|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Pakar, but I think it is still a point worth exploring if only because it is not an idle question.
Are we talking about a few well-known and adored stars who use it to make money, or does a significant percentage of our profession feel it is acceptable to expose magic secrets regardless of whether or not you have taken "the magician's oath". Not complex, but also not answered, at least not to my satisfaction. So, let us take a poll. Please say whether or not you support the magicians code PERSONALLY. No need for fancy or crafty prose- just say. Has it left the building FOR YOU???? I will tally the results... The Magician's Oath has NOT left the building for me! Jim
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
Greg the Great New user Massachusetts 39 Posts |
Nor has it left for me
|
|||||||||
longhaired1 Veteran user Salida 316 Posts |
It is, quite simply, not a black and white issue.
How come no one has called Copperfield to task for Project Magic? How is using magic for occupational rehabilitation not exposure to the general public. The patients, for the most part, are not practicing or aspiring magicians. Perhaps the work that comes out of the program is beneficial enough to justify the exposure. I for one think that is the case. The purist could state that the mere act of rolling up one's sleeves exposes to the general public the technique of sleeving. By indicating that there is nothing up my sleeve, disproving the existence of mirrors, passing a ring over a levitated object to eliminate physical suspension we are in fact exposing methods. They just don't happen to be the methods being employed at that time. I've taken things to a ridiculous extreme, but in the purest sense these actions are exposure. Every single one of us, without exception, had magical methods exposed to us before we were far enough down the path to be considered anything but "the general public". You say Ammar was exposing secrets, others would argue that the intention of the video was to demonstrate the teaching material being sold. He is, among other things, a teacher of magic. Personally I believe there is a difference between teaching someone how to perform a trick and merely exposing methods. You may take the position that Ammar ruined the effect for the general public, others may take the position that by teaching the trick, not just exposing the method, Ammar makes it possible for the viewer to then perform the effect for others, thus expanding the art of magic, not destroying it. Do you think his primary motivation was to expose a method or to teach performance? Have you considered the possibility that the Ammar clip may have sparked interest in the heart of the next Copperfield or Henning? So yes, the oath is situational. If everyone adhered to it in the strictest sense then no one would learn how to perform magic. Every magic performer started out because a secret was exposed to a non-magician. Every single one of us started out that way. You asked what I consider to be a very valid question; What is our personal stance on the subject. When I was a performing magician, if a member of the public simply wanted to know how something was done that was off limits. If the person demonstrated to me a sincere interest in learning the art I would start them on a learning path appropros to how far they had already come via other means. If someone was a serious magician who had many hours invested in the art I would pretty much tell them whatever they wanted to know. Just a form of professional courtesy, only extended to professional performers. If there are things wrong with the state of magic as a performing art, and there are, I would put exposure pretty far down the list. At or near the top of the list I would put the trivialization of the art by the practioners of the art that leads to the devaluation of the art in the eyes of the consumer. Perhaps we should embrace the universal duality that is life. Fire is bad. Fire is good. Water is bad. Water is good. Drugs are bad. Drugs are good. Exposure is bad. Exposure is good. Fundamentalism .... is just bad. |
|||||||||
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
Well there's an arbitrary and hilariously so final sentence! How fun. You've contradicted yourself. If the 'duality' that is life is 'universal' then Fundamentalism must also be 'good' and not 'just' bad. On the other hand the idea that life is universally dualistic is nonsense when applied to, well, to LOTS of stuff. Universal?
