|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts 
|
The other thing almost always left out of the calculation is the greater number of people that are around now as opposed to 48 years ago! There is just a lot more of everything. You have to calculate in the greater number of people, the staggeringly greater amount of magic in all forms available, etc. I would bet that if you looked at it as a percentage of what's around now compared to then that the amount of exposure has stayed somewhat constant.
Now, the big question that I'm not sure anyone can answer, but it would be interesting even if based only on a kind heuristic guess by those who might be able to answer. Here goes: Does anyone here who is actively performing for 'real' people on a more or less regular basis note ANY deviation downward in you ability to not simple 'entertain', BUT to also, well, 'fool' folks? In other words are folks in your audience during or after LESS FOOLED by what you are doing? Does even one person rush up afterward with the solution to what you are doing? Are there overt murmurs of "he did it like this..." and are they correct? That's really the down and dirt of the discussion. What is the overall AFFECT on magic in the aggregate of whatever exposure is taking place? By the by anyone simple enough to think that I am arguing for it can be disabused of that. I HATE it. I just can't do anything about it. So the question is: What is the negative affect and how pervasive if it's there? You see in a way it's the same problem that the goofy philosophy of Utilitarianism has: By what metric do you calculate not just how much good or how much bad is being done, but what is 'good' in the first place? Punishing person 'x' because his body odor offends a dozen folks may produce paradoxically way more 'pain' than a dozens worth of pleasure for the other side. How do you know? How do you calculate? Try this: What if the 'exposure' as much as we decry it is actually has a far greater and more positive AFFECT upon the movement of magic than it has a negative affect? I could make a really spiffy and logical argument that this is so. It may not be! But, that of course is part of what this discussion is all about. Is 'exposure' bad? Most of us, including myself, thing that generally the answer is yes. But, what if we're wrong? What if exposure is a natural by product of the movement forward of the craft? What if there's exposure BECAUSE magic is so engaging, even more engaging than ever? I've been doing this for 43 years and I'm just blown away by a lot of the new material coming out. What if as a natural consequence of how 'good' magic is becoming and an increasing popularity more folks are just interested and that aggregate interest pushes the craft positively forward? It's a mystery.....LOL Best,
Brad Burt
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-06-02 13:09, Brad Burt wrote: All thumbs up, except it would be the Effect it is having, the result of how it is Affecting magic.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Not that it's important, it's just one of those grammatical things I actually know, lol.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts
|
Gdw.... lol.... I put them up side by side at Dictionary.com. Although I think 'affect' could work, I think you are right and 'effect' is more correct contextually. Cool.
I tend to think 'magically' in that the magic 'effect' is the result of the forces that act to produce it and the 'effect' so produced acts to 'affect' what the audience sees, experiences, etc. Thanks,
Brad Burt
|
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Yes, that's pretty much it. I generally think of it that "effect" is the noun and "affect" is a verb.
So the effect is the result of how one affects another.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Glen-
I agree with you on the "affect" "effect" distinction. That's the way I always understood it. As to the question of whether I feel my ability to entertain and fool audiences is any less today than it was, say, forty years ago, I'd have to say "no." But that's probably only because I'm a better entertainer now than I was then. I agree with Brad that since there are more people around today it would only stand to reason that more people are attracted to magic. BUT I would also guess that, proportionately, the percentage of the public to whom magic is trivially exposed is considerably higher today than it was years ago. And that I attribute directly to the flood of exposure on the Internet. It used to require a certain amount of effort to learn the secrets of magic - you had to go to the library, bookstore or magic shop and look for what you wanted to learn. You had to actively seek out other magicians and magic societies. Nowadays you can just casually jump onto YouTube and get whatever you want in a matter of minutes. There was NEVER an equivalent situation in the past. Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
|
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts
|
Dear Bob:
Actually I don't think you and I are that far off in this. But.. When you are behind a magic counter for 35 years you meet a LOT of laymen. You see all kinds at various stages of interest, etc. Also, before I became ill 18 years ago and stopped performing outside the shop I did a lot of shows, etc. Again, exposure, just as you, to lots of laymen. Here's my conclusion: Knowing 'WHAT' the secret is is NOT knowing 'HOW' something is necessarily done. I have noted this before elsewhere on the Café, but I have lost count of the times I have done some 'classic' of over exposed magic, Rings, Ball Vase, etc. and had this comment almost verbatim said to me, "You know I have the that trick and thought I knew how it was done, but you must have a different way to do it!" And, they walk away puzzled and hopefully entertained. I remember the first time it happened with the Linking Rings and I was literally 'blown away'. It had