|
|
tonsofquestions Inner circle 1802 Posts |
So, in an amusing coincidence of timing, I was having an interesting discussion with a friend (who dabbles in magic) a month or so around the ethics/psychology of duplicating signatures. I'd meant to post a thread on the Café to get more people's thoughts but it slipped my mind. Now, with the release of Clone ( http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......&start=0 ) I was again reminded of the conversation, and figured now would be as good a time as any to start a longer thread.
I'll try to start off without taking a side, to spark the conversation, and instead just list a bunch of scenarios that come to mind along the spectrum. Is a signature something inherently valuable? We often have a spectator sign something to mark it as theirs, and "guarantee" uniqueness. It means that when we show the card again, they *know* it's the same one, and not a duplicate. If we can demonstrate the power to duplicate a signature - does that weaken the rest of out magic when revealing at the end? It can certainly be powerful to move a signature from one item to another, e.g. Murray Mint ( http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......&start=0 ). Or moving a signature from one bill to another (like on P&T FU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErRsMTmdQb4 ). Or moving a specially signed object from one place to another (like with the bullet catch). If people can imagine that it's a copied signature, does that change the reaction? What about if you could actually showed copying the signature - displaying two (or more) items the all have the spectator's signature on it at the same time? Making multiple cards, coins, doves, spongballs, etc. is powerful, but it you show the spectators signature on five things at once, does that lessen the impact? Does the educated spectator think "Oh, well, I guess there's just some way I don't know about to copy it" that they might not think about when a signature maintains uniqueness? Is the spectator likely to consider that anyway, for a signature transposition? Or is it totally fine either way? If those two have different answers, where is the line (for you)? Is it OK to copy a signature, but only if the two are never seen at the same time? Only if one is destroyed in the process? Is it OK if you still have a real signature from a previous performance with the spectator? Is still OK when you've explicitly called out something as being unique? What kind of effect does any of this have on the spectator, and the convincers/psychology you need to add/change for your routine? Or maybe the answer is "hell yeah, I'd copy everything everywhere, if I could - it'll blow their minds!" I'm very curious to hear what people think. Where are folks along the spectrum of (explicit/implicit promises) and ethics, here? Does it even matter at all? What would you consider doing (or not doing) around duplicating a signature for purposes of an effect. Discuss. (Thanks!) |
vitorrd New user 3 Posts |
I don't think those questions have very well defined answers. It all depends on how you present your trick, doesn't it?
If your plot is "forging a document", showing original and duplicate might be intriguing, especially because, in magic, we usually hide the method at all costs. However, under the same document forging scenario, you could well show only the forged document and you can conclude saying something like "the secret is not to forge the signature, but the document it belongs to" and it would still get amazement and good laughs. I think the above example shows briefly my thoughts on this. I don't think magic ever has a "right" way. Even exposing the method can be seen as intriguing. Penn and Teller do that quite often and it gets good laughs. Anyway, my 50 cents on the subject. |
Gerald Deutsch Special user 526 Posts |
Back in 2002, I posted (under Close Up Magic) in The Genii forum the fact that over the years I had done tricks with the spectator signing their name on a card and I had saved these cards and then, if I knew I was going to see that person at a later date I would take that signed card and a matching deck. I would force the duplicate of the signed card, have it shuffled back into the deck and then I would palm it out as I gave the deck to the spectator telling him to picture his card. I would give the spectator an imaginary pen and tell him to sign the mental picture with the imaginary pen and put the mentally pictured, mentally signed card back in the deck. I would spread the deck and there would be his signed selected card – signed with HIS signature.
Also, on September 1, 2005 I posted the Unsigned Card Trick on the Perverse Magic thread of the Genii Forum. Well, for the Unsigned Card Trick I would take one of these saved signed cards and using it as a guide “forge” that signature on the other 51 cards of a matching deck. (I read somewhere that to copy a signature it’s best to do it with the signature to be copied upside down.) The deck now contains fifty –one forged signature cards and one unsigned card. The card with the actual signature isn’t used. You also need a duplicate of the unsigned card – let’s say the 4C Force one of the unsigned 4C and have the spectator sign it, shuffle it back into the pack and palm it out. Spread the deck on the table and pull out a face down card and show the signature. But it’s not the selected card. You’re puzzled. You try again – Again not the selected card but it’s signed. You turn over the deck – they’re all signed. You ask for the name of the card. You look for it – it’s the only one not signed. You quit in frustration. |
Carderrez Regular user Arlington, Texas 188 Posts |
I have read your post several times, and it seems to me far too much of everything these days is framed in the nth degree as a starting point, and this is not the true reality of things, and further to the point its not the finish line either. This is not what I think about when I employ a new gaff. It's all about the discipline of creating something memorable and enduring for my audience. The same can be said about a multitude of gaffs and slights that could be exploited like no tomorrow or for unethical purposes. In the end we can chose to keep it real and true north or navigate without a compass. You decide.
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
I have no idea how a person would react to a trick that used signature duplication as secret method. Consider the trick where they sign the face of a card - then the back ... then you do the classic two card transposition ... but when they turn over the card it's still signed but changed. Not sure that would play as magical rather than "disturbing".
