Wednesday, October 8, 2014

On miso paste and how it relates to TV magic


"I am as bad as the worst, but, thank God, I am as good as the best"

Walt Whitman

Hello again my lovely readers, today I present to you a short essay that came to me while I was performing one of the daily rituals I enjoy the most, practicing at the table while I watch "the mind of a chef"

You would not find it so odd if you remembered that when I first started writing on this beautiful platform I mentioned how much I enjoyed cooking. While I do not think I am as good a cook as I am a card technique aficionado I do find myself making constant links between the two crafts, being the one I Present to you today perhaps the most direct of them all.

Season one of the show stars culinary extraordinare and ramen fanatic David Chang. Cofounder of Momofuku Noodle Bar in NYC, David travels around the globe visiting some of the best chefs and discussing a particular topic with each episode, usually ending with him blowing your mind using the feature ingredient or technique in a way you did not think possible.

However, it was not David's innovation and wits that impressed me the most but rather an experience documented on the episode dedicated to miso paste.

The place Chang visits the most is Japan and in this particular occasion an establishment in which miso was made like nowhere else.

After watching the extensive process of crafting the paste in question Chang has a profound experience as he finally gets to taste the result.

"I wish people knew this is how miso should actually taste" David exclaims as he reflects on the poor quality miso people usually get on a regular basis

Oddly enough I feel the same way about magic and how people usually get exposed to it. Laymen consume magic on tv and said magic seldom is as good as magic really is. For example, instead of watching Fred kaps pour endless amounts of salt from his hands they see smoothini on America's got talent.

But do not get me wrong lovely readers for I am not blaming it entirely on the magicians but rather on the initial fault that lies in not considering the specificities of television as a media of communication before planning to go on it and perform magic

We cannot go on the air and behave the same way we would on stage due to the fact that we are quite simply not working in the same circumstances. Our attention must be focused on the camera's eye rather than on the spectator's and we must use the way tv technically works to our advantage, even if it means cheating a little bit

As a closing remark I would like to recommend Luis piedrahita from Spain, whom I consider to be the biggest authority on the present subject. Luis' performances at "el hormiguero" are simply wonderful and his thoughts on the matter may be found at dani daortiz's magazine "El Manuscrito" as well as in his EMC 2012 talk

Must dash now boys and girls, I hoped my insight was enjoyable

Yours truly, Professor Moriarty


"Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works"

Steve Jobs

Saturday, October 4, 2014

On the presence of the artifice


"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else"

Albert Einstein


Howdie again my lovely readers, I thought today I would share with you my views on a subject long exploited and investigated in extent by the Spanish school of magic and not so much by the American
I am of course referring to the presence of the artifice in the presentation of magic 

Last year I attended an exclusive premiere for a lecture called "art and artifice" by the amazing Argentinian conjuror by the name of Roberto Mansilla. The event represented a turning point in my magical journey for it was right at that point in which I left the Spanish way of thinking and I was taken under the wings of strong magic, however religious the latter may sound

I noticed that both the Tamariz paradigm and Darwin's have something in common when it comes to the way in which they conceive the spectator's elimination methodology when trying to find a plausible solution for a magical effect.

Nevertheless I have always found it annoying that so many American magicians feel the need to constantly remind to the spectators that magic is not really real by making said elimination process rather annoyingly explicit.

Sometimes they also make the same mistake almost unconsciously by calling themselves "sleight of hand magicians"

The fault becomes quite evident when you put it in perspective. Could you imagine Henry Evans handing out a business card that read "gimmick magician", I guess you get my point, do you not?

I would however seem a tad Of a hypocritical idiot not to mention the fact that being most of my performance items superlative displays of skill I find myself presented with a dilemma. 

Is it possible to sustain the performance persona of a magician and at the same time eliminate the presence of the artifice entirely?

The question shall remain unanswered...

For some exceptions to the previously exposed postulate I must urge you check out the work of who I think is quite simply the best performer of the present times. I am speaking about the lovely Derren Brown and his show "Svengali". To this day it remains the best show this humble writer has ever had the pleasure to watch 

Professor moriarty now leaves the building lovely readers, workout must once again continue.

"If it's the Psychic Network why do they need a phone number?"
Robin Williams

  

Friday, October 3, 2014

On the guilty pleasures of a sleight of hand aficionado

“The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad girls live”
George Carlin

Hello my lovely readers, as I sit around lovesick by the stupid idiosyncrasies of social media and other so called communicational devices of the present times I thought I would share a piece of my mind on a subject that spikes my interest due to its rather taboo nature

I am speaking about the degree of Organicity in the performance of magic and due to the rather philosophical nature of said topic this post will not pose any definite statement but instead I hope it leaves you questioning a few things we just simply take for granted

Once again I find myself quoting Darwin Ortiz for in his books one theory he states that when working for a lay audience we shall aim towards fooling the emotional rather than the intellectual reasoning of our spectators.

In other words, one must accept the fact that the spectator does not intellectually believe that us magic performers posses real magical powers for if we really did we would instead be producing food for the hungry or curing cancer or simply solving all of the world's problems, would we not?

This limitation also stems from the fact that right from the word go the spectators know that we are magicians, even more so when one is a professional working a paid event.

However I could not help but notice how the impact of my magic increases when performed under the most organic of situations. 

Stripped from every stereotype or clever verbiage, magic achieves its moment of true astonishment on the minds of the spectators. Something as simple as a well performed color change for a stranger is sufficient.

I do think this happens simply because it catches said individual off guard and it knocks him or her down to the canvas in the least violent of ways.

So next time you are on the bus, instead of not taking your eyes off your phone, scan the room, make eye contact and do something with the cards when you know they are looking, then quite simply put the cards away, smile at them and walk away knowing you have created the most memorable of performance experiences.

This is just one way of achieving it and I urge you to look at Michael Vincent, John Armstrong and many others for a way of getting the same result on a formal performance setting.

You must also check out Dan and Dave's organic lecture notes, its insightful nature will take you by surprise.

Cheerio lovely readers, Professor Moriarty's workout routine shall now continue 


“If you can make a girl laugh, you can make her do anything”
Marilyn Monroe