wiki-exposure

Discussions of new films, books, television shows, and media indirectly related to magic and magicians. For example, there may be a book on mnemonics or theatrical technique we should know or at least know about.
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7260
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 25th, 2007, 10:32 pm

By DeeBrennan
Audiences laugh at David because he's famous, and they've paid a bundle to see him. Celebrity laughs.
This is logic? Its the most ridiculous thing Ive ever heard.

So how do you explain the countless times Johnny Carsonone of the most celebrated entertainers in American historydidnt get laughs? (His audiences waited hours in all kinds of weather to see him, so thats an investment in time equal to the monetary one people pay to see David.)

I could list many, many more examples, huge stars each, who didnt get laughs all the time. Your argument is utterly absurd.

Dee, you make arguments for the sake of arguing and frankly, its tiresome.

Dustin

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7260
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 25th, 2007, 10:43 pm

By DeeBrennan
You wouldn't understand it, even if you had the internal monologue script, because you don't know precisely what those words mean to him.

Therein lay the "why".
There is a very good illusion show that has been running for quite sometime now. The performer is credited with the kind of from the soul originality you are talking about.

Almost every word of the script was written by someone else.

Dustin

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 3:34 am

I could list many, many more examples, huge stars each, who didnt get laughs all the time. Your argument is utterly absurd.>>>

If you don't know what I mean by "celebrity laughs", then....OK, you're right.

>>>Dee, you make arguments for the sake of arguing and frankly, its tiresome.>>>

No, what's tiresome are the pronouncements you, who have never made your living performing, endlessly make regarding somthing about which you have only theoretical knowledge.

D

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 3:36 am

Is it time to berate Fitzkee? :rolleyes:

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 3:40 am

>>>There is a very good illusion show that has been running for quite sometime now. The performer is credited with the kind of from the soul originality you are talking about.

Almost every word of the script was written by someone else.>>>

Since you seem obsessed with providing "examples" you refuse to cite,it's difficult to speak to your opinion, save to say that, in the end, I like acts who have utterly unique voices and points-of-view. Good writers can write for those unique voices, as with Jack Benny. There's nothing startling about that revelation, Dustin.

As I've stated many times, that's simply my preference. Your preference is different.

C'est la vie.

D

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 5:54 am

Is it time to berate Fitzkee?>>>

It's ALWAYS Fitzkee-berating time!

D

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 5:59 am

You know what? You guys are right, and I apologize.

An amateur's opinions about the process of professional performance is every bit as valid as those who make their livings performing.

Copperfield is HI-larious. (And he gets standing ovations on the sheer strength of his performance, too!)

There's no such thing as "Celebrity Laughs."

And my preference for original material is completely invalid.

Whew! Thanks for clearing all that up for me!

P&L
D

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 6:02 am

Fitzkee fan... who me?

I read a some of his writing and formed my own opinion of the guy. Then asked about his performances as they relate to his writing and found my opinion was backed by theatrical review.

Yet folks around here still cite him. Which seems about as strange as citing Vernon on family values.

Fitzkee's writing goes on my "good intent" pile for later when I have the time to study noble failures and flawed characters. IMHO his text compares interestingly to those of his time who were engaging, endearing and whose works are still aped by those wishing to channel that success into their own works.

But for now I need to focus on simple things that lead to useful outcomes.

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 6:13 am

Brad Henderson wrote:
If you buy a trick in a book, as historical magic literary tradition dictates, it is yours to perform unless an agreement with the creator was reached in advance.
Brad as historical magic literary tradition dictates...it is okay to publish material that one has not been given permission to publish. That is a FACT that can be proven by shuffling over to your bookshelf right now. I defy you to find a CLASSIC text that does NOT have something uncredited, stolen, etc.

Magicians are thieves. Each and everyone of us.

We should all hang our heads in shame.

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 6:29 am

Bravo, PT!

P&L
D

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 6:32 am

Dustin wrote:
Dee, you make arguments for the sake of arguing and frankly, its tiresome.
Dee is actually on to something. It has been suggested that people experience a certain amount of cognitive dissonance under circumstances Dee described with the DC show. When a certain amount of money has been paid for an event...therapy sessions, theatre tickets...blah blah blah...peoples reactions to the event seem to be in accord with the amount of money they paid. I guess if I was an absolute brainiac and really cared I could give you the particulars. Something about conflict between belief and behavior. (This is what I get for NOT paying attention in high school.) I am sure that any one of the Geniiusses on this forum will have the proper info.

