|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Scary thought for the day:
There are some in the serious art world who have posited that the painting is a self portrait. brrrr... shudders. Makes the stuff in the bizarre and goth threads seem so very tame by comparison.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Roger Kelly Inner circle Kent, England 3332 Posts |
I'm just grateful that there are great minds out there willing to share their incredible innovations. It's a certain fact that I'll never be credited with exercising the grey matter where magic is concerned.
|
|||||||||
Ignore me... Loyal user 230 Posts |
Did I misread something in this discussion?
From my reading, it appears that, without already knowing the secrets that some took with them to the grave, there never appeared anyone with enough brains to come up with something that was just as amazing. Is the point that the modern magician is too stupid to see a need, and invent the path to get there? That would be sad, wouldn't it? I also think some are defining the "magic community," and fame within such, as the raison d'etre of magic. I would recommend that such folks open their eyes to the numerous workers out there who are NOT looking for the approval of the masses of magically informed persons who want easy access to wonders. Eddie Tullock finally released his workings on trade shows, but if he hadn't, would any of you know how he is (outside of those workers who crossed paths with him)? Do you think he cared? It's clear, though, that anyone who thinks of magic as a place where one is striving for approval from other magic performers would be unable to conceive of a performer who was free of such a need. For all of you who think, I cannot live without someone else giving away the secrets!, I would recommend you take some time and see what you can come up with on your own. You might be surprised at how inventive you yourselves can be. ==== At some point, I had bought a book written by a famous one-handed magician. I was fortunate in broking my right wrist two weeks later, so I was able to learn much of the material unimpeded by having two usable hands. There was, however, certain material I couldn't pick up from the descriptions and illustrations, so I went on to find my own one-handed double lifts, passes and false shuffles over the course of the next two months. I had an opporunity to see the author lecture, and afterwards, I told him that I hadn't quite gotten some of his material, but had found what worked for me. He asked me to show him, and had some good comments on them. Another person asked him, I couldn't see your complete hand position on the oil-and-water trick, can you do the whole thing again? He said he was tired, recommended the person rewatch his tape of the magic special on which it was performed, and begged off. The person insisted, and the lecturer said no, more and more firmly. After the person had left, disappointed to not have been shown the perfect position for the hand yet again (it was explained 3 times during the lecture, and also in the book), the lecturer displayed a little agitation, saying that this person would never go anywhere with the material, as he didn't have the soul of an artist. An artist would find his own path, inventing it if it doesn't already exist, not require spoonfeeding of information to find the way. ==== Is magic an art, or a workmanlike craft? The answer is up to the individual, but I'll venture to say each person's answer affects their attitude towards the artistic process, and whether or not creators have an obligation to give things out to others. Which are you, an artist or a workman? |
|||||||||
kramerica2010 Veteran user 329 Posts |
I agree with ignore me, but I also agree with art the magic guy. I think you should think for yourself and be inventive but it isn't bad to be lead upon a certain path. Take Jerry Andrus for example. He is an incredible magician but he only performs his own material. He invented his own genious. Take Bruce Cervon, He is also an incredible magician, but he learned a lot from Dai Vernon. He studied under him and he influenced Bruce a lot. I'm not giving anyone more credit than anyone else, I'm saying be creative but you can also learn from previous generations.
|
|||||||||
2hot New user Sydney 89 Posts |
""" this person would never go anywhere with the material, as he didn't have the soul of an artist. An artist would find his own path, inventing it if it doesn't already exist, not require spoonfeeding of information to find the way. """
That is the best quote iv heard in years. Opened up a new realm for me... |
|||||||||
Alex Linian Inner circle Peru 1277 Posts |
Why keep secrets?
How about because I don't want others to take credit for my hours of thought, practice and performance.
Check out SKYCAP from Paul Harris Presents!- "A fine trick from the dynamic foursome..."
Jared Brandon Kopf, Magic Magazine PUNCTURE 2.0 - "Jaw-dropping amazing... You also get the absolute best teaching DVD I have ever seen" - Genii Magazine SLEIGHT OF HAND that looks like Magic. --- Alex Linian | Instagram |
|||||||||
scorch Inner circle 1480 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-10-03 11:48, Jonathan Townsend wrote: I think you are confusing a distinction, and also bring up an interesting point. I'm not sure if this really is your argument, but it seems that you are arguing against publishing (and performing what is published that somebody else invented) for reasons of being original? If so, I see that as a different issue as I understand it. My point is that the fear of not being able to distinguish yourself competitively against other magicians seems to not be born by the evidence of history, which clearly favors the magicians who were open and generous with their ideas. And if I choose to perform the work of somebody else (and yet do it in my own style, "make it my own," so to speak), then more power to me! That's what the majority of magicians (and all other performance artists) have done throughout time. I feel no obligation to only perform material that I invented, and think the concept is rather odd, if that's what you're getting at. Greatness in all arts comes not by reinventing the wheel, but by standing on the shoulders of giants. Hopefully, generous giants. We all have our influences and sources of material and inspiration, and it's better to not run from that. |
|||||||||
scorch Inner circle 1480 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-10-03 19:47, Alex Linian wrote: That is certainly understandable, and I feel the same way. But instead of sitting on it, wouldn't it be better to publish it so that you DO get credit for your hours of thought, practice and performance? Otherwise certainly you run he risk of somebody else coming up with your method (or stealing it from you!) and beating you to the punch by publishing it with their name attached to it. |
|||||||||
scorch Inner circle 1480 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-10-03 05:30, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Isn't there some irony to this? Because certainly the longer one sits on something really good, the more one runs the risk of getting "ripped off and copied." If you publish it, you have your name on it and there won't be any petty grievances about provenance. Or am I missing a part of the picture? |
|||||||||
scorch Inner circle 1480 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-10-03 18:44, kramerica2010 wrote: Learning from previous generations is by far the dominant, most promising path. In fact I really doubt that even Jerry Andrus came up with absolutely everything himself. He based his work on sleights and techniques that came before him. I'd have a hard time believing that he never opened a magic book in his life. Painters learn by going to museums and copying the masterworks. Composers learn by writing works in the style of Mozart and Debussy. Sculptures learn by sculpting copies of masterworks. Playwrights learn by studying Shakespeare and Ebsen. The Beatles learned by copying Chuck Berry and the Everly Brothers. Strauss imitated Wagner early on, Wagner imitated Beethoven early on, Beethoven imitated Hayden early on, and so on and so on. Magic is no different. Absolutely originality is a romantic lie. |
|||||||||
scorch Inner circle 1480 Posts |
Magicians have dual legacies: their performances, and the effects that they add to the repertoire. Like musicians, who have live performances and compositions or recordings for posterity. Great musicians, like magicians, are strong in both areas. Aren't the magicians who refuse to publish their ideas like musicians who refuse to release their songs or recordings? Personally, I think that what you add to the repertoire for other people to perform is 10 times more important than your own performances, because that is your lasting legacy in this world. People won't remember your performances, but they'll remember you if they perform your work or read your books!!
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Scorch, have a good read of the opinions of those who felt otherwise. Check out the Germain book(s) or the Ramsay books and try reading between the lines. These guys loved magic. They just got sick and tired of others copying them without permission, selling their tricks in the shops and worse. Till magicians can learn to act better than pigeons and monkeys, there will continue to be tremendous losses to the general knowlege in this field.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Ignore me... Loyal user 230 Posts |
Scorch, it is clear that you cannot even understand the other side of things from the following two ideas, from your postings:
Quote:
On 2005-10-03 21:40, scorch wrote: Again, you are judging by your own PERSONAL yardstick, historical evidence. If being known to history is the important thing to a performer, then yes, your yardstick applies. If not, what compelling reason would a magician have to give out what that performer has developed? Quote:
On 2005-10-03 22:36, scorch wrote: And again, you talk about the legacy of performers. At least this time, you recognise that your opinion is PERSONAL, and based on YOUR values. If you can, look at the idea of a legacy from what others have written in this thread: would someone want to give their lifetime of thinking to pigs and lazy voyeurs of secrets, who would only despoil them by wallowing among them, without valuing them as much as the creator? Again, I have to point out: not all magicians are worried about the misnamed "magic community" at large. Community implies that things are in common, but if only the creators are giving something of value, where is the community? What also isn't recognised (especially by those crying for freedom of OTHERS' ideas) is that creators oftentimes DO get together with other creators, and share ideas in THAT little community of equals; just because someone hasn't gotten that far, and hasn't been invited into that circle (and, of course, might NEVER be), doesn't mean ideas aren't being circulated. Just because the lowest rungs cannot gain access to those ideas, whether for love or money, doesn't mean it's not happening; it just means they're out of the loop. ==== Ironically enough, I think that Scorch's impassioned responses, which completely ignore the other side's sentiments, show to others how little the one side respects the thoughts of the other. If Scorch's thoughts truly encapsulate the one side of the debate, how willing will the creators be to share with those with such one-sided demands? ==== Just out of curiousity, from those who have posted negatively about magicians keeping secrets from other magicians, who has freely given out a big secret which they originated themselves? Don't be shy! It can only make magic better to let us all know, right? And it would be nice to know that those arguing for something are practicing as they preach. Cheers! |
|||||||||
Alex Linian Inner circle Peru 1277 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-10-03 22:24, scorch wrote: Instead of sitting on it? I perform my material. For laymen. I could care less about recognition from magicians.
Check out SKYCAP from Paul Harris Presents!- "A fine trick from the dynamic foursome..."
Jared Brandon Kopf, Magic Magazine PUNCTURE 2.0 - "Jaw-dropping amazing... You also get the absolute best teaching DVD I have ever seen" - Genii Magazine SLEIGHT OF HAND that looks like Magic. --- Alex Linian | Instagram |
|||||||||
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts |
I simply don't understand this discussion or Scorch's viewpoint. What is so hard to understand about what Jonathan is always saying. "If it's yours do what ever the **** you want to with it. If it's not yours, leave it alone and quit worrying about it."
What is the big deal? Yes I wish Del Ray had published some of his work or at least his thinking about magic. But he didn't. So what? What business is that of mine? Geeeze, spend a coplue days reading some of the posts that people put on this site and you begin to understand what some of these people found so distasteful about the "magic community". Nobody owes anybody anything. Don't hand me this "good of the Art" crap. That's something that someone who has never created anything says. Do what you will with your own stuff and leave everyone else alone. If it's yours, sing it from the Mountain tops. If it's not, don't expose it and let who ever "needs" it go get it from the proper places. Whats so hard about that? You've got nothing coming from anyone. You're not owed anything. People still have the right to decide what to do with what they create. And whatever they decide to do is their business alone.
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
pkg Inner circle The City of Ithobaal I son of Hiram I 1356 Posts |
Me smells jealousy in the air....
personally, when I cant "get" the secret to a trick, it all makes my brain work ten folds and actually motivates me to brainstorm and come up with something different that will have the same effect on me if someone was performing it for me.... INNOVATE OR DIE!
Double posters should be shot!
No really!! |
|||||||||
Lee Darrow V.I.P. Chicago, IL USA 3588 Posts |
Vandy said:
Quote:
Nobody owes anybody anything. Don't hand me this "good of the Art" crap. That's something that someone who has never created anything says. Sorry Vandy, I've got to disagree with you on this one. Not only as someone who has created a few things in my time, but as the son of a guy who was both a fine and commercial artist who espoused the exactly opposite standpoint. "The good of the Art" is exactly that, something that benefits the Art itself AND the artists, both those practicing now and those to come. To me, in magic, this means that, while performance may have a lot to do with it, as Scorch puts forth, it also means that the "back room boys," the Ed Marlo's, Milt Kort's, the J. G. Thompson's and the Doc Daley's of the world, the guys who performed only rarely, if at all, still left a legacy "for the good of the Art," because, back in their day, it sure as heck was NOT about making a pile of dough on the newest, latest, greatest and the best new trick, box or routine. Yes, there ARE guys out there who are doing their thing mostly for "the Good of the Art." Some of the younger guys call them suckers behind their backs - I've heard them do it. But, when the last of these suckers have gone, it's still going to be these suckers who the up and comers will refer to (IF they can!) as they are coming up in the business and developing magic effects and routines that none of us can probably even dream of at this point. And if that's not "for the Good of the Art," then I don't know what is. Some people give of themselves to people they don't know simply because they ENJOY doing so. Some do it because they get a kick out of seeing someone learn and grow. Some do it because they don't have anything else to do with their time and they have a lot of knowledge to share. Some do it simply because they live to teach. And some are lucky enough to get paid, once in a while, or even full time, for doing it. And they are the ones that I'm really kind of jealous of, to be honest. But it doesn't mean I'm going to stop sharing what I know "for the Good of the Art." I guess I do that because it's what I believe. and it's the way I was brought up. Having a cartoonist for a father will do funny things like that to a guy, I guess. Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!" |
|||||||||
Ignore me... Loyal user 230 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-10-04 16:02, Vandy Grift wrote: Quote:
On 2005-10-04 18:00, Lee Darrow wrote: Lee, it seems like you are disagreeing with Vandy regarding what folks regard as the good of the art, but your viewpoint regarding the central question is unclear. Do creators have the right to do as they wish with their creations? Or are they obligated to share them? Vandy Grift never said NONE were allowed to choose to do things for the sake of art. He said that no one had an obligation to give to an art. This is similar to having no obligation to give to the Red Cross, or the United Negro College Fund, or the United Way. Are you saying one has an obligation to give to anyone other than by choice? Your examples about the "back room boys" were about folks sharing with whom they WANTED to share, and CHOOSING WHAT THEY WOULD SHARE, which still doesn't address the point of the thread. Were they ever obligated to share? Are you saying that they had to tip everything, regardless of their wishes to hold things back? If NOT, you are not in disagreement with the point of Vandy Grift's post. (Incidentally, regarding your example of the backrooms, if I recall my readings of back issues of Hugard's MM, Jinx, and other magazines, in addition to stories from Vernon and others, there are stories of performers who had baffled other performers in backrooms, without ever tipping the methods, so if your point is that the performers DID share everything, history proves you wrong regarding the alleged secret sharing. Even those backroom boys didn't share your viewpoint.) If you do believe that a creator doesn't have the right to hold back, that's a very interesting viewpoint. I wonder how a cartoonist dad could pay the bills just giving things away indiscriminately in the name of art, without a creator retaining control over original works, as has been proposed in this thread... Cheers! |
|||||||||
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts |
Lee,
"Ignore me" got my point. I love those people that do things and share their material for "the good of the Art". I'm merely saying no one is OBLIGATED to give anything away for that reason or any other reason. Those that create and share those works with others in magic(whether for profit or out of the kindness of thier hearts) are to be commended. Those that create and keep it to themselves are not to be condemned. I was merely stating my belief that people can and do own their own creations. And that they are not obligated to do anything with them except what they WANT to do with them. I even temper that if the person has passed on and unreleased work is left behind. That brings on another set of questions. And at that point I may consider the "good of the Art" while trying to decide if I felt it would be correct to make the stuff public. But in the course of ones lifetime, what the inventor/creator/owner says...goes. And they shouldn't feel any obligation to share anything that they don't want to. Vandy
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
Lee Darrow V.I.P. Chicago, IL USA 3588 Posts |
"The worker should be worthy of his pay" is part of my point, but there also those who live by "share and share alike. There is room for BOTH in this world. The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that both sides believe that it is a binary choice (it's either one way - you HAVE to share - or the other - you better NOT or you will be ripped off) and it's not.
A cartoonist, like my Dad chose when he gave something to someone and when he charged professional prices for his work. He decided when he was doing his Art for the love of the art and when he was being commercial. For him, the two sides, commercialism and the love of the Art for its own sweet sake, often coincided, but not always. Sometimes he drew or did photography or painting simply because he loved to do it and when a young artist, like comic artist Phil Foglio came to him and expressed an interest, Dad might take a moment and "show him a trick of the trade," simply to pass on a secret of the art to a fellow artist. On other occasions, he would get paid to teach. You CAN have it both ways, guys. Honest. What the artist owes is respect to his or her art - and for that he or she should GIVE something BACK TO his or her ART. How the artist does that is up to the artist. But the artist OWES that to the ART that has given the artist their passion. And one does that by sharing in some form. Whether by paid lesson, free "hints," helping out at a club, doing lectures, producing other people's material on video (like L&L does) as a commercial venture or even participating in a discussion on the ethics of sharing, publishing or lecturing, the artist owes that TO the Art. And the Art is perpetuated through people. Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!" |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Why keep secrets? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 < |