|
|
Ade2010 Regular user 157 Posts |
After posting on this thread I received a wee bit of good-natured poking from some of the more established forum members with regard to my use of asterisks and exposure.
One particular exchange got me thinking: Quote:
On Apr 17, 2010 14:16, Ade 2010 wrote: Quote:
On 2010-04-17 14:26, ASW wrote: Asterisks added With respect, I disagree on both points. It' may be that the method is widely known to *magicians* , but it is not to widely known to laypeople. If magicians perceive a method as 'trivial' with regard to the effect, then that’s fine. But I believe that this does not justify said magicians from divulging the method (YMMV?) on an open forum. With regard to the second point, once laypeople *are* aware of the method used in ‘The Zen Master‘ , the effect is completely trivial, as it requires no other explanation (due to the fact no sleight of hand is used). If an audience believes that ‘sleight of hand’ is used as a method in the execution of Hitchcock Aces, this does not diminish the impact of the effect, in the same way that all audiences ‘know’ that misdirection (as a technique) is used in most magical effects. Am I being too uptight here, what do other member think? |
ASW Inner circle 1879 Posts |
Since you used the following code in your original post in the old thread - "m****y" - don't you think that the person who exposed the method in the first place was YOU? What do you think we all thought when we saw that self-censorship? Mamary[sic]? Monday?
Rest assured, the only people who read the Café are magicians or laymen developing an interest in magic (i.e., hobbyists). As long as you don't detail the method (ethically wrong and a far more complicated matter than saying "this is a mem deck effect") then there is no compromise. Saying that the Ortiz effect uses a stack is no big deal, no more than saying that a certain effect "uses a gaff" or "relies on sleight of hand". They are general observations that don't expose the exact method and as long as you don't introduce the effect by saying, 'I'd now like to perform Darwin Ortiz's "The Zen Master" which uses a stacked deck', no one will see it coming.
Whenever I find myself gripping anything too tightly I just ask myself "How would Guy Hollingworth hold this?"
A magician on the Genii Forum "I would respect VIPs if they respect history." Hideo Kato |
Ade2010 Regular user 157 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-18 08:43, ASW wrote: I don't beleive I exposed anything other than that there was a method, which is no exposure itself. What 'you' (i.e. members of this board) know it it be is one thing, for laymen another. Quote:
On 2010-04-18 08:43, ASW wrote: Point taken For future reference, where would you draw the line? |
ASW Inner circle 1879 Posts |
Quote:
I don't beleive I exposed anything other than that there was a method, which is no exposure itself. I agree. That was the point I was making, too. Where do I draw the line? Don't tip the method.
Whenever I find myself gripping anything too tightly I just ask myself "How would Guy Hollingworth hold this?"
A magician on the Genii Forum "I would respect VIPs if they respect history." Hideo Kato |
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
As someone who helped develop many of the rules and policies here, I can tell you The Magic Café's position:
Divulging enough information such that someone not already familiar with a particular effect can reverse engineer it constitutes exposure. Otherwise, it is not exposure. I agree with Andrew--saying a routine uses a memdeck does not typically reveal enough information that someone not already familiar with said routine can reverse engineer it. Let's assume you see a coin vanish on YouTube that blows you away, and you post a topic about it. Another member posts that the performer in the video is a guy he knows, and he is using a !@#$%^& coin and a TT. If, in fact, he is right, that would constitute exposure from The Café's standpoint. However, speculating or stating that a memdeck in use does not constitute exposure, as Andrew said, anymore than speculating or stating that sleight-of-hand was used.
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
uri New user Israel 95 Posts |
Personally, I found it amusing that you thought it was necessary to conceal the fact that this trick uses a memorized deck when you yourself posted this very topic at the part of the forums explicitly dealing with memorized decks...
|
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
Protean ethics are a fact of life in magic. "Memdeck" becomes "memorized deck", and "s***K" becomes stack. No wonder we are guarding an empty safe...
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Simple method = Exposure? (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 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 < |