I consider it 'fundamentally' wrong to molest children sexually. Let's apply the longhair axiom: It's good to molest children and it's bad to molest children. That IS his position. Look it's just another way of saying that Longhair does not believe in 'absolutes'. Really? Here's the question my philosophy proff proffered: Is it 'absolutely' true that there are no absolutes? Sticky huh? If you say that that's a true statement you've contradicted yourself and are refuted. If you say that it's not true you are refuted. You see that problem with this discussion 'philosophically' is that no one has laid out a concise and understandable definition of WHAT exactly is meant by 'exposure'. Despite the philosophic fuzziness of the post above there is a ton of excellent points made and there's the problem! And, that's why, to the annoyance of folks I write points some times as questions: Is the very fact of 'being' a dealer an ethical violation? Is using magic to help sick and physically disadvantaged children OR adults for that matter an ethical violation? What if you screw up a trick so badly that the method is exposed? Is exposure context or well defined rule? Should all magic books be Fahrenheited? And, the publishers and authors scourged? What about DVD's? (I'm doomed if they are problematic!) I have always kept if pretty simple: I do not go out of my way to simply 'expose' casually the secrets of magic. I don't believe the methods of magic should be broadcast willy nilly for an audience that mostly could care less...because that interest is in my opinion 'casual'. You see there is nothing 'casual' about using magic to help folks that have physical problems. There is nothing the least bit casual about writing a magic book or making an instructional dvd UNLESS......they are again going to be distributed willy nilly to any and everyone for no apparent reason. And, really, as I read the codes set down by the various magic associations, classic codes of conduct given by the greats of the past...that's exactly how it reads to me or why not excoriate the authors of 'Our Magic'? I mean there are the 'real' secrets of the craft! But, see, even they did NOT author the book 'casually' and with a mind to simply give it away to any and all. Lastly...what is the difference between a hopefully 'ethical' dealer and the 'Masked Magician'? Think about it...they both sell/sold secrets for money..right? Best regards,
Brad Burt
|
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-22 15:59, Brad Burt wrote: Showing it on TV for everyone to see.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
longhaired1 Veteran user Salida 316 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-22 15:59, Brad Burt wrote: Since I meant that last sentence to be funny, I'm glad you found it to be just that. Of course methinks you are finding it funny for other reasons than the joke it was intended to be. Quote:
I consider it 'fundamentally' wrong to molest children sexually. Let's apply the longhair axiom: It's good to molest children and it's bad to molest children. That IS his position. That's not longhair's axiom, that's Brad's interpretation of same. My axiom would be "sex is good, sex is bad". Child molestation would be an example of "sex is bad". I am a fan of civility in discourse, and indicating that I think child molestation is good does not reflect well on the indicator. Shall we agree to remain civil? Quote:
Look it's just another way of saying that Longhair does not believe in 'absolutes'. Really? Here's the question my philosophy proff proffered: Is it 'absolutely' true that there are no absolutes? Sticky huh? If you say that that's a true statement you've contradicted yourself and are refuted. If you say that it's not true you are refuted. It's not just another way of saying I don't believe in absolutes. The amusing quote from your philosphy proff notwithstanding, I think it's pretty obvious that my position is this is not a purely black and white issue. There are shades of grey. The fundamentalist doesn't do well with shades of grey. Oddly, I think we are in agreement in this thread. Interesting to me are the portions of my post you chose to pounce on and those you chose to ignore. A client of mine used to call that "focusing on the parsely and missing the burger". The last two sentences evoked such a verbose response, but in my opinion the meat and potatoes of my post was really in the preceding paragraphs. But just so I don't do the same thing, I agree with everything in your post after the part where you indicated to the members that I think child molestation is good. It speaks to the point that this is not a purely black and white issue. You do not take a fundamentalist approach to the subject. You recognize shades of grey and advocate a more in-depth analysis of the subject. That is not what I would call a fundamentalist approach to the matter. I accept, in advance, your apology regarding the child molestation example. I enjoy your (usually) well thought out posts and recognize it as a temporary lapse of judgement. It's not something I would have expected from a well respected (by me and many others) member of the Café. |
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-22 13:33, Mr. Mystoffelees wrote: longhaired1- This is an interesting discussion, but I am still not finding your explanation as to where the "significant gap" exists in my conclusion. I would appreciate your comments. Meanwhile, who else is willing to state up front where THEY are on this issue?
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
Longhair: Absolutely....I do apologize. I was rushed. I REALLY did NOT mean that 'you' personally think that child molestation is good. Yikes. What was so disturbing was that in general I agree really like your offerings also!
What I meant was that your position philosophically leads by reduction to that conclusion. Again, all I want to note is that dualism is an arbitrary construct logically. I get that you have simplified it to the "sex good, sex bad", construction, but that is only to say that your construction fits into the relativistic "everybody makes their own reality" context. It's arbitrary because it's only personal to 'you'. Next guy comes along and takes the position of my frankly abhorrent construct dealing with children and sex. All 'you' can say is that it's 'not' your preference, but you can't say that it's intrinsically 'bad' or 'evil'. I frankly take what you would call the 'fundamentalist' approach and contend that sex abuse...well, ANY abuse of children is ALWAYS intrinsically evil, bad, etc. That's just to say the there are things "fundamentally" evil...always. Now, magic exposure....O.k., I thing we agree if I understand the latter part of your answer to my post. Although let me clarify: I think that it 'fundamentally' wrong (not evil), just unnecessary to, on a personal level, ever to just willy nilly give out the methods of our magic to folks. Like gray shading to really dark gray. Masked Magician = Bad! Ethical Magic shop owner = Good (Well generally) Using magic to help those less fortunate even if they DON'T intend to become even amateur magicians. = Good. Again, because there is nothing casual about that use. I've taught 'mentally challenged' folks magic and let me tell you ... you CAN NOT do so casually. It is really tough. Rewarding, but tough. Sincerest regards,
Brad Burt
|
|||||||||
longhaired1 Veteran user Salida 316 Posts |
Quote:
This is an interesting discussion, but I am still not finding your explanation as to where the "significant gap" exists in my conclusion. Payne said: Quote:
I'm not justifying exposure. I really don't care enough about the issue one way or the other to warrent coming up with a justification for exposure. I was just trying to point out that it really isn't all that big a concern if you looked at the numbers. You concluded: Quote:
I feel so much better knowing I can do whatever I decide is best for me... I felt there was a gap between what Payne said and what you concluded that Payne said. If I'm wrong and you in fact crystalized his thoughts accurately perhaps he will jump in and correct me. |
|||||||||
longhaired1 Veteran user Salida 316 Posts |
Quote:
Longhair: Absolutely....I do apologize. I was rushed. I REALLY did NOT mean that 'you' personally think that child molestation is good. Yikes. What was so disturbing was that in general I agree really like your offerings also! Thanks Brad. Quote:
I frankly take what you would call the 'fundamentalist' approach and contend that sex abuse...well, ANY abuse of children is ALWAYS intrinsically evil, bad, etc. I should clarify that I use the term Fundamentalist in the same sense that it is applied to religion (13 years of marriage to a theologian does that to a guy) where things need to be spelled out in very simplistic, black and white terms. In retrospect I shouldn't have used the term Universal with respect to Duality. Instead I should have stated that duality exists in the world, but it's not universal. |
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
Longhaired1-
Fair enough. On second reading, I feel I wrongly attributed other comments to Payne. Thanks for the reply. Jim
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
Jim Sparx Inner circle Far Out, Texas 1144 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-23 08:54, Mr. Mystoffelees wrote: As a former member of IBM, and a current member of SAM, since 1960 (membership #6610), I took the pledge. Actually, that was one of the first things I learned about magic when I was a kid, don't tell anyone how you do the trick. If that is old and backwards, so be it. If you wanna know how it's done, buy the trick, or look it up on the internet or a book. I remember when attending IBM and SAM meetings, it was expected that you bring in a trick to do in front of the members. We did not do the trick and then say, "this is how I did it." Even in these meetings with peers, the expectation is you do not reveal how the trick is done. Even more so before laymen.
Et tu, Spartacus?
https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/chispadeelpaso.html |
|||||||||
Michael Baker Eternal Order Near a river in the Midwest 11172 Posts |
[quote]On 2012-06-23 16:40, spartacus wrote:
Quote:
Sadly, that is one of the biggest playgrounds for those who couldn't care less about the oath. Quote:
When I first joined IBM early 1970s, the meeting format was such that we had "open" and "closed" meetings. Open meant that guests could be present and all magic demonstrated was in performance only. Nothing was deliberately exposed. Closed meetings were for members only, and teaching sessions "may" occur. In spite of the closed meeting status, it was more common for magicians to hold their secrets. There was value bestowed upon the knowledge, aside from the basic belief that the preservation of magic hinged upon its secretive nature. This not only meant keeping laymen ignorant, but probably as important, keeping random knowledge out of the hands of magic students until they were deemed ready for the task of responsible guardianship. I wish things were still that way. Today, things have changed. Information literally gets passed around at the speed of light, and in much greater volume than ever before. There used to be an old (albeit politically incorrect) joke that named the fastest ways to spread news: telegraph, telephone, and tell a woman. In spite of the fact that this is a joke, it in a sense rang true in regard to the expected speed that information could be relayed. In this case, pretty much one on one. Now, it's "click" and tens of thousands of people have access to the info instantly. Worse still, is that additional clicks by any of the recipients snowballs this effect into the millions. This is literally the tech definition of viral. Things are able to spread unchecked with rampant speed, and there is no clear cut cure for it. Because of this, I have adopted a policy of evaluating any situation for its own merits and shortcomings. As a general rule, I abide by the oath. But if doing so equates to standing by and watching harm done, I may choose to bend or break the self-imposed rule. I'll give two quick examples, one related to laymen, the other to other magicians. If I am faced with a spectator who has "too much" information, and seems hell bent on becoming the town crier, I may opt to quietly acknowledge their "genius" and somehow suggest that they are one of the insiders. In many cases, such a dodge will knock the wind out of their sails and prevent further damage. There are times when I view another magician and notice things about their display of magic that is detrimental to magic. In some cases, this is due to them having some of the information, but not enough to effectively give a good performance of the trick. In such a case, it seems best to fill their cup with otherwise unwarranted information, knowledge that they neither paid for, or otherwise earned, in order to set them on a better path and prevent further damage. In this regard, my answer to the OP question has to be yes, and no.
