic. But after Blaine appeared on TV and E started selling stuff and calling them street magic, the younger generations will say they like street magic and stuff like that.

Does anyone think about what is street magic? To me, I think its just close up performed on the streets, a term to help dealer sell more stuff.

What do you think?

I feel its more than just close up done in the streets.

The material that is used in street magic is very gritty and most of the time incredibly bold. Its sort of like borderline geek/shock magic.

And you must also take note of the spectators, these guys do not expect to be entertained walking around with their friends or chilling around somewhere, so a different approach or mindset is needed and definitely different type of material should be used.

In close up, stage, parlour they know they are going to be entertained and the ambience and atmosphere of the venue will most likely be rather comfortable as compared to the streets so there really is a difference.

I really like the idea of street mentalism though ;)


Just my opinions


I voted Yes! :D

Street magic is something like exposing magic to the public, i didn't mean leaking the secret out, but exposing the art of magic to the public. So that people know that there is such an Art in Singapore, in my opinion street magic is something i would call QUICK MAGIC.

This is where your spectator sees your performance and decide to throw a penny or so if you are actually busking for money, but this is obvious you need a NAC Busker License no matter what, even if you are not collecting money.

Summary: QUICK MAGIC, Exposure the public to the Art Of Magic.

i would say it is not a genre in magic.

but then again, magic can be classified in so many ways.

1. By props used (cards, coins, illusions, etc)
2. By effect (levitation, mentalism, vanish, etc)
3. By performance area (stage, parlour, closeup)

so street magic may fall under category 3, but like some here, i think its under closeup (unless its busking style for larger audiences). so, not really a new genre.

I personally do agree to the above.. Street magic can be performed inside, in someone's house, shopping mall etc. It doesn't have to be on the streets. The point is the immediacy and how close up the magic is.

Agreed with gordie. In my opinion, street magic is more like a performance area than a genre. In this case I consider it close-up.

Voted for No

Had some thoughts today and I remembered this thread so bringing this old topic alive again.

When I first started my interest in magic, there were no such thing as "Street Magic". It is true that this term is only popularly coined after David Blaine's TV specials. That's why you wouldn't hear old foggies refer to themselves as street magicians, unless they are street buskers. ;)

Now, for the longest time, Street Magic just means Close Up Magic to me, and I came to accept the term as something the MTV generation needs for "re-branding" magic tricks to make it cool again. B)

But now, I'm thinking a little otherwise. And here's why...

If you ask anyone who started magic in the last 5 years who are the street magic icon magicians. They will inevitably say David Blaine, Criss Angel, and the latest poster boy Cyril Takayama.
Now, if you REALLY think about it, are these close up magicians? Actually, not really!

Maybe what David Blaine did in the VERY beginning can be considered Close up effects. But very quickly, the effects start to get very different from close up stuff. They become very elaborated effects.
Likewise with Criss Angel and Cyril, their effects take a ridiculously amount of effort to set up and prepare that it is very impractical for the traditional closeup magician.
Think about all the ripping out heart, and swallowing coin and cutting it out of the arm, and the various versions of levitations, and selected card inside basketball, and burgers from walls and etc etc. All of these needs very elaborated setup and resources and very carefully controlled audience angles. Even things like the snap change isn't really pratical for the traditional closeup magician (at least not the way it was done by Blaine) because of the angles issues.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most (not all) of these effects are specifically designed for TV (controlled angles) and can only be performed in real life to very limited number of people (3 at most).
Or requires too much set up to be worth just performing once.
These are effects that are NOT preferred by the close up magicians who probably does strolling or restuarant gigs.

Another characteristic of these street magician's performance is the focus on the spectator rather than the magic itself. Yes, a lot of the effects are stunning, but if you compare the screen-time, A LOT of footage is spent on the spectators' reaction rather than on the magic itself. It's almost like the spectators are the main star rather than the magician. This is not like tradition close up magic performance at all.

Now, magic on TV is nothing new at all. Before street magic comes into existance, there were PLENTLY of (really big names like McBride and Lance Burton) magicians who performed on TV, and many of them did closeup/parlor stuff sometimes too.
But these TV specials did not even come near the penetration rate to layman of these "Street Magicians" has now.
With possibly the expection of David Copperfield. Why?

I think it's because of the effects performed. For the TV special of that time, the effects were stuff that the magicians do in real life performances. These are effects that are BEST suitable for real life performances, when you can really feel the impact, and on TV, it just lose the oomph.
It's like theater drama or dance. When you watch them live, they can be really really powerful and can easily move people to tears. But if you watch it on TV, it can look really cheesy or boring.
To present theater drama successfully for TV (or movies for the matter). It has to be "re-invented". It needs very specific treatments not in theater like cinematography and editing and special effects.
And at the same time, remove a lot of elements of traditional theater, like the exaggerated acting and the big actions and the use of colourful props.
This "re-invention" is to the point that it is not longer theater acting but becomes a different genre of drama; TV and movies.

That is what I am saying. That "Street Magic" is an evolution of TV magic plus close up magic. And it is different enough from traditional TV magic specials and close up magic and has skill/techniques unique to it to be considered a genre by itself.
This is a genre of magic effects that are very visually stunning, and possibly difficult to duplicate in live shows.
And this is a genre of magic performance style that is very different from traditional live shows and specifically suited for the camera/TV.

However, this means that the term "Street Magic" is very misleading. It probably should be termed as "TV Magic" or "Camera Magic" to accurately describes it as a genre. :unsure:

My gosh, i just realise how very very long this post is. I don't think anybody is ever going to read this to completion. :P
So if you are reading this sentence, congratulations, you are probably 1 out of maybe 7 person in the whole forum who has read this far.
Maybe I should put in a reward or something for those who read this far. :lol:

Anyways, that's my thoughts. Comments from any of you 7 persons? B)


P.S. Errr....so by my reasoning, does that mean people who call themselves street magicians but hasn't done any filming (either for TV or private projects) are like people who call themselves movie actor but has never acted for any film projects(commercial or independent)? :P

Lol I think I am one of the 7 who read aloy post lol.. But Street magic to me is close up magic without using a table thats all... Reason is that close up magic and street magic do not consist of too much big props... and your spec is also very close to you.. so street magic can be term as close up magic done on street lol... If we call it TV magic or Camera magic people may thing other wise and it may not make the magic so interesting or make us inspire to see more. :D

Oh, i know whats street magic. Making lamp post bend, making roads warps, making colour changes with traffic lights, etc.

The street magic that we often refer to is just close up, walk around magic.

But would you consider the things Blaine, Criss Angel, Cyril does as Close Up magic?

Highly angle sensitive effects, heavily gimmicked environment, effects with preparations that is impractical to carry around to be part of a routine. Or to see it from another viewpoint, closeup magic needs misdirection, "camera magic" only need to tell the cameraman when to point where.

I just wondering if this should all be considered "camera magic" rather than close up magic.

I'm not putting them down. I think a good close up magician might not necessarily be a good camera magician.
And a good camera magician might not be a good close up magician. But one might be both at the same time. Or neither for the matter. :)

But my point was, don't you think those effects performed by these "Street Magic" icons are different enough from traditional close up to be called a genre by itself? Nevermind the actual name...

Well, I believe despite the the amount of preparations or angle sensitivity, as long as its under your nose, right in your face, its close up magic.

I mean, I'm not saying that zig zag lady cannot be performed under scrunity, but it just isnt performed that way. So I would classify close up magic as anything that can be done close up.

For angle sensitivity, alot of tricks/effects/whatever, also has limited angles. Like, the bertram change isnt used on stage, but in palour or close up.

Well, its just how you define it.

Cellini and Gazzo are both well known street magicians.

Similarly, Blaine, Criss and Cyril are also street magicians.

The only difference is the latter group does walk-around magic and their target audience group is usually smaller while the former usually attracts a larger group and performs at a fixed venue also known as busking.

The old street performers almost always have cups and balls as a performance piece in their act. Cups and balls are viewed as "uncool" and boring by many of the newer generation magicians.

I doubt ratings would be as high if Blaine, Criss and Cyril performed the usual and standared old school magic. (Just a thought though, it would be wicked to see these guys perform cups and balls although I seen Cyril done stage manipulation which was way awesome.)

IMHO, I feel that street magic isn't a different genre considering it has existed since god knows when. Its as old as the hills. I would label Blaine and company as "TV--street--walk--around--magicians."

nope i voted no..street magic is just a name for magic performed on streets,, look at it..do you call someone who performs rubber band tricks...rubberbanist or do you call him just a magician dabbling in general magic? same can be said for hanky, spongeballs( :lol: )
haha so street magicians just compile mostly card, coin, mentalism etc just to form a new word to summarise all these: street magic :P

For the record (in my opinion).

"Street magic" to me, is not a "type" of magic per se. Sometimes I meet young guys starting out and just out of curiousity I ask them what kind of magic they do. It's natural to ask such a question of another magic person. To my surprise I get the response "I do street magic."

I then ask them what effects do they do. And they tell me the ambitious card, coins across etc etc. Standard magic effects which are also in my repertoire. And my answer if asked this question is "I'm a close up magician".

For me, street magic is a style of presenting magic, and I feel it's an important angle to understand.

Just my 2 cents worth.

nicquetan,

I like and think I agree with your definition. Precisely.

IMHO street magic is close up done one the streets, the street is your stage :)

To the layman Steet Magic is the crazy stuff of David Blaine and Criss Angel... as long as you don't perform on a stage....as long as it is a close up..as long as it is crazy enough they will think its Street Magic

To the Magician Street Magic is....... oh well it dosen't really matter much how we interpret Street Magic.... Magic is for the audience.... If they think that Street Magic is David Blaine's stuff (e.g. get frozen in giant ice cube) there's no way we can get them to think otherwise -_-

Maybe we can gather ideas of laymen on the defination of Street Magic? B)


remember the audience is always right...... <_<

street magic is a branch of close up. doing close up you might still need a table or so... but for street it suppose to be done anywhere anytime...

street is just more flexible that close up... it is just a new stage of magic to perform at..

I have to agree with most of what Aloy said. "Street Magic" is a misnomer.

To add on though, I think Street Magic is actually a virtual magic. In the sense that you can only SEE street magic, not PERFORM street magic.

OK Maddened, WTF again??

Let's see. Taking Aloy's point that a crucial element of Street Magic is the reaction of the spectators, the set-up, the gimmicks etc, then we can come up with a sort of formula:

Street Magic = Set-up + Effect + Reaction (+ Film editing)

By film editing, I mean general editing and not camera tricks to make an illusion possible.

If you're a so-called "Street Magician", then when you perform, you're fulfulling only the part of "Effect". But then, you'll just be performing close-up magic.

Ok, so let's refine our formula:

Street Magic = Set-up + Close-up effect + Reaction (+ Film editing)

Now do you see the difference? You cannot perform "street magic" because the final product aimed at (this thing called "street magic") is a combination of various things, a large part of which are the spectators' reactions.

It is only "Street Magic" AFTER everything has been compiled, edited and then presented to the TV audience. Ok this is a bit murky, so I shall try and explain more clearly.

To the guy on the streets (let's call him Joe), what he sees is close-up magic. Let's say Cyril makes Joe's underwear change colour. What Joe experiences is close-up magic (or parlour magic, whatever). All this is filmed, including Joe's headless-chicken running imitation.

Now we have a guy at home (let's call him Larry). Larry just came home, had a beer, sat down, and started watching a show called "Cyril's Magic Hour". He sees the trick where Joe's underwear changes colour. He sees Joe's headless-chicken imitation. He sees an MTV-style cut where Cyril changes the underwear of a few more people who then run around screaming. NOW what Larry just saw (Joe, the other people, the reactions, the unsightly undergarments) will be appropriately called STREET MAGIC. But that was not what Cyril performed, see.

So I think Street Magic is indeed a new genre of magic, but one that is a "virtual" magic because you can't perform it, you can't be a "street magician", you can only experience "street magic" and ONLY when you're watching it on TV. It's ironic; a paradox that "STREET" magic can only b experienced at HOME, but that's the essential character of street magic - That it has to have the reactions and the editing. Otherwise it's just close-up magic or whatever.

Suddenly I feel all this is very darn post-modern... :off:

(Sorry for the long post again. I'm starting to make this into a habit. Not good. Just my opinion, feel free to disagree. And Mods, edit however you wish if it's too long. Cheers.)

As usual, the genre feel differ's to the type of audience. The experience felt is different and that's what seperates street magic from the rest. Although I kinda disagree with some parts of Maddened. It's not true that street magic can only be felt at home. There's still magic to the spectator on the streets. Anyways, what's another name for walk around magic? Street magic right?

:lol: Great post Maddened. Illustrated and very post-modern indeed. :D

I think a lot of people will get very confused with this thread because of the term "Street Magic", which should actually be much more accurately termed "Camera Magic". :wacko:

For all that were confused, my point in gist is what Blaine and Angel and T.H.E.M and Cyril and etc etc does is NOT "Street Magic" but rather Camera Magic. Because what is commonly refered to as "Street Magic" today is actually Camera Magic, not camera tricks, but magic effect designed for the camera. Which should not be confused with Close up and Walk-arounds because it's a complete different ballgame.

Try re-reading all the posts and replace "Street Magic" with the term Camera Magic and you might get a better idea.

And to confuse everyone further, the "Street Magic" i have been making reference to refers to THAT term popularly used AFTER the emergence of Blaine and his TV specials.
NOT Street (Busking) Magic that has been around much longer.
:wacko: :lol:



Nevermind...if you get it, you get it. If you don't, don't hurt yourself thinking about it. :g:

Best advice ever... Just enjoy the show lah! :P


yaz = Yea I think I should clarify that by "street magic" I'm using it the way Aloy has defined it in the post above, rather than roving magic/busking etc. Sorry about the confusion.

I'm confused... Nevermind lah. Just enjoy the magic. If the effect is nice, then it's nice. On camera or not.