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Carderrez Regular user Arlington, Texas 188 Posts |
On Fool Me, Clone was used in a signed dollar to a hundred dollar bill transposition. The larger signed bill was then given to the spectator. If you were able to ask that spectator how it was done what do you you think he might say? As a performer what would you want him to say? I have not thought to study the psychology of that performance, but what did the spectator believe he had truly witnessed after he walked off that stage?
In my profession as software analyst I work with a lot of customers dealing with what they believe are complex issues. Not because the issues truly are complex, but because they have to work with a software analyst to address them. I cannot over emphasize how many times I have started a support call with six degrees of incoherent of techno-babble from the customer instead of, "I am doing this, expecting that, but getting a 101 error." My point being, it is human nature to over-analyze things that challenge our comprehension. When a magician takes this into account and uses this physiological edge to enhance his or her performance, chances are the spectator will come away with a more far fetched conclusion than anything any of us could imagine. On the flip-side if the routine lacks this element of forethought the end result might very well be disturbing. |
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On Dec 9, 2017, Carderrez wrote: In the video: At 5:20 he's got the signed bill on the table and the money roller out. It's a 1->100 change.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Carderrez Regular user Arlington, Texas 188 Posts |
True, it was a bill change effect. The focus was not on the signature transposing from the one dollar bill to the hundred, but the bill change. You are spot on.
|
tonsofquestions Inner circle 1802 Posts |
Yes, I realize a lot of it is about how the magic is presented. This is the case with many effects. (A)CAAN can be a dull drudgery of naming a number then counting and waiting, or it can be a deeply moving and impactful piece, when framed properly. But I also think some effects would be in poor taste and unnecessarily revealing, even if done with a good story. For example, I don't think an anniversary-waltz type story with coins, resulting in a C/S at the end would be a wise thing to present.
My goal here was to try and spark a conversation around where this edge lies for folks, and how people think about it. I personally wouldn't like an effect where all the cards end up signed except the selection. While I enjoy the gag, it makes me feel distrusting. If you (the magician) have the capability to obviously forge my signature many times, what else would you put it on? A personal cheque? The restaurant bill? It feels too close to fraud for my comfort, and I would worry that other spectators might feel the same way, so I wouldn't do it, much as I wouldn't do the bra magic trick. Carderrez: I'm not sure in what way my post is framing things in the nth degree. I don't care about what gimmick is being employed, Clone just reminded me about the coversation with my friends, and I'm trying to begin a discussion around the ethics/usefulness of copying a signature, and if doing so has the potential to destroy the enjoyment of the spectator. Your example of Penn & Teller is a good one - often when they reveal something (e.g. Lift Off of Love https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PoDhuIp3I0) the audience ends up seeing some of the work, but ending with a new appreciation of the amount of effort/work that goes into the effect, and so still enjoying it. Compare that to, say, something where black art is meant to be employed but is visible, and the effect is destroyed, and not in a good way. I'd say the same thing about your document forgery case. Magically changing the document is fine in my mind - it results in still only one signature, so the signature "uniqueness" is preserved. But, at least to me, showing additional signed items would break an unspoken trust. I'm sure I'm overthinking things, as we all do, thus why I wanted to start a thread on the topic. But, given the limited number of replies, I guess most people don't feel the same way. Oh, well. |
Carderrez Regular user Arlington, Texas 188 Posts |
As I mentioned I read your question several times. The first few times I decided not to post a response. I felt I would have to write a defense case. I read it a few more times and as a member of this forum who has purchased and will be using CLONE. The question did not resonate as a discussion point (to me), but the premise for a potentially heated debate (in my opinion unwarranted.)
I will be duplicating signatures. Never questioning or second guessing myself or even thinking about the extremes of the yin and yang of it. I thought, I am going to be participant in this practice and I should respond. So the real question for me was, how do I respond without sounding like I am taking the moral high ground, when based on the question there can be such a moral low ground. The only answer I could come up with was to qualify the answer by challenging the question itself. Perhaps I am not comprehending what it is you would like to take away this, and I am the one overthinking. I did however respond as sincerely as I could. |
Signet Loyal user 257 Posts |
I was reading his thread and found it interesting. I have an idea for an effect using a signature. This would be done at a party where the guest list would be known in advance. You have a particular guest sign a paper. Tell them to sign it just like they were signing an important document. Then have THEM destroy the paper by burning it or tearing it to shreds. Direct them to the kitchen and have them open the freezer. Inside is the paper sealed in a plastic bag inside a block of ice. They break the ice and open the bag. The paper does indeed. Contain their signature. There is no sleight of hand involved. The original paper was truly destroyed. The signature is obtained beforehand, but the magician or an accomplice never have prior contact with the guest. Any guesses as to how I get the signature?
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On Dec 11, 2017, Carderrez wrote: Okay, how's it working for your audiences?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 26, 2018, Signet wrote: Has that kind of effect worked out well in your performing before? Say just having a torn up card found intact but minus a corner you left on the table ... It's a classic plot. A cute twist on that was where the cut up pieces of a card are found taped together.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Signet Loyal user 257 Posts |
I haven't tried this yet, so I don't know how it would go over. Since the signature has been obtained prior, there really is no trick to do. It seems like real magic. The signature is obtained from the internet, that's the interesting part.
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
It's much simpler if you try a trick and then let them describe what they thought was the effect later. That way audience feedback refines the magic and you get to refine the methods.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Thoughts around signature duplication (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |