The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Steve Forte TV Special from the Past (19 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3
Cain
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
1433 Posts

Profile of Cain
Quote:
On May 19, 2018, shaunluttin wrote:
So we censored it. Problem solved. Magic is predicated on censorship.


Yeah, sure. Even though Forte's ruse in question is unpublished, perhaps we can informally call it the "Streisand Effect." That way it will get lost in Google searches. But to any monkeys who manage to excavate this thread:

Hi there. A shift was NOT used.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."

Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!"
tenchu
View Profile
Special user
Europe
775 Posts

Profile of tenchu
There is a very, very skilled and knowledgeable magician you all know (I won't mention his name). I know his opinion about the expose part in the Cups and Balls routine where you explain the fake placing of the ball into the other hand.

You know, that swindle Dai Vernon did on TV. And many, many other magicians throughout the years.

This is just awful. It's bad thinking.

I agree with that 100% and I can't imagine how a legend like Dai Vernon could do that.

(Props to Ricky Jay, though, for finding quite an elegant way for this, but still...)

The fact that you're explaining the fake take/placement of the ball simply ruins the magic. Now, every time you put something in your hand, they will have a solid point of reference. Because you explained that pretty clearly, you dummy.

Saying that, I think any type of exposure (especially on tv) is not a good thing.

Let's keep the exposure level at minimum, mkay?

Mike
The Burnaby Kid
View Profile
Inner circle
Busan, South Korea
2743 Posts

Profile of The Burnaby Kid
Quote:
On May 20, 2018, tenchu wrote:
You know, that swindle Dai Vernon did on TV. And many, many other magicians throughout the years.

This is just awful. It's bad thinking.

I agree with that 100% and I can't imagine how a legend like Dai Vernon could do that.

(Props to Ricky Jay, though, for finding quite an elegant way for this, but still...)


It's actually a pretty complicated issue.

While Ricky Jay's approach strives to keep a certain element of mystery in his routine, it still takes some away by virtue of the fact that it explains what other magicians are supposedly doing. You know, kind of like what's happening in this thread. That said...

Digging deeper into your average variant on the Vernon Cups and Balls routine, the idea behind giving away the FT is arguably two-fold. First, it addresses the elephant in the room because the routine pretty blatantly points towards the FT as a method anyway simply because it gets used so much. Lance Pierce has made the point that most intelligent people who are trying to figure the trick out end up mentally in that approximate ballpark. So, in a way, pointing this out can sort of harness where people's heads are at.

This is important because of the second dimension, which is that of immediate escalation, first to the reappearance of THREE balls under the center cup, which seems to undermine the idea that the routine is all about the FT, because how in the heck does the FT accomplish that? And if that mini-climax didn't blow their minds, suddenly BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM happens and the table's been turned into the grocer's fruit aisle.

There's a definite history in the art of messing around with descriptions of method to a regular audience for the sake of red herrings. It certainly predates Vernon. Pseudo-exposures as red herrings might not be everybody's cup of tea, but they can serve a useful purpose, and Vernon doesn't need to be marched naked through the streets of King's Landing for it.

Although that's a sexy image if there ever was one.
shaunluttin
View Profile
Special user
532 Posts

Profile of shaunluttin
Quote:
On May 20, 2018, Magic-Daniel wrote:
Quote:
On May 20, 2018, JasonEngland wrote:
Quote:
On May 19, 2018, shaunluttin wrote:. I'm not sure our exposure of Forte's routine is any more wrong than Forte's expose of seconds/bottoms/blinds.

I'm stunned that you can't see the difference. Amazing.
Jason

Me too

Thank you. That means I have some learning to do.

I used to be sensitive to criticism, but I am not really sensitive to it any more. Please do criticize my technique, presentation, and posts. It helps me to grow, and I promise to take responsibility and not to be defensive.

shaunluttin
View Profile
Special user
532 Posts

Profile of shaunluttin
Burnaby Kid,

Man, I welcome the complexity of your thinking in this thread and your focus on its ideas.

What Vernon does with the FT reminds me of what he does in his Ace Assembly. For the last Ace, he explains it via palming. Doing that seems to be generally acceptable in the magic community. Why? Maybe because the laity already has a vague understanding of what palming is. Through Vernon's explanation, they don't get any further understanding and instead might become more confused. There's an argument that we should be burying palming even further instead of reminding people of its existence, but if we cannot bury something, and since it's hard to put a cat back in to a bag, we might as well obscure the concept as much as we can, and that's arguably what Vernon's doing in his routine. He is not actually exposing palming; he is demonstrating something else and calling it palming.

