jkeyes1000 wrote:I believe I mentioned to you (or someone in the forum) that some sott of subtetfuge is necessary in order to cteate an illusion, and thst most people are aware of the traditional kinds of deception (if not the precise means), such as mechanisms and manual dexterity.
It may welll be that some folks resent sleight of hand as much as mendacity, but I doubt it. Because they know about contraptions and legerdrmain, they accept that you employ them. I also grant that many may already suspect that you lie and accept that.
and the briefest study of magic reveals that lying is one of the traditional kinds of deception, along with machanisms and dexterity. What you ignore is that using an action to misrepresent the truth is no different from using dexterity to do the same, especially when you factor in the crucial (which you said yourself) element of intent
so now we establish that there is no evidence to suggest the audience cares. in fact it appears as if you concede they likely expect lying.
but you beg the question - how would they know you lied unless you are incompetent?
But lying is unnecessary.
and so is using sleight of hand when a gimmick would work. as michael weber said, sometimes the shortest distance between two points is a straight lie.
if the lie gets the job done as well or better than a sleight or a gaff, then why not use it? if it actually does work as well, the audience won't know anyway, right?
jkeyes1000 wrote: And as Mark has said above, nobody likes being lied to directly. It is very offensive. It is likely to be perceived as a selfish attempt to guard your secrets (a fair guess), and not as a pleasant diversion
and how would they know they were lied to unless you are incompetent and fail as a magician? what makes you think that once they see your failure they will care that you lied to them any more than how much they care that they saw the ball in your hand or the mirror in the box?
but you said the goal of magic was to present illusions so the audience could try to figure them out. not me. and you labeled your video 'can you figure out how it was done' or something like that.
if you don't want the audience to care about secrets don't make them the focus of everything you are doing!
if the audience cares about your secrets then you aren't giving them an experience more valuable than that of a puzzler.
and why shouldn't we guard secrets, selfishly or otherwise? and once again i ask, how do they know you were lying and 'guarding secrets' unless you are incompetant?
What I would say if someone asked me whether the rainwater was aqua pura, is, "Well I presume so! Ask that gentlemsn over there."
and he would taste it and say - no it's not. He's a liar. that's not rain water
and then you get into the exchange which i presented, you would say you aren't a liar because you never uttered the words and he would say " but it's not water. " either case, you fail to produce a magic effect. you will be labeled a bad magician.
again you managed to establish nothing nor answer any objections. you just repeat yourself.
but i will give you some advice:
you have the method backwards. the wine should be in the vase with the flowers. this would help color both the discoloration and smell. pick a fragrant flower. the vase being in the room the whole time will have the effect of dulling their sense of smell.
when someone brings in a bucket of wine, everyone in the room will know it. plus you now no longer need to worry if the guy will smell it or spill it on his clothes - and you don't have the ridiculous situation of asking for a rain bucket. i don't know anyone who has one.
they find the bucket and can even fill it with tap water. the bucket should be too small though so your pitcher isn't filled. pouring in the yellowish water or the flowers now makes sense - it's an impromptu solution to get to the correct level
but they still need to taste it and i wouldn't want it to drink flower water. both our methods have that same problem.