never occurred to me that this might be so. It was at that point that I formulated the above axiom and stopped being too worried about folks 'knowing' how it is done. Heck, I lost count of the 'magic' guys I have fooled with an Xing the Cut Force! What? NO! Yep! Did they just not learn it? Some of the magicians 'knew' it, but had never done it, eschewing it because, "It read so stupid!" Heh, heh, heh! So, again, do I 'like' exposure? Not really, but I just don't worry anymore. On that front can anyone tell me where the greatest amount of overt exposure is going on right now? I would estimate from looking at the hits that it's our old buddies Penn and Teller. Watch there wonderful show 'Fool Us' or whatever it's called. I always forget and I've watched a bunch on YouTube. You get a chance to see some of the most amazing magic and then in many cases P and T will sit there and deconstruct it for anyone in the world to know. Please for you P and T fans who regularly act as apologists for them: 1) How does this serve magic? 2) Why... WHY is this NOT exposure? HOW is it not exposure??? If it is and you think it's ok give some logical, well structured, well thought out argument in favor of it. The biggest problem with many of the discussions here is the use of what my Philosophy proff called, "Un-argued Assumptions" just tossed out willy nilly with no supporting points that aren't usually just more unsupported points. If I seem 'hard' on this I'll tell you why. In virtually EVERY case on the Café when Penn and Teller are supported all that's used in support are JUST unsupported statements. No argument, nothing! And, then when you disagree....well, you just don't get it. Which might be true, because generally the come backs are just as unsupported. The overtly pragmatic argument used so often of P & T that in essence devolves to the following: It's ok that they do it, because they are so successful and have stayed true to their vision. Oh, please, a serial killer stays true to their vision because of pathology. That's not an argument it's just a recognition of what they have done and are doing. That exact argument could be used to support ANY behavior EVEN that of the serial killer. Some of those guys were REALLY successful within their milieu! I honestly believe that the P and T discussion EXACTLY fits this one. I watched them last night comment on a Brit's act that had all kinds of props turning into gold. It rocked. I mean it was great. P/T tossed off a bunch of 'hows', etc. I understand it's part of the show. But, again, how does it serve magic? Why aren't P/T lambasted for it? Hey, maybe it's because the 'exposure' only hits certain level of 'exposure'? It's not 'that' bad? O.k., tell me the metric used to determine that? My Lord, but I talk too much....... lol Best,
Brad Burt
|
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts
|
"Why aren't P/T lambasted for it? "
Because they are GODS to their adoring magician fans!
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
Todd Robbins V.I.P. New York 2922 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-06-03 19:04, Mr. Mystoffelees wrote: They are not "GODS" to me, just performing artists that have been very successful in putting their own world view into their work and have it resonate with a goodly number of the public. |
|||||||||
|
RLFrame Elite user 447 Posts
|
Exposure has been around for as long as magic, and has been criticized right along, and hasn't killed the art. I train bird dogs and people into bird dogs are on bird dog web sites and message boards and there is a lot there to keep there attention. And sure, there is a lot of exposure on the internet, but there is a lot of everything on the internet and I suspect that people looking for magic secrets are magicians, just like bird dog people look for bird dog stuff, sports fans looking for sports stuff, gamers are playing online games, a lot of people are looking for other naked people, which is easier to find than some magic trick that they don't even know the name of...and so on. I would be willing to bet that if you surveyed a couple of hundred lay people and asked them to name a magic trick that they learned how was done from the Masked Magician or Penn and Teller, they wouldn't be able to. The TT is in every beginners magic set for 50 years and who knows how many times has been exposed otherwise. It is still one of the most popular gimmicks. Certainly, there are instances where someone in audience knows how something was done, and there are some things that have been way over-exposed, that should challenge us to do something different and better.
On the other hand, Christian, in Protoplasm, wrote about a cruise line that wouldn't hire mentalists any more because audiences found them boring. Tarbell wrote 70 or so years ago, or thereabouts, about a place not wanting to hire a magician because the last one was so bad. In my never humble opinion, I think the latter is much more serious of a concern if one is ranking harm to the art on a scale. And this something that might be addressed easier than internet exposure of tricks. But in defense of the bad magician/mentalist, no one who has seen them CARES to know how he did anything, so exposure is reduced. If you did something that created such an impact that it drives lay people to search for how it was done...maybe, just maybe, you are doing something right. |
|||||||||
|
Todd Robbins V.I.P. New York 2922 Posts
|
Poorly performed magic by hack magicians has done more to cheapen magic than any exposure of method. As a producer of a magic show I have seen countless videos of magicians performing. My thought when watching many of these videos is, "I bet they never played that venue again." and this thought is often followed with "And I bet that venue never hired a magician again."
|
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Gotta agree with you there, Todd. I'm starting to see a lot of that in mentalism as well.
Bob |
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-06-03 14:39, Brad Burt wrote: I think this is a pretty good write up on P&T. Agree with it or not, it's very well articulated and more than just unsupported statements, at least as I see it. http://sleightly.com/blog/2011/05/27/147365-penn-and-teller
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts
|
See I totally agree. BADLY performed magic of any kind/type will always be far worse than exposure. Why would most of us performers and former performers say that? As noted above most of us who have performed even a little bit will have had the experience of getting turned down for a job BECAUSE of a performer who so alienated the venue that they can't even stand the thought of having a magician again. I have. That's only the most obvious example.
I've NEVER had someone tell me that they don't like magicians BECAUSE they found out how the Cig Thru Quarter worked, or whatever. Never happened. So there we have a metric to use. "Hey, I hate magic!" "Oh, why?" "A magician insulted my wife during a performance...I guess he thought it was funny." But, saying that one IS in fact worse than the other is not to say the other has no negative effect. It doesn't tell us how deleterious or not 'exposure' might be? It's never hurt me, but I've heard convincing stories from pros that would indicate that it did in fact hurt them. Look for Penn and Teller "method integrity" is obviously NOT a primary concern or they wouldn't constantly be pointing out in a very public forum how things are done when they know. Maybe it's not so bad, because they don't go into detail? Maybe that's why Valentino is such a 'bad' guy...his exposures were so detailed? Or, maybe he's a bad guy because although his 'vision' was consistent it just didn't last very long? See here's the thing: P/T are brilliant. No question. Bullet Catch is my all time favorite stage presentation. P/T also 'expose' a LOT of method if not particularly in detail. I have not see....or I missed....any formal reasoned argued defense of their exposures. Saying that it's ok BECAUSE they are consistent with their vision is not a defense it's a recognition of a supposed reality or situation. That may or may not be true also. You see no one totally on their side in the discussion has even admitted or denied that they do do exposure. Maybe what they do isn't 'exposure' as such? Maybe that's what most folks think? Best,
Brad Burt
|
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Brad, it's not just a difference of scale with P&T. Yes, the DO expose magic, however it is, I think, similar to how there is a difference between laughing AT someone, and laughing WITH them.
Now I don't think the following is a perfect comparison/argument, but it makes the point I believe. From the same link: "And I believe that even in their case, where the deception is explained so clearly, it’s possible that they could still be producing great art, despite the fact that many magicians consider the secrets in magic to be fundamental tools in creating art. Let’s consider the following parallel scenario… In the same summer, four films are released. Three of them are the classic romantic comedy, where the characters meet and fall in love, there are complications, but they end up together, thereby fulfilling the comforting fantasy that true love does exist. The fourth film, on the other hand, is some indie metamovie which is a fictional behind-the-scenes look at the making of a romantic comedy. In the movie within the movie, it’s a stereotypical plot (characters meet and fall in love, there are complications, but they end up together), but in the behind-the-scenes bit we learn some interesting nuances — the male and female leads despise each other, the director is a sell-out, and the script-writer is a complete womanizer. Almost certainly, this movie when thrown up against the other three traditional romantic comedies gives us a weird insight into the nonsense we buy into when we’re willing to suspend our disbelief. No doubt, if that fourth movie were to become popular, it might jeopardize the outlook for the other three films, which seek to go in a direction that the fourth film seems to mock. In essence, the relationship between the fourth film and the other three is consistent with the relationship between Penn and Teller and other magicians. But does that fourth film truly mock the idea of suspended disbelief? Arguably not — the irony here is that in order to appreciate the contrast between the “movie” and the “exposed movie”, we still need to suspend disbelief that what’s happening behind-the-scenes is authentic. Similarly, if we think about it, Penn and Teller give us an enriched view of what magic is. After all, they’re right — magic isn’t real. That it can still be entertaining despite all that tells us something interesting about the direction magic can go in."
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts
|
But, see, I could use the exact same argument (and, it's pretty spiffy by the way) to excuse ANY exposure.
Magic isn't 'real'? Really? Seriously, and respectfully, I've stood behind a magic counter for 35+ years. Is it truly a problem that folks, apparently lots of folks, believe that what David Copperfield is doing is 'real'? Yeah, they are correct, magic's not real, but...is that something they should be proud have having to point out? DO they have to point it out? I honestly think I see your greater point and I'm not so sure I disagree. But, I am very uncomfortable with an argument that "seems" to be saying, "Well, if I can come up with a good enough reason to expose then by gosh I'm a gonna do it." And, here's a creepy observation: What if others start following suit? Nobody who supports P/T could logically have a problem if others start exposing to the same level and with the same justification. That would be a bit arbitrary. So, you have a time when folks in the audience might not be able to tell one from the other. What I mean is: What if it becomes the 'thing' to do your magic and then in various way expose it? If it was done correctly you could probably make folks laugh at how easy they were to be deceived! Look how easy magic is....it's not real after all and is merely a series of covers, screens, fake thumbs and clever switches. I honestly believe that what Fool US does is finally reduce our craft to mere clever 'jugglery'. We took a couple hundred years to separate ourselves from 'jugglers' only to come full circle and be reduced to it again! Penn: "First, I want to say this guy is great! Man you have a super act, although we were aware of your covers, switches (jugglery)....." Fool Us is the worst kind of kick in the teeth, because it's done with a smile and enthusiasm. How does it 'serve' magic? I know how it serves Penn and Teller. But, how is 'magic' made better by showing that really very clever and knowledgeable magicians can or can not figure out someone else's magic? Maybe I just answered my own question really. Try this: Guy stands outside a P/T show and with the absolute best intentions offers a flyer as you go in that gives a detailed deconstruct of the Bullet Catch to be performed that night. Gasp! Why??? Because, he says, think about the possible negative effect on the minds of folks. They could be horribly scarred if they think one of them is actually going to die. I'm standing in the gap. I'm not here to hurt P/T, I'm actually here to help them! Truly consider logically: If exposing how the Thumb Tip works wholesale to as many folks as possible, most of whom would have had no idea it existed. (I can prove this at least from experience.) If that's a good idea and laudable how much more the exposure of the Bullet Catch? I really, really have to get a life..... lol
Brad Burt
|
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
It's not that their pointing out the obvious, but that they are embracing, and celebrating that undeniable, but often unaddressed, reality of magic. The magic equivalent of breaking the fourth wall.
As for exposure being used indiscriminately, it's like violence in a movie. It can be used to serve a purpose, and it can be used gratuitously. As for your example of someone "helping" by trying to make sure the audience knows P&T's bullet catch is not really putting themselves in danger, first off, P&T go out of their way to make sure that they don't lead the audience to believe something not true, whole at the same time emphasizing the danger of a fire arm. Penn actually could be said to worry about this too much, striving to never lie to the audience. But to actually address the point of someone standing outside their theater "exposing" their bullet catch, besides not bring anything new, (wasn't that one of the tactics during the sawing in half feuds,) well it can be looked at many ways. If you are just concerned with preventing it, putting aside for the second the "hypocrisy" element, then there is the matter of private property. They kick the guy off their property. Speaking to the hypocrisy, have P&T gone out of their way to directly and deliberately expose a specific performers act? Besides "physics" and others essentially commuting fraud and taking advantage of people of course. Not making an argument necessarily, I really don't know for certain, but I don't think they really have. Personally, from a freedom of speech pov, I think someone should be allowed to "expose" their bullet catch if they want. That doesn't mean they should. I don't know if P&T would pursue any IP based legal action in subj a scenario, but it wouldn't surprise. However, I would disagree with such action. Any who, don't know if that made anything clearer or not.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
Atom3339 Inner circle Spokane, WA 3242 Posts
|
How would audiences have reacted if Houdini had exposed his secrets?
TH
Occupy Your Dream |
|||||||||
|
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts
|
Good question, Atom.
I would feel that if Houdini actually invented the "secret" then it would be his to do with as he pleased. Much different when Michael Ammar outs "The Lazy Man's Card Trick" on YouTube- as far as I know, it is not his sole invention and, therefore, not his to expose. Seems like stepping on graves to me... To make matters worse, it appears the vid was from his "Easy to master" series, which a lot of magicians, myself included, paid him for... Jim
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
Paul Draper V.I.P. Las Vegas, Nevada 245 Posts
|
Award winning magician Jason Andrews and I made a video of "Hack" lines that magicians say. http://youtu.be/-c2GH1Ot8SQ feel free to share with your magician friends.
Hack Lines: A joke that has been frequently used by comedians or Magicians in the past, and is blatantly stolen from its original author. Short for"hackneyed" meaning over used, cheapened, or trite. (This definition was blatantly stolen from Wikipedia) These lines were & are really funny when used by the people who invented them & entertainers who make them their own. Many of these lines were originated by great performers like Walter Blaney http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YACRdgj_A_M & Michael Finney http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YiOVubj-wg. Jason & I love watching great performers use these lines in superb ways to delight their audiences. We just don't like it when some insert them into their shows without the work to make them their own. The next video will have Hack costumes, props and moves. Yes... I have used several of them. Jason has too. We should write our own... BUT THEY ARE SOOO GOOD! Sometimes it hurts to have it pointed out, perhaps we should have called them STOCK lines rather than hack lines. The key is in making them your own and truly understanding the line and how it fits perfectly with the effect and character better then anything else. To find out more about us: Jason Andrews: http://www.jasonandrewsmagic.com/ Paul Draper: http://mentalmysteries.com/ http://pauldraperactor.com/ |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Is magic becoming a cheapened art? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jun 2, 2012 05:09 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 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 < 
|