Dustin in fairness to Dee...just because you don't understand the argument does not mean that somebody, in this case Dee, is arguing just to argue.

Dee in fairness to Dustin...you ARE just arguing to argue! Even if your argument makes complete sense!
:)

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 6:58 am

Dee Brennan wrote:
No, what's tiresome are the pronouncements you, who have never made your living performing, endlessly make regarding something about which you have only theoretical knowledge.
You go girl!

Those who have NOT seen Dee's act are missing something. She was named Performer of the Year by the American Entertainment Magazine. Not sure of the year. She used to do a great code act with her late partner Alice. This was WAY back in the day. But to see it was to LOVE it!

I think the Lioness has been unleashed!

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 7:23 am

Dee in fairness to Dustin...you ARE just arguing to argue!>>>

I do love to argue. I like to test my thoughts and evaluate them in the light of others'. It's a time-honored way of gaining new insights.

But at least I admit when someone else makes a good point.

Now, on to Alice and the code act...I'm stunned you remember! It's too bad she went shut-eye with her mitt camp. Did you know she did the best Chavez-style pipe manip I've ever seen?

Ah, memories!

P&L
D

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 7:24 am

re:
However, no where in our history do we have a tradition that says republishing another's ideas or exposing of another's secret is an ethical act.
Ethical? In the sense of "that which is rewarded or lauded", I disagree. If you mean "the norm or expected", I again disagree.

What do you mean by ethical?

Now as to putting the mechanics of guile out to the public... it would seem counterproductive to our offering that precious experience of wonder that comes along with the experience of magic.

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 8:14 am

Dee-
HA! I don't remember! I am not sure if I am old enough to! I remember your name being thrown around in the magic shop as a kid. They used to refer to you and Alice as the "two broads with the code act"! I know that is not very respectful, but that tells you what it was like. I have a photo of you and Alice doing the code act back in the day. I couldn't tell you what year it was but the pic is black and white. It looks like some sort of banquet show as there are folks sitting at tables. You have a empire waisted polka dotted dress on. It really looks as if you are wearing a wig!No disrespect here, I am just trying to jog your memory. Anyway, if you could get in touch with me via e-mail I would love to send this to you and get an autograph.

BTW way I am pretty sure a buddy of mine has an early publicity still of Alice with her pipe act.

Did she perform under another name?

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 9:06 am

HA! I don't remember! I am not sure if I am old enough to! I remember your name being thrown around in the magic shop as a kid. They used to refer to you and Alice as the "two broads with the code act"! I know that is not very respectful, but that tells you what it was like.

((Well, that was probably Jay Marshall speaking---when he came to see us at Mr, Kelly's he shouted out in the middle of our set, "You broads are two hot mind-reading b%&$#@s." God bless his heart.))

I have a photo of you and Alice doing the code act back in the day. I couldn't tell you what year it was but the pic is black and white. It looks like some sort of banquet show as there are folks sitting at tables. You have a empire waisted polka dotted dress on. It really looks as if you are wearing a wig!No disrespect here, I am just trying to jog your memory.

((None taken. Hmmm, I'd have to see it to be sure.))

Anyway, if you could get in touch with me via e-mail I would love to send this to you and get an autograph.

((Will do!))

BTW way I am pretty sure a buddy of mine has an early publicity still of Alice with her pipe act.

Did she perform under another name?

((Her birth name was Katarina Nalanski. She performed under "Katharine, the Enchantress", and "Kitty Trix". Hang onto the photo, it's going to be worth a FORTUNE when my book comes out this Fall.))

P&L
D

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4550
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Brad Henderson » April 26th, 2007, 10:15 am

PT,

I was using "exposing" to refer specifically to the republication of methods in "public" sources, which has a long history of being condemned. (In spite of the fact that it occurs.) And when I look at books intended for our own art in the past in which material was appropriated, I also find rumblings in concurrent magic press or letters of people who are upset with the practice. So, while these things have happened, there have also been a number of people who knew they were WRONG.

Unlike performing a trick from a book you have purchased. I know of no case in magic history where an author felt he was wronged because someone who bought his (or her) book performed the piece in a professional setting. Nor do I know of any case where peers of that author were upset. (Of course, unless that published trick had been appropriated for its publiction, in which case I refer you to the previous point.)

Magic books have been intended for the performance of the material published. Magic theft has always occured (so has murder) but that does not mean that people did not know it was wrong!

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 10:40 am

All I am suggesting is that this issue isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be. Especially KILLING. Wrong? Since when has killing been wrong? Really, don't get me started 'cause we will get kicked off for having what may very well be a GREAT discussion about killing! Let's stick to magic. KILLING magic that is!
:)

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7260
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 26th, 2007, 11:53 am

Where to start (since we all now know that Im just talking out of my ass).

By P.T. Murphy
Dustin in fairness to Dee...just because you don't understand the argument does not mean that somebody, in this case Dee, is arguing just to argue.

Dee in fairness to Dustin...you ARE just arguing to argue! Even if your argument makes complete sense!
Well, I like a good debate too (it must be true, it says so on my profile), so Im guilty as well: The pot calling the kettle black in this case.

However, Dee has proven in other threads that she will continue to argue about things she knows nothing about. (Although I suppose its possible that she is also an intellectual property attorney who doesnt understand her field. She also appears to be an amateur psychologist since she knows when someone can be diagnosed as a borderline sociopath.) So in this case, she had precedence working against her when I made my comment.

I do understand Dees primary argument. In fact, I would agree that, in some cases, when the soul of an artist becomes part of a presentation, that creation cannot be passed on (and perhaps shouldnt be). But I have come to discover that this is rare in magic; much rarer than I used to believe. Dee insists that the whysexcept in rare instancescannot be passed on, and that is just plain wrong. She says that, in music, Sinatra was a rare exception to this rule of hers. Well, perhaps magic is more easily interpreted than is music.

I would completely agree that Character cannot be passed on, and maybe thats what Dee really means to be saying. But a good entertainer can take a piece of magic, apply his/her character to the same lines and it will work. Ive seen it too many times now to know that its not a coincidence or just luck.

Her celebrity laughs argument (and P.T.s further embellishment of it) is pure nonsense. I have seen Bob Hope, Robin Williams, Steve Martin, Dave Letterman, Jay Leno, George Carlin, and many others bomb: No laughs, zippo, nada, crickets in the room. If her theory was even partly true, they, and every other celebrated entertainer, would never bomb.

I will concede that there is nervous laughter, such as that generated by the creepy Impregnating a Woman Onstage. I dont think anyone can make this work in front of an audience as diverse as DCs. Some people think its funny while others think its blasphemous and others are mortified that they brought their young kids to the show. Its the same thing as if DC had Andrew Dice Clay do a guest appearance: Only a quarter of the audience is the right group.

By DeeBrennan
Since you seem obsessed with providing "examples" you refuse to cite.
I do this because they are still out there working. They are friends or acquaintances, and while Im not exposing deeply hidden secrets, these facts are not common knowledge so theres no reason to bring their names into it on an Internet chat site.

But I suppose that having David Alexander, a man with many decades of professional show business experience under his belt supporting my arguments is meaningless to you Dee, but its not to me or anyone else paying attention. (Thank you David!)

By DeeBrennan
Good writers can write for those unique voices, as with Jack Benny. There's nothing startling about that revelation.
Point taken. Yes, in this case the script writer is very good at his job.


By DeeBrennan
No, what's tiresome are the pronouncements you, who have never made your living performing, endlessly make regarding somthing [sic] about which you have only theoretical knowledge.
One does not need to make a living at performing to be a performer. All I will say is that I do have practical experience. I dont talk about my performing experience much because its not in my nature. And, as far as I am aware, the only magician who has ever seen me perform (that is, do a scripted set, not just a card trick or two) is Steve V. and that was because he happened to be in the bar at the right moment (and that was about ten years ago). I do not, will not perform for magicians. I learned that lesson a very long time ago. And besides, Steve V. had gained my trust at that point, so he got a pass. I will leave it to Steve to say, if he cares to, whether or not I can perform well or not, and thus my ability to put theory into practice.

But right now, I have to go earn a living.

Dustin

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4550
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Brad Henderson » April 26th, 2007, 12:15 pm

PT,

My point was that Dee was making an apples/oranges argument. While practices and opinions change, there is such a thing as precedent. Thankfully, in the world of magic, we have grown less tolerant to theivery (though it still happens). The Performance rights issue MAY someday change too. And I, for one, would be in favor of it. But given current standards, practices, expectations, traditions, and precedents, the Chelman book (which Dee is refering to) did not take the necessary steps to warrant the reservation of rights he desired.

Now, if this is a first rallying call and practices change, become clearer, and gradually creators retain greater control over their work and how it us used - I say GREAT! But until then, you cannot look at an ineffective vehicle and pretend that it is anything but wishful thinking with no legal backing.

As to theft, we have always known it to be theft. Thankfully enough people now CARE and it is becoming something less tolerable. But that never made it "right."

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 12:44 pm

>>>I do understand Dees primary argument. In fact, I would agree that, in some cases, when the soul of an artist becomes part of a presentation, that creation cannot be passed on (and perhaps shouldnt be). But I have come to discover that this is rare in magic; much rarer than I used to believe.>>>

I don't think we're that far apart. The magic I enjoy lives in that rare area you describe. Things like Harry Anderson's version of the Needle. Yes, someone else could use the exact same lines, and get a great response (from someone who hadn't seen Harry,)but it would have no soul because they wouldn't have lived Harry's life.

>>>Dee insists that the whysexcept in rare instancescannot be passed on, and that is just plain wrong.>>>

This is inexperience talking, Dustin, and I'm not mocking you or judging. Truly I'm not. An artist could tell you the why of a particular piece, and you might have some analogous experience that you could apply to substitute for their why, but not having lived their life, you could never, ever have their why in your bones. You just couldn't.

>>>She says that, in music, Sinatra was a rare exception to this rule of hers. Well, perhaps magic is more easily interpreted than is music.>>>

Could well be.

>>>a good entertainer can take a piece of magic, apply his/her character to the same lines and it will work. Ive seen it too many times now to know that its not a coincidence or just luck.>>>

Absolutely! I'm not saying it can't work. I've seen too many really entertaining Elvis impersonators, and Tom Mullica, to know that it can work. But it pales compared to the original. Doesn't it?

>>>>Her celebrity laughs argument (and P.T.s further embellishment of it) is pure nonsense. I have seen Bob Hope, Robin Williams, Steve Martin, Dave Letterman, Jay Leno, George Carlin, and many others bomb: No laughs, zippo, nada, crickets in the room. If her theory was even partly true, they, and every other celebrated entertainer, would never bomb.>>>

You're inaccurately characterizing my point. I never said it was a universal constant. But it does exist. And I've seen DC get them. Pauly Shore, too, as well as Jay Leno.

>>>One does not need to make a living at performing to be a performer.>>>

One does not have to play NFL football to be a football player, either, but the gulf is just as wide.

P&L
D

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 12:46 pm

Dustin, look! Brad is talking about....uhhh......"that topic", and I'm not even arguing!

See?

I do have SOME self-restraint.

P&L
D

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7260
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Dustin Stinett » April 26th, 2007, 3:58 pm

Dee,

Perhaps we are arguing about to two different things: Character versus trick and script.

Character is not (and never will be) interchangeable.

Tricks and their scripts can be (though not always), and if the performer is good enough (and its a big IF; I never said anybody), he/she will not only make it work, he/she will understand why it works.

Dustin

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4550
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Brad Henderson » April 26th, 2007, 4:17 pm

If what you say is true, Dee, then only Beethoven could play Beethoven and only Shakespeare could direct Shakespeare.

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 26th, 2007, 8:12 pm

If what you say is true, Dee, then only Beethoven could play Beethoven and only Shakespeare could direct Shakespeare. >>>>

That's preposterous. Beethoven wrote music for musicians to play. Shakespeare wrote plays for actors to act.

But you know that. You know there's a difference between something that's written for the express purpose of being interpreted, and something that's personal and idiomatic.

P&L
D

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4550
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Brad Henderson » April 27th, 2007, 12:26 am

Actually, Beethoven wrote a lot of his music for his own performances. Bach, as well. And Shakespeare wrote for his own troupe which he directed. So, it is not completely preposterous.

The issue is whether anyone other than these men could have ever done as good of a job in presenting these works, after all, no one else every could really understand the 'whys' (as per your argument). So it would stand that everything done not by these people would be inferior.

I don't think there is any evidence to that.

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 27th, 2007, 5:57 am

Brad wrote>>>The issue is whether anyone other than these men could have ever done as good of a job in presenting these works, after all, no one else every could really understand the 'whys' (as per your argument). So it would stand that everything done not by these people would be inferior. I don't think there is any evidence to that.>>>

Since you're still pushing this silly point, I would point out that you wouldn't REALLY know, would you? Having never heard Beethoven play, or seