|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
Sazalfram Regular user 163 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-10-29 14:09, Bill Hallahan wrote: Bill, If your examples have nothing to do with "you" then are you saying that you disagree with the points you are trying to make or do you agree with the points you are trying to make? Its nearly impossible to debate a point with you if these are not your feelings and just something hypothetical idea you made up. If you agree with the comments you have made then my last post still stands. You feel you are a better magician then others because you read and they don't. You feel superior to me for example. Is this true? |
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts |
I just read a circle.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
Sazalfram Regular user 163 Posts |
OK I'll simplify it. The greatness of a magician is determined by his end result. Otherwise his performance abilities. Not how he got there. We all come from different places. Do not get me wrong I am not saying don't read books on magic. They can be very helpful. But the simple fact that someone reads a lot of magic books or more books than you has nothing to do with them being a better magician. Out of the millions of aspiring magicians out there that read and study magic only a handful have what it takes to get up in front of a group of strangers and entertain them. Which is my definition of a great magician. Someone who can get up in front of strangers and entertain them with their magic abilities. With that in mind that leaves probably 90% of the aspiring magicians that read and study magic that are not great. If it were the reading and studying magic that made great magicians then the great magicians would greatly out number the not so great ones. But this is not true.
Everything has a limit. A point at which it is too excessive. And that is true with reading magic books. I think you need to keep a balance. If you're reading magic and not getting out and applying what you have learned it can be easily forgotten. Its like in school if you simply read books and never had hands on workshops or homework that allowed you to apply what you learned you wouldn't retain anything. You have to do your homework which means you have to get out and work. If you are not applying what you learn it will be lost. I think the biggest thing great magicians have in common is they perform. They apply what they learn. They don't simply sit at home studying magic. |
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-10-29 23:45, Sazalfram wrote: How is this not true? I'm curious where that information comes from. Also, I once thought like you did. I have regretted it ever since. I thought it was more important to go out and do it, figure it out myself. When you actually get into all the information others have offered, information that would have made my life simpler... man I wish I read. I read Whit's take on originality in magic too late. Reading good. But isn't that not the point here? Reading for bettering your performance I mean?
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts |
Sazalfram wrote:
Quote:
OK I'll simplify it. The greatness of a magician is determined by his end result. Otherwise his performance abilities. Not how he got there. We all come from different places. Do not get me wrong I am not saying don't read books on magic. They can be very helpful. But the simple fact that someone reads a lot of magic books or more books than you has nothing to do with them being a better magician. Out of the millions of aspiring magicians out there that read and study magic only a handful have what it takes to get up in front of a group of strangers and entertain them. Which is my definition of a great magician. Someone who can get up in front of strangers and entertain them with their magic abilities. With that in mind that leaves probably 90% of the aspiring magicians that read and study magic that are not great. If it were the reading and studying magic that made great magicians then the great magicians would greatly out number the not so great ones. But this is not true. Sure, I'd partially agree with that, although I'm not sure why you're arguing that. Nobody has asserted otherwise. If you read the words I used in the "specific example" (the phrase I used earlier) in my earlier post that contained that example, you'll see I was writing about a magician who doesn't read any magic books, not someone who has read many magic books and stopped. My other post cited that example regarding the importance of reading to be a great magician. Personally, I don't think stopping learning about others ideas in magic makes a lot of sense for someone in that career. If someone really cares about their job, I would think they want to keep improving as much as is possible. No one person can think of what thousands of magicians came up with over many hundreds of years. The main point I want to make in this topic, is that a magician who publishes, or puts a routine on the market, without doing any research at all about their effect risks selling something that was created by someone well before they created it, and was also put on the market earlier. As you yourself pointed out, a magician can create a routine, perform it for 30 years, and then later put it on the the market. If the magicians does no research before selling it, then he or she won't necessarily know that another magician created the same routine earlier, and has been performing it for 40 years, and has even put it on the market before them. Based on that, do you think that research is the responsible thing to do before selling a routine?
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
Sazalfram Regular user 163 Posts |
I think as research goes you do what you can and you should not be critisized for not doing enough. If two magicians come up with the same routine they should both be given equal credit and congratulations for their hardwork and ingenuity. Not just the guy who released it first. If I see a new routine that is similar to something I have seen before I am not going to throw a fit about this guy not crediting the other guy. It would depend on the routine wether I even cared to tell the guy that there was a similar routine. As a worker if the second guy has even the slightest improvement then I will gladly buy his product. Some may argue that the second guy is giving away the first guys techniques. I don't see it that way. If he was unaware of the first guy then the techniques are his idea. Now I know people do steal the work of others but in that case it should be obvious that the creator knows his routine better then the guy who is simply copying him. The copying of patter and instructions are also easy to detect that someone has simply copied someone else.
I think it's more the consumer who should be well educated if they want to buy the best product. It's not Toyota's job to tell it's customers that Honda has a similar produuct or they had this idea first. It's the consumers job to research and decide which one is best. |
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts |
I agree with much that you wrote above. If a magician releases a routine, and it's the same as someone else's, and they had done no research, then the magic community will judge them harshly if their routine isn't as good as the existing routine, or rather isn't substantially better. The consumer will decide that.
For the example I gave earlier, the magician released a routine that was not as good as the original, i.e. the original creator had gone down that path, and improved the routine a lot from there (although the earlier path, while not as strong, does have certain practical advantages). As such, the second magician was merely releasing secrets, without adding anything of value. And, the market judged him harshly for that. And, finally, the issue of 'legacy' is key for the idea of the importance of crediting. Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. If someone else, through ignorance, invents it again, Eli Whitney still is the original inventor, and he gets the credit. The other guy would be considered not very bright for wasting his time by not checking what had been done before, particularly if he announced his 'new' idea in agriculture periodicals. If someone else makes a considerable improvement to Eli Whitney's cotton gin, he'll get the credit for that improvement, but he or she still won't be considered the original creator. Nobody should be able to take that away from Eli Whitney. Because of the compartmentalized nature of magic secrets, a magician could be considered the creator of an old idea by most magicians, and damage the legacy of the true creator. Sazalfram wrote: Quote:
I think as research goes you do what you can and you should not be criticized for not doing enough. And, of course, what someone can do is quite a bit. If they don't do what's considered due diligence, the customer will make a judgment. Sometimes magicians who try very hard are criticized anyway. There will always be unfair critics. I know one very good book full of credits. The author made one mistake, a mistake that lots of magicians were making at the time, and another magician criticized him harshly. Ironically, it turned out that the critic was also wrong about the origin of that particular gaff! In this case, others defended the author, because clearly he had done extensive research. Mistakes are inevitable. Gross negligence can be avoided.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
Sazalfram Regular user 163 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-10-31 12:35, Bill Hallahan wrote: But all I'm seeing is a bunch of people whining over who was first. All it is is hatred, name calling, anger, false assumptions, false accusations, friends lost for what purpose? So we all know Billy Bob thought of that first? The negativity far out ways any positive outcome. What if in the scenario quoted above there was a guy that did it before all of them but simply never published anything? Then all that negativity was pointless. All your talking about is people fighting over who "published" something first not necessarily who created it first. Because that truth may never be known. Very few magicians publish their work. |
|||||||||
espmagic Special user 978 Posts |
I scrolled past the yammering, and only read those perspectives that address the issue. However, one thing seems to have been left out: are we discussing the presentation of an effect, or the mechanics therein? So, let's change the effect, for clarity's purpose:
I purchase an Invisible Deck. The mechanics therein are used correctly (and the same) regardless of how it is presented (me reading your mind, you reading my mind, PK turning the card over, a prediction, an amazing demo of invisible sleight-of-hand, etc.). So, *when* is it unethical to publish a routine that is different from the original one? Since we are performers, it would seem that the "trick" versus the "effect" is the issue, no? And since the "effect" changes, however slightly, from performer to performer, is that the place where the ethical argument begins? Just for clarification... Lee |
|||||||||
Sazalfram Regular user 163 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-11-02 13:03, espmagic wrote: I think we all have a way of doing Invisible Deck which is unique. But are the differences unique enough that others would be interested in buying the effect. Personally I set the cards in a unique order when I use the ID gimmick. It's a simpler set up then the original and you do not have to do any math. I learned it from a friend of mine who has never published this idea. I took his idea and simplified it even more. If I were to ever sell this idea I would certainly ask him first because he is who originally sparked the idea in my head. Now if he knew where he got the idea then I would continue to research but if he said it was something he created with no help from any other source I would feel fine stopping my research there. If it was ok with him and I released my version of the set up and I would credit him and probably say something like it is possible that others have come up with this idea but I am not aware of it. This to me is being "ethical" enough. If it has already been released then nobody will buy my product. End of story. What is sad and completely unnecessarry are the attacks that will be made on my product. The name calling, the accusations ... ect. This is the part that is "wrong". This is the part that is far worse then someone forgetting or not being aware of some information or not crediting the right person. It's the modern day "witch hunt" or public "stoning" that goes on that is unethical. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
That story has one person's lie used as an excuse for not vetting and continues to enable another generation of clueless magicians to go around calling a guy's work by the name of another guy's presentation. As usual around here - just plain wrong.
Did you go out and buy an Ultra-Mental deck? That's cool. Are you using the presentation Don Alan made famous? I guess that's cool too in a way. Now given that a guy named Hull spent many years exploring uses of that gaffus for that pack perhaps it's a good idea to do some research. Yup, the story of secrets in magic is coming to an end. If you tolerate an open market with unvetted material it's pretty much over except for the YouTube video contests and the flood of "now it can be told" celebrity dumpster diving for tricks using stuff like cigarettes and coins that are no longer money. Sad. Please folks, we can do better.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
If someone thinks of something new, novel, original and so on and then gives the idea away here at the café then is that regarded as published by the magic world in general? I mean people used to say in books there is nothing in the literature about this new thing but today what is regarded as the literature today? Does it include things shown on you tube which may be new? If it does how does the inventor check all of that to see what he has got is new or not? How do the vets know it all when its not just all in books?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Sazalfram Regular user 163 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-11-03 15:14, tommy wrote: I agree. All the more reason people need to think twice before accussing someone of not doing their research. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Some not bad questions there:
I like the question about online stuff as publication. Most of the time the folks posting are available to ask about their works and ideas. And usually the serious ones take the discussion to email so at that point if both parties are credible the matter sits as documented in correspondence IMHO. Establishing that credibility is not trivial. More about that later. So how can you find out what's new in your work? Very difficult to work in isolation given the long history and current popularity of this craft. When you want to seriously take part in the process of improving our craft you will meet those who are working at the same task - and most of them are good at keeping secrets and also take delight in novel discoveries. In the crediting and references department - citing a YouTube clip as a source just doesn't cut it. Nor does "someone showed me this at a convention" or "I heard that this is a classic" The odds of novel discovery of something useful in this old craft are very slim. That's why students of this craft take old books seriously and keep asking "who do I talk to about" or "who can make me a" for things they want to explore. Not to worry, the folks who actually do discover things will tend to check in with their mentors before making noises about "look what's new" etc. Similarly folks who want to be taken seriously as regards their ideas and works will make sure to post under their full name, ask about prior art and expect others to do the same. Just as we grow out of what Freud called the oral stage of development where we believe anything we can put in our mouths is good and should be consumed (think products folks) we likewise are expected to also learn that not everything we "create" is going to be considered wonderful by others. Not so very long after we learn not to expect others to think our s**t is wonderful we get to learning that we can't expect to get the same reactions as others do in their relationships. In magic that's pretty much the same as learning that even if we do a routine move for move and line for line as written it won't be the same as when the person who spent their lives developing it does it for audiences. That's when we learn to honor the past with our work and put our efforts into learning how audiences see us and how to relate to audiences. For those who want to get started in the process of establishing some credibility and at least the beginnings of a foundation in knowing what's what in this craft... off to Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft (just the few short sections on conjuring) as a project and the Tarbell Course in Magic as a first read. If Tarbell seems too great an investment for now - how about The Mark Wilson Course in Magic. These are just places to start. After those books there are others well worth your time.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Sazalfram Regular user 163 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-11-03 17:43, Jonathan Townsend wrote: That's the kind of thinking that doesn't "cut it" in my book. Magic is all about creative thinking. We should push people to think differently, to not get stuck in paradigms and not play by the rules. That's how all the greatest ideas are created. If the newcomers are pushed to only learn the classics cause they work, with the why fix it if it ain't broke mentality. The ever growing art of magic will stop growing. We live in an age of information. We know more know then we ever did. There are new technologies, new sciences, new beliefs, new ways of approaching things, which should all be exploited to further the art of magic. The quote above is from someone who has given up. We don't need people like that on our team. We can't think that way. Especially in magic. We have to always challenge ideas. Come up with new better ways of doing things. There is always a solution. |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Have not read the whole thread - which is always dangerous.
But here is a simple solution to the first question - if you have a minor variation, of course you can publish it. Either get permission from the person you are varying OR explain your addition without tipping any of their work. That way, you get credit for your idea, others get to benefit from your contribution, and the original creator maintains the proprietary nature of his or her ideas. Would either of those two criterion be too much work and stifle all magic development? I don't think so. But we don't do that - because you can't sell a $30 one trick DVD by just saying - "Do Pat Page's Easy money - but left handed." Brad Henderson |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-11-04 05:47, Sazalfram wrote: There is a significant difference between "creative thinking" and novel discovery. That's what the mention of Freud's stages of development was directed at getting folks to consider. Still no idea who you think "we" is or where you get off using the word "should". I'm going to ask some of our craftsmen and innovators to look at this thread and to consider just how much their best efforts are wasted on those who would presume to take them, their work and our literature as worthless. Who is John Galt? For the folks who don't have easy access to a reference - "novel discovery" means it really has not been tried before - or in our craft - at least not set into print or circulating in the underground. It's one thing to discover a thing for yourself - and bravo for all such - but quite another to go public with something which may already be in print or be part of of someone's unpublished work on a project. IMHO it's usually better for all if polite inquiries are made to those who know before any claims are made in public. Then again it's kinda strange to see stuff rushed into print before they've been extensively used in actual performances and refined by real-world experience.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Sazalfram Regular user 163 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-11-04 15:24, Jonathan Townsend wrote: You do not have novel discovery with out creative thinking. Who said anyones work or literature was worthless? Quote:
On 2008-11-04 10:52, truthteller wrote: I wish everyone had your attitude. Great post. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Agreed about the first point
The second is implied by condoning the publication and distribution of unvetted material in this craft of secrets. Things and ideas here are just about public. Stuff sold openly or in magic shops is pretty much public too. Some who invent things don't want their stuff public. You can get much further and much faster when you have access to the experts in the field you are exploring. Once you know where they've stopped or left off exploring you might also find you have their help as you extend their work and maybe even find new ways to doing things. Those who respect themselves are usually very good about respecting others discoveries and secrets. IMHO it's better to have knowledgeable folks you can ask about stuff than to have to depend on what folks are willing to post in public places like here.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Unethical? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 < |