~michael baker
The Magic Company |
|||||||||
Jim Sparx Inner circle Far Out, Texas 1144 Posts |
To make this statement clear, "If you wanna know how it's done, buy the trick, or look it up on the internet or a book," I would add, "I'm not going to tell you, and I'm not going to tell you where to look."
Closed meetings is when the business is conducted and then guest were let in. We did have, members only guest lecturers, where things were explained.
Et tu, Spartacus?
https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/chispadeelpaso.html |
|||||||||
Steve_Mollett Inner circle Eh, so I've made 3006 Posts |
I think it's more like the genie is out of the bottle and going on a random rampage.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth. - Albert Camus |
|||||||||
Dougini Inner circle The Beautiful State Of Maine 7130 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-22 15:07, longhaired1 wrote: That is the most thought provoking statement in this thread! I never gave any of that a single thought before! Now it's going to haunt me...every time I do magic! Walt Anthony will tell you why it's a bad idea to use a hoop in a levitation. There is a whole lot of discussion possibilities here. I never mention "mirrors" or sleeves (I usually am short-sleeved), but I see your point LH, crystal clear! My thanks to you for frying my brain! Doug |
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-25 23:31, Dougini wrote: To me, while that might be fodder for late night philosophy over a beer, it is pretty wide of the OP. Rolling up my sleeves to start an effect does not compare to blatantly showing and teaching a good effect used by working magicians to the hungry masses on the Tube. I realize I may see a clear line when others do not see a line at all, but the gap here is pretty wide. So, is longhaired1 justifying exposure with this comparison? Do you?? Jim
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
Michael Baker Eternal Order Near a river in the Midwest 11172 Posts |
Rolling up one's sleeves, or doing any such action does not equate to exposure, as it simply acknowledges preconception, and common belief. It is sometimes used to put certain thoughts to rest before they have a chance to get in the way of the performance. It merely levels the playing field.
Such actions may also be used as a dodge to conceal the path to the magician's true motives. Vernon's "explanation" of a false placement during his C&B routine is good example of this. Sacrifice the pawns to save the Queen. Such ploys are intelligent uses of information that will come into the spectators' minds, whether on their own, or by our aiding it. In such a regard, the purist stance would be detrimental to the higher purpose. The downside would be the overuse, or misuse of such techniques. Running without being chased is the common term and the most common trap. Excessive hand-washing would be one simple example.
~michael baker
The Magic Company |
|||||||||
J-Mac Inner circle Ridley Park, PA 5338 Posts |
I don’t tell anyone how my magic is done. Never will either. But I am certainly not about to throw magic in the can because some people are posting what little they know on YouTube! Get real. This has been done in various ways since the beginning. The internet is just a new way that you aren't accustomed to seeing. So very few people browse YouTube to discover how magic is done it is a very long shot that anyone for whom you perform has learned anything of import by watching YouTube videos! Look at all the magic books aimed at lay people that are written by experienced, otherwise respected magicians.
A recent example that says a lot to me: There is a thread on the Genii forum about the NY Times' review of Alex Stone's recent book. In that thread the point is made that Alex Stone wrote a very detailed explanation of the retention vanish in his book, and yet his description is very similar to the description of that same sleight as explained by Jamy Ian Swiss in the book "Sleights of Mind". And Jamy himself penned a scathing review of Stone's book in this month's Genii Magazine! So for some there is a big difference between Mr. Swiss exposing the sleight for a book written for the lay person and Stone in another book also for the lay person. While I agree that the books have different audiences, still both authors wrote very exposing explanations of a commonly used sleight in books meant for lay people. Yet Stone is vilified by magicians and Swiss is not! (I will state here that I agree that Alex Stone's book and recent interviews are disgraceful and I don’t have the same issues with Mr. Swiss's explanations - I'm just pointing out this apparent discrepancy in most magicians' reactions). Thoughts? Jim |
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
Thoughts? I like yours!
Jim
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Has the "Magician's Oath" left the building? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ 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 < |