|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
In the Jinx, Annemann took aim at Harlan Tarbell for exposing tricks in some of his public appearances. Annemann correctly noted that it is pretty arrogant of a magician to expose material just because it isn't in his own repertoire, ignoring the fact that someone else has found a way to make it part of his own.
Interesting to see that the issues haven't changed in 80 years
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Alan Wheeler Inner circle Posting since 2002 with 2038 Posts |
The views and comments expressed on this post may be mere speculation and are not necessarily the opinions, values, or beliefs of Alan Wheeler.
A BLENDED PATH Christian Reflections on Tarot Word Crimes Technology and Faith........Bad Religion |
|||||||||
Slide Special user 533 Posts |
There are two types of people in the world: those who care about magicians secrets and those that don't.
Those that do are your competitors. Those that don't are your audience. As hard as it is for magicians to believe, most people do not go around looking for the secrets to magic tricks. They wouldn't know the term Book Test, let alone be interested in looking it up. the ones who do look up these things are other amateur magicians. Focus on your audience, not on those who are your competitors. If everyone you perform for knows the secrets and you feel exposure is ruining your act, find a new audience, or change change your tricks. Or do it like the pros used to do: move to a place to study with someone who matters. The magician I told you about who showed me the trick I've never seen anyone else perform? He moved to Spain to study with Juan Tamariz. Other magicians used to up root themselves and move to LA to study with Vernon. Today, we buy books, we buy DVD's and we watch youtube videos and we don't get off our butts to learn directly from anyone. Any then we complain about exposure? please. |
|||||||||
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2885 Posts |
Quote:
On 2014-02-13 10:48, Slide wrote: Somewhere, I have a copy of Magic Magazine where Mark Wilson writes about going to China. Within the article, he talks about being set up by the Chinese government to meet Chinese magicians in each area of China. Each magician he met was taught by another magician. Each magician was allowed to have ONE student that HE could teach to. There were no books, no DVDs, no magic shops, no clubs, no meetings. Mark said the state of magic under these circumstances was appalling. One magician, eager to show Mark this secret that he'd hoarded for years as has his teacher before him... brought out a Svengali deck. When ''Boys Book of Magic'' came out in the 30's [I think] magicians of the time were appalled at the exposure of their methods. The author said his plan was to get magicians to shuck off those old methods and come up with new ones. And new methods WERE developed... by the amateures who read the book and came up with new developments. There -IS- a difference between teaching, whether one-on-one or through books and video, and open exposing.
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2014-02-13 10:48, Slide wrote: Magicians have learned from books for hundreds of years. To say it started with Vernon is just silly. Vernon himself learned by reading Erdnase, not through a mentor. It has often been said that the best way to keep something secret is to publish it in a book. And there's a lot of truth in that. Unlike the gratuitous exposure found on the Internet today, it takes effort and study to learn from a book. |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
It all started with Thoth
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
EndersGame Inner circle Reviewer EndersGame 2196 Posts |
People on The Magic Café are quite principled when it comes to the ethics of magic, and things like proper crediting or exposure won't fly by without concerns or comment. But here does seem to be a remarkable amount of exposure on Wikipedia, and this is the only existing thread I could find which deals with the subject properly. So I figured I'd bump the thread, with the help of some additional information to consider.
Here are some examples I've come across recently on Wikipedia: 1. The Wikipedia article on the Human Blockhead not only explains the effect in full, but also describes the method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_blockhead 2. The Wikipedia article on Trick Decks not only describes the effect, but also the method for the Stripper, Svengali, and Forcing decks, and even exposes marketed effects like the Invisible Deck and Brainwave Deck. There's more detail there than what you would normally even find on the website of a magic retailer selling these products. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trick_deck 3. There are Wikipedia articles for specific tricks, which give both the effect and the complete method, one example being Paul Curry's Out of This World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_This_World_(card_trick) Other examples include Ambitious Card, The Four Burglars, The Circus Card Trick, Spelling Bee, Acme of Control, and Blackstone's Card Trick Without Cards. Some of these are widely known and simple self-workers, admittedly. 4. The Wikipedia article on Card Manipulation explains techniques like double lifts, false deals, passes, palming, false shuffles, false cuts, color changes, crimps, forces, and more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_manipulation If you start trying to remove any of this, your efforts will quickly get reverted by editors who want to preserve the content. One of the problems here is Wikipedia's philosophy. All that matters for inclusion of a subject is (a) if it is notable; (b) if it is verifiable. There are some additional criteria but those are two main ones. Since magic secrets are explained in books, according to Wikipedia's philosophy they deserve an article. According to Wikipedia, there are no secrets, and everything should be open information. The whole idea of a magician's code goes completely against their philosophy, and they're not about to show any respect for us or our code, so you can't appeal to that as a reason for removing any of this. All someone needs to do is prove that a subject is mentioned often enough (notability), and cite books as the source for what they include in the article (verifiability), and boom - it's up there, and people aren't allowed to remove it. You can try removing it, but your changes will quickly get reverted, because there is verifiable evidence (books) that the content is true. You can't use the magician's code as an argument for removal. Or don't we think that these kinds of examples are a problem at all? |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Wikipedia issue (3 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 0.04 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 < |