In a theatrical context, should magic require a reason for being done?
Most of the time, there is little or no theatrical context applied to magic. There is no need to do the magic. The performer does it just because they can. Let me explain to you what I mean.
Consider a performance piece in which a performer flies across the stage from one side to the other. Think David Copperfield if you like.
Now imagine another performer who flies across the the stage because in the middle of the stage is a fire.
The second performer has a reason to need to fly, while the first one just wanted to show off that he could fly.
Is magic improved by this kind of motivation? Is there any need for this motivation?
David Blaine, when he performs his coin vanish, making a coin disappear off a spectator’s hand.
I do a similar trick (in method) where I change an American cent into British 5 pence. It is beautiful in appearance because a brownish copper coin turns into a shiny silver one on the hand of a spectator. My reason for doing that trick was that I recieved the cent shell coin with a PK magnet I bought years ago (before I opened MagicMegaStore.co.uk) and I wondered why they had sent me an American shell. What good could it be to me?
Well, I found a use. I tell spectators that it was given to me as change when I bought something in a shop and how much I hate it when foreign currency gets given to me in change and sometimes I just think about how useful it would be if I could change it into British legal tender. And then I do.
In my version, there is a reason to perform the coin change – because the American cent is unspendable in this country.
Magic is inherently showy. We have seen magician after magician do various tricks and illusions for no other reason than to show it off.
My question is, does this motivation make the magic better?