I'm not sure how the the magic community would respond to an actual expose of real palming techniques, though a pseudo expose seems okay, as does an expose of bottoms/seconds/blinds. As I think about this more, in his cups and balls, he is doing an actual expose of the FT instead of a pseudo display, so the analogy between the two routines is thinner than I initially thought.

I'm learning a lot from this thread and love that sexy image you left in my head.

Shaun

I used to be sensitive to criticism, but I am not really sensitive to it any more. Please do criticize my technique, presentation, and posts. It helps me to grow, and I promise to take responsibility and not to be defensive.

shaunluttin
View Profile
Special user
532 Posts

Profile of shaunluttin
Quote:
On May 20, 2018, Cain wrote:
Quote:
On May 19, 2018, shaunluttin wrote:
So we censored it. Problem solved. Magic is predicated on censorship.

Yeah, sure. Even though Forte's ruse in question is unpublished, perhaps we can informally call it the "Streisand Effect."

Sounds good to me. The Streisand Effect is a really clever idea; bravo to Forte for devising it. I'll defer to him about whether that name sticks. I'm glad we stuffed his cat back in to the bag.

I used to be sensitive to criticism, but I am not really sensitive to it any more. Please do criticize my technique, presentation, and posts. It helps me to grow, and I promise to take responsibility and not to be defensive.

Mr. Bones
View Profile
Regular user
103 Posts

Profile of Mr. Bones
Sometimes the obtuse overthink related to exposure of a guys unpublished routines and ideas, and whether it's "OK" or not to expose amazes me.

This isn't brain surgery ... nor is it particularly difficult to figure out what the "right thing" to do is.

Forget the minutia, this is Fortes routine. He owns it. It's not yours. It's not mine.

Don't pick the routine apart in a public forum.
Don't share "guessing games" about specific moves contained within the routine in a public forum.
Don't pick the routine apart and then publish how you "think" it was done online (or anywhere else).

I guess if one day Forte wants to share the routine with folks, he'll do just that.
Until then, work on your own stuff.
Mr. Bones
"Hey Rube"!
shaunluttin
View Profile
Special user
532 Posts

Profile of shaunluttin
Mr Bones,

I think we established that it was not okay to expose Forte's routine.

There does seem to be some difficulty, though, in figuring out when exactly exposure is okay and of what content. This thread among intelligent people is evidence of that. To me that's what the conversation is about now.

For instance:

* Is Vernon's exposure of the FT okay?
* Is Vernon's exposure of palming okay?
* Is Forte's exposure of seconds/bottoms/blinds okay?
* In each case, why and when is it okay?

In these conversations, I tend to respond better when people consider me intelligent rather than obtuse. I appreciate that in passionate topics ad hominems are bound to arise. Though I don't take it personally, others might, and to push ethics forward, I need us to elucidate ideas rather than to criticize character.

Shaun

I used to be sensitive to criticism, but I am not really sensitive to it any more. Please do criticize my technique, presentation, and posts. It helps me to grow, and I promise to take responsibility and not to be defensive.

Mr. Bones
View Profile
Regular user
103 Posts

Profile of Mr. Bones
Quote:
On May 20, 2018, shaunluttin wrote:

* In each case, why and when is it okay?

As I noted in my post, but you so quickly brushed off ... "This isn't brain surgery ... nor is it particularly difficult to figure out what the "right thing" to do is."

If you're inclined to try and turn it into brain surgery, you'll have to venture there on your own.
Mr. Bones
"Hey Rube"!
TallyHighLife
View Profile
New user
4 Posts

Profile of TallyHighLife
Jason should publish some variations on Fortes work and we can put all this to bed.
The Burnaby Kid
View Profile
Inner circle
Busan, South Korea
2743 Posts

Profile of The Burnaby Kid
The community is notoriously fickle on a number of issues. This is one of them.

Whenever I find myself unsure how to calibrate my personal moral and ethical compass, I look to George Carlin, who once had this to say: "People wonder why I do commercials for 10-10-220 while attacking advertising -- you'll just have to figure that shtuff out on your own."

It's a tricky concept to grasp, because it puts the onus on you to find a spiritual center within an apparent hypocrisy, or the sound logic within an apparent paradox.

Plus, why would Carlin say "shtuff"? That's not even a word.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Steve Forte TV Special from the Past (19 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2018 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.13 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL