TAKE DOWN EXPOSURE!!!

[Guest]

Originally posted by Magicam:
...But let me offer a thought by using a different concept. Do we not all generally endorse the concept that the free flow of information fosters creativity and innovation?...

Since when is information free or even accessible? For example, I don't happen to have your SOC or credit card numbers.

There is a basic notion which has been downplayed in our culture... that knowledge comes with responsibility.

I'm open for discussing magic theory. When more of our community can handle a discussion which presumes the use of the scientific method and scholarly standards perhaps we can make a start at public discussion of a theory of magic.

Okay gotta go now, I need a cup of coffee and the rabbit on my back needs a trick fix. Back in a bit to see what our peers have posted.

[Guest]

JT

You lost me.

When/where did I argue that information should be free? Methinks youve misunderstood what Ive written or you want to construct a strawman.

CHS

[Guest]

C,

You wrote above above (quoted and bold) that you believe that a free flow of information is a good thing. (minus any weasle words and the one-off of "the group generally")

I counter argued that such may not be the case when we find that some information is personal in nature.

Feel free to burn any straw men you find.

J

[Guest]

Originally posted by Bill Palmer:

Copyright protection only applies to specific wording, drawing or anything that can be notated or represented by a graphic. For example, until Labanotation was invented, dances were not copyrightable. Specific performances of public domain material can be copyrighted and so can arrangements of public domain music. This is why you have to pay royalties on Sousa marches performed by the Eastman Symphony, but you don't have to pay them on synthesized sequences you work out yourself. That's complicated, but you will find that it's true.

The Criss Angel material on YouTube is copyrighted. He or his people will have to get that removed. None of us can do it, unless we work for him.

If I purchase a manuscript for a trick, and I rewrite the instructions so that I am not using the same terminology or wording that the copyrighted version uses, I can legally publish it. It's unethical, but legal.

And if you have invented a trick, but never published it, and someone else figures it out, then you don't have much you can do about it but whine.

I think you are wasting your time explaining the niceties of the law to Mr Feinberg and Mr Kranzo. I'm sure they have seen the correct explantion many times before, and I'm sure they know the correct explanation. It won't stop them screaming "illegality" and similar blue murder epithets the next time exposure of some related works occurs.

The real question to ask is whether the marketers of both new and "recycled" magic are doing more or less business since the inception of the internet. I think we all know the answer to that.

The internet does lead to some sharing of information, it is true, but it opens up far many more new sales possibilities.

[Guest]

Relating to my much earlier post back in August when Dave Castle agreed to remove a few HEALED & SEALED 'tutorial' videos from his site, it looks like they are back up there.

No real surprise... though I'm impressed he kept his word for three months!

[Guest]

Hey Tim, What word are you talking about?

please elaborate.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Magicam:
A working theory:

secrecy in magic fosters stagnation in magic.

Depends on how you define "secrecy" and "stagnation." Please define and restate the question.

[Guest]

On Aug 21 Dave J Castle emailed me a reply to my request that he remove several 'Healed & Sealed Tutorials' from his website.


Hi Tim!

Received your e-mail.

We will remove those videos from our website today.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Dave J. Castle
President
http://www.learnmagictricks.org

[Guest]

Originally posted by Magicam:
Do we not all generally endorse the concept that the free flow of information fosters creativity and innovation?

Well, not if I am part of that "we." The "free flow of information" just means that a lot of people will have the chance to know something. It doesn't ensure that they will understand it, nor respect it, nor be able to appreciate it.

The restricted flow of information, among those who are able to understand and appreciate that information, offers a better likelyhood of progress if you ask me.

[Guest]

The term folks are avoiding is "need to know".

Mere curiosity and obsession don't constitute a need in this context.

[Guest]

There are very few real secrets in magic. There is just information that has varying degrees of difficulty to obtain.

Jon is correct in that the phrase we are avoiding is need to know. Most amateurs simply do not have a need to know, only curiosity. Some dealers and other clever individuals have made good livings by exploiting that curiosity.

Knowledge of magic techniques, sources, etc., has historically been restricted. Information could be ferreted out, but it took some effort. No one felt entitled, as the modern generation seems to think they are.

There is a difference between curiosity and education. In days past, those who were merely curious usually did not have the requisite energy or drive to follow through on their curiosity. Today, thanks to fools like Dave Castle, it only takes a mouse click or two.

I am bothered by the promulgation of the fantasy free flow of information, nonsense spread by some techies who think that all information should be free, Dave Castle and his little website that provides a venue for idiot children with technology to expose the creations of others being a prime example. This goes towards making the knowledge of magic common and easily accessible which lowers its value. I'm sure it makes him feel important because his title is "President" of Dave Castle Magic, but he is cheapening a fine performance art.

[Brad Henderson]

What techies and the like forget is that magic is about SECRETS. With knowledge comes power. And while many amateurs will suggest that we are all "brother magicians" the fact remains that our knowledge and abilities set us apart from each other. And that is a good thing.

Magic should be about the unique, the special, the different.

The wholesale giving away of secrets works against that. It serves to make magic a commodity where the only difference is cost.

Secrets are important. And the more one works for them, the more they respect them. (Have a great example of this I might post soon.)

B

[Guest]

Brad and I are certainly on the same page with this...and there's another aspect that people who think "information must be free" forget: creativity should be rewarded... or at the very least, the creator should have the option of charging or otherwise benefiting from his or her creativity. Their creations should not be stolen and given away under the auspices of idiots who aid and abet the thieves.

[Guest]

By free flow of information I meant unimpeded flow of information not gratis flow of information.

Of course, not all information is gratis and not all information is accessible. But thats entirely irrelevant to the point that the free [unimpeded] flow of information fosters [facilitates] creativity and innovation, ergo secrecy [stifling the free flow of information] in magic fosters [encourages, facilitates, advances] stagnation [lack of advancement] in magic. The point, as stated, seems so obviously true on its face. Who here can convincingly argue otherwise with any measure of intellectual integrity? For those who love to just argue or go off on a tangent under the guise of on-point discussion, let me repeat: Who here can convincingly argue otherwise with any measure of intellectual integrity?

That doesnt prevent the likes of David Alexander from justifiably asking just what the hell do you mean by that? My answer is, Im not sure about all of the implications of my little theory, but I am sure that its true and believe that it has some bearing on the whole exposure debate.

Making a general statement is just that its general. So all of the finer points remain to be considered and discussed, and IMO Bill Duncans observations provide a good example of a legitimate finer point discussion.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Magicam:
...that the free [unimpeded] flow of information fosters [facilitates] creativity and innovation, ergo secrecy [stifling the free flow of information] in magic fosters [encourages, facilitates, advances] stagnation [lack of advancement] in magic. The point, as stated, seems so obviously true on its face. ...

Magic is hardly about the obvious. And for the sake of this discussion I will avoid the obvious rebuke to my esteemed colleague above about the notion of price and its general cost to the respectability of this community.

Perhaps we could consider instances where creativity has been demonstrated in what seemed to be a closed end avenue for exploration and in that process opened doors to generations of further works.

For one example, consider how and why Slydini invented his coins through table methods.

For another - Just yesterday, for want of some data regarding Bosco's methods there was a productive discussion about alternative approaches to managing the small balls in a cups routine.

I suggest that easy access to ideas may in fact stifle creativity. On the other hand it does foster a consumer/price driven market based upon "sales/marketing" using an addiction model rather then innovation and a blatant disrespect for the works of artists done in the name of "advancement, general good or copying=compliment".

By way of example, consider that for a generation the book on Hofzinser's Card Conjuring was made available to all and sundry yet the literature of our craft is still cluttered with improperly credited "ace assembly"s and "novel" discoveries using cards he designed and used just under two hundred years ago - all offered in new flashy packaging without so much as an outline of who to offer entertainment or a better joke about "choosing one's king" then calling the Ace of Spades the "Master Ace". Then again the sheer irony and using that term in that context may elude some readers here.

Perhaps we are better off treating "magic" as an open marketplace for clever answers to contrived puzzles and leaving it at that?

Now about that stagnation - believe it or not we still have folks claiming to do "coin magic" but using coins which are no longer in common circulation. How's that for stagnation? We have folks doing magic with playing cards long after the gaming tables where fortunes are found and lost have passed into mythology. We have folks doing tricks with doves when they too have lost their meaning and using silk scarves and handkerchiefs where such have long passed from fashion.

I stand by the notion that in this craft of surprise and innovation - some forms of openness are not a great aid and may in fact serve to generally retard the craft and its practitioners.

I am eager to hear from others who have contributed novel works to this craft.

[edited to fix grammar in a sentence -jt]

[Guest]

Again, please define your terms more precisely. What exactly does "unimpeded" mean in the context of your theory? Does it mean that an amateur asks a pro how he accomplishes something and the pro "impedes" the amateur by telling him to &*%$ off?

Does it mean that a kid should have access to material he cannot afford ala the massive bit torrent downloads of copyrighted material?

Since you are certain that you're correct, you should be able to give concrete examples that back your theory?

So, specifically, who is impeding the "flow of information"? And who isn't getting what they want or think they deserve?

Those who deliberately expose claim that by making methodology widely known they force people into creating new methods and tricks. This is nonsense and little more than a cheap rationale for making money from the creativity of others.

As far as I can see, with the current state of magic publishing, with many hundreds of videos, DVDs, books, booklets, and the tsunami of free "explanations" on the Internet as well as hundreds of websites that teach and sell magic, there is no lack of information for the serious student or the merely curious. Where and how is this "information" being "impeded"? As far as I can tell, there's more access to magic "information" now than at any time in history.

Im more than willing to discuss this with intellectual integrity if you 1) define your terms and, 2) provide supporting evidence.

[Guest]

Here it is, as black and white as I am capable of making it:

The state of magic today, like nearly everything else in the human experience, reflects the sum total of its history, for better and worse. The process of progress however one defines progress is largely accretive, and the progress of magic is essentially evolutionary in nature rather than revolutionary in nature. The vast majority of progress made in magic has been made by people who have greatly benefited from the work, knowledge and experience of their predecessors. Somehow, such work, knowledge and experience was communicated to or recorded for future generations thats the flow of information. Without such a flow of information, creativity (i.e., mostly innovation, but perhaps a little true invention as well) would have been greatly diminished. Thus, the communication of information fosters creativity.

Jonathan, would you have created coins across if you had not studied and thought about the work of your predecessors and contemporaries?

David, would you be the performer you are today without the benefit of Fraksons counsel to you?

I argue that neither of you would have achieved what you have were it now for the work, knowledge and experience of your predecessors. And to the extent that either of you have introduced magic that is creatively fresh, I argue that it is extremely unlikely that you could have done so without the benefit of the work, knowledge and experience of your predecessors.

If either of you want to argue that the essence of your magic oeuvre is sui generis, be my guest.

From the foregoing I think its clear that who and what we are is a product of those before us. And if you agree with that, then case closed on my little theory.

Of course, Jonathan and David have some valid points and questions, but as I suggested before, they are better positioned to answer those questions than I am.

[Guest]

The hypothesis that open access helps this art evolve more quickly has been disproved by Karl Fulves via the Hofzinser, Downs and Bobo books.

Clay, have you considered if outing the Hofzinser card book helped card magic or instead after that work was outed our literature got cluttered with derivative works and so made things tougher for serious students and innovators to find primary sources. Have folks cited the Downs or even the Hoffmann books for materials they use which first appeared in print there? The "ace assembly" item mentioned earlier suggests that progress or even keeping the ideas we've inherited intact requires more than just easy access.

You asked about my work. Did outing my ideas and much of my work on coin magic where the coins stay in plain view get the ideas applied in general to routines or did it merely give a generation of coinmen a new hobbyhorse? Most of my tools were set into print by 1986 yet till 2005 Edge Grip Mechanics was not generally used or explored in print. As with the other resources - open access did not equate to a well informed group at large.

IMHO easy access to magic data has yielded much student exercise level work yet not greatly accelerated the "evolution" of our craft. On the positive side, the greatly expanded (magic) consumer market has yielded a greater demand for gaffs - met by some talented folks who are offering impressive items - yet this too has created some serious issues of provenance and creator's rights to their own works as we watched recently with a Steve Dusheck item.

IMHO there needs to be an ethical component to our craft beyond the base supply/demand economics inside our tiny market. Arguing for a more secrets based and scholarly culture does not imply travails for the serious student seeking to realize a vision into something practical to perform. Though it may mean protecting the works and ideas of others in the process of keeping those things available. This aspect of the issue is probably closer to your area of expertise.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
Clay ...
...
You asked about my work....

I did ask a question*, but I don't think you answered it!

C.

* "Jonathan, would you have created coins across if you had not studied and thought about the work of your predecessors and contemporaries?"

[Guest]

Originally posted by Magicam:
..
* "Jonathan, would you have created coins across if you had not studied and thought about the work of your predecessors and contemporaries?"

That you asked again about "coins across" has me wondering about your motivations.

Any thoughts on the questions I've asked?

If a non-magician can get to a book - has there been exposure?

[Brad Henderson]

Clay, you are cheating.

Impeded and restricted have morphed into inaccessible in your last post.

I do not think anyone is suggesting that all information be cut off and that each magician be forced to reinvent the entire body of magical thought for themselves. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. No one is arguing that.

However, just because a lot of information flows, does not mean that flow will produce better magical thought. A trickle of water can sustain life, a tsunami destroys. A man with a power hose can put out a fire, or if he looses control can destroy the building.

There are factors that play into this that are more than just "volume of information." So to argue that mere volume alone helps the flow of magic would be unwise.

Allow me to offer an example: When I was young, I did not have a lot of books. I read and reread everything I could get my hands on. I practiced and worked on tricks and protected them.

When someone shared something with me, I appreciated it. I guarded it. I did not take advantage of their generosity lest they stop teaching me.

I grew as a magician.

Compare a young man here in town that grew up when videos and books were far more accessible. He was constantly surrounded by magic clubs. He was literally awash in secrets.

When he would see you work the first thing he would ask is "how did you do it?" No respect for secrets. He would take any idea he could find and sometimes with no variation at all use it for his own - INCLUDING publishing it sometimes with, sometimes without credit and never with permission.

His tricks were a collection of minor variations of other people's work. He could come close to replicating their acts and it was not surprising to find him using your lines in shows he was presenting publicly. He even lifted word for word a well known pro magician's opening monologue.

What the difference? Well, having taught magic for over 20 years I can only relate what I have observed: People who have to work for their information tend to value it more. Those who are awash in the unimpeded flood, tend to treat the art with far less respect. They also have a harder time discerning the difference in information. All information is valid - they tend to take the easiest option.

Now, is this the fault of the information? No. The information (like money) is neutral. And when techies talk, that's what they think of - just the INFORMATION. But we cannot ignore the psychological and emotional impact that the possession and acquisition of resources produces.

I believe that the "unimpeded flow" of information - in practice - does more harm for magic and magicians than a more restricted flow based on merit and respect.

No data points to support it, only 20 years of experience watching different kinds of students.

Brad

[Guest]

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:

Originally posted by Magicam:
[b]..
* "Jonathan, would you have created coins across if you had not studied and thought about the work of your predecessors and contemporaries?"

That you asked again about "coins across" has me wondering about your motivations.[/b]

Wasn't it David Regal who, in a Genii review of a DVD offering a variant coins across routine, stated that you had developed something truly special and original in your coins across? (Or something similar to that sentiment.) Im not about to argue with Regal on that point. So, JT, no untoward agenda whatsoever behind that question, other than an effort to demonstrate what I wrote earlier, viz., that it is extremely unlikely that you could have created coins across without having been a student of magic. IMO, demonstration of that point does not detract from or call into question an opinion such as the one expressed by Regal.

[Guest]

Clay, unless you have a better way to present the argument, that little hypothesis about open access to plaintxt magic data was destroyed years ago by Karl Fulves as discussed earlier. It's an ex-parrot , no longer even pining for the fjords.

Calling my exploration of coin magic where you don't have to close your hands a "coins across" does little to help our discussion.

As a student of psychology I am often surprised by what can be willfully ignored even when left in the open, in plain view, and in plain text.

[Guest]

Brad, if I am cheating, its not intentional. I cannot find where I have used the word inaccessible in my prior posts, nor can I find where I have significantly shifted the underpinnings of my argument(s).

So thats now 3 guys who are taking some of my comments to task, each of whom has probably forgotten more about magic mechanics than Ill ever know. Whats interesting is that the dispute(s) seem to reflect discussion(s) on different levels. I have the audacity to dare readers to disprove my general theory, and thus far most of the discussions challenging that theory operate at higher levels of specificity.

Its certainly fair game to take the reasonable implications of a statement and discuss/dispute them, and I do not disagree with a large part of the specifics that you 3 have written. But please do not attribute to me something thats near and dear to you. For example, Jonathan, you say that little hypothesis about open access to plaintxt magic data was destroyed years ago... Thats fine and maybe you are correct, but that little hypothesis is not my little hypothesis thats not my ox youre goring, dude.

Originally posted by JT:
Calling my exploration of coin magic where you don't have to close your hands a "coins across" does little to help our discussion

Huh?

My response is that your failure to answer a simple question is even less helpful, my friend!

Isnt it possible that secrecy in magic fosters stagnation in magic is a bit of a koan, because, like the hot topic of exposure, it presents us with seemingly intractable issues?

[Guest]

Originally posted by Magicam:
...
Isnt it possible that secrecy in magic fosters stagnation in magic is a bit of a koan, because, like the hot topic of exposure, it presents us with seemingly intractable issues?

As discussed via the Fulves example such would not seem to be the case.

The case was made for the opposite as per Slydini and others discussed earlier.

To the koan...the answer is still 'mu' - i.e. your argued position makes no sense.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Magicam:
Huh?

My response is that your failure to answer a simple question is even less helpful, my friend!

The prophecies foretold are true! Magicam is locked in mortal combat with the mighty Hydra!

[/Greek legend]

[Guest]

Originally posted by Joe Pike:

Originally posted by Magicam:
[b] Huh?

My response is that your failure to answer a simple question is even less helpful, my friend!

The prophecies foretold are true! Magicam is locked in mortal combat with the mighty Hydra!

[/Greek legend] [/b]

I have addressed his hypothesis and offered data which supports its negation. In this discussion I have also suggested paths to find data in our literature to open up this discussion to see how much, where and how access to magic data has helped us progress.

In reviewing this discussion it would seem apparent that some folks prefer to be confused, astounded or otherwise emotionally distracted from the phenomena in our common experience. One could argue that the open market for magic data may well be the primary cause for the current stagnation and lowering of public regard for our craft. What is the public supposed to think when some of our finest creative and engineering accomplishments are being offered as toys in public.

Where once we offered theatrical reflections of the marvels and possibilities offered by other areas of our culture, we now find our works bettered in children's literature and our greatest engineering accomplishments described for all and sundry in comic books.

The only part I find awkward here is Clay calling an area of investigation (the In Plain View approach to coin magic) by the name of one application (the Visual Coins Across). In review of the literature as discussed earlier, one can pretty well conclude that this hobbyhorse has spawned many trite and derivative works rather than serve as a learning tool - and so pretty much also sits as evidence against the hypothesis Clay proffered earlier.

Arguing that I could not have invented a coin trick unless somebody had invented coins is kind if off base here.

Clay, I was entrusted with the time and attention of experts and given access to the data of our craft in the hopes that my love of the craft would permit me to bring forth works by which I could express my artistic vision. I cited my sources when committing the coins across trick into print along with its history and even the roots using billiards back in 2006. I ask you to look at the published versions of the VCA and seek out their citations. See any mention of Downs or Hoffmann? Case close as far as I can tell on that side - in favor of knowledge to be given with responsibility.

This is not about "me" but about our craft and how it advances. I urge you to look to our literature for the roots of things and to distinguish between student level exercises and seminal works.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Joe Pike:

Originally posted by Magicam:
[b] Huh?

My response is that your failure to answer a simple question is even less helpful, my friend!

The prophecies foretold are true! Magicam is locked in mortal combat with the mighty Hydra! [/b]

As perhaps the sacrificial lamb in this exercise, the mortal combat may be very short in duration!

[Guest]

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:


Where once we offered theatrical reflections of the marvels and possibilities offered by other areas of our culture, we now find our works bettered in children's literature and our greatest engineering accomplishments described for all and sundry in comic books.

What do you mean "we"? That might be your experience, but it isn't mine.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Joe Pike:

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
[b]

Where once we offered theatrical reflections of the marvels and possibilities offered by other areas of our culture, we now find our works bettered in children's literature ...

What do you mean "we"? That might be your experience, but it isn't mine. [/b]

You are doing better and more wondrous material than offered by J. K. Rowling? Hey - congrats and I wish you the best.

[Guest]

Jonathan Townsend,

Not every adult has been seduced by the Harry Potter marketing phenomenon.

Besides, there are far superior writers in the fantasy and SF genres (have been for a long time and writing for ADULTS) and, no, none of them is a threat to the performance of good conjuring tricks. You are behaving like Chicken Little.

Regards

Joseph E. Pike

[Brad Henderson]

Joe, while I do not think Potter is the death of magic, it would be a mistake to ignore its impact. People DO compare the magic we offer to that of their idealized world - who you may ask? Well, Rowling herself, toy makers, and entertainment producers. There were many specific opportunities for magicians of our ilk to capitalize on the success of the Potter books. They wanted to do "magic projects." Sadly, no one seemed to be able to make that leap largely in part because what we can do, and what they want us to do, are two very different things.

Not crying that the sky is falling, but just letting you know that there has been an impact - and one worthy of consideration.

[Guest]

Maybe you guys are doing too many kid's shows?

For me, it has nil impact on corporate work or when doing a casual trick in private life. Except for an occasional person mentioning it. Just as the occasional person mentions Blaine, Copperfield, Penn & Teller, Ricky Jay, the World Poker Tour, making their wife disappear and so on. It's nothing.

People still enjoy good magic as they always have, regardless of some kid's book craze.

[Guest]

Odd note to post at someone who regularly cites such works at this BBS and elsewhere.

I respect that you are not alarmed about magic data going public.

Most of us do enjoy a joke well told - whether the punchline is delivered as an apparent non-sequitor forcing a reframe or a wand to show how will overcomes nature.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
Odd note to post at someone who regularly cites such works at this BBS and elsewhere.

Sorry. I'm not familiar with your oeuvre. I was commenting on this thread.

[Brad Henderson]

Joe, just because it doesn't affect your limited world, doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect. I am speaking of a picture larger than your walk around gigs.

Over the past few years many ideas were floated for various Harry Potter themed magical events and products. None went to fruition because of 'our' magic's inability to "compete" with the imagined ideal.

Does this affect your next banquet gig? No.

But it is always wise to contemplate the decisions of people who are "magic positive" and willing to spend their money and energy in our field.

They didn't, and that's interesting.

I'll put it in terms you may understand. "Money was left on the table." Not for lack of interest on their part, but lack of ability on ours.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Brad Henderson:
Joe, just because it doesn't affect your limited world

I lost interest in your post at that point.

[Brad Henderson]

Fitting.

[Guest]

Here's a question to consider. Is Potter popular because it has talking hats, or because people can care about a kid who is an outsider, yet secretly special?

If the former, we should be making talking hats. If the latter maybe we should be making a human connection with our audiences.

But then, I haven't read the books so what do I know? Neat effects in the movies though...

[Guest]

Originally posted by Joe Pike:

Originally posted by Brad Henderson:
[b] Joe, just because it doesn't affect your limited world

I lost interest in your post at that point. [/b]

I lost interest in his post when I saw his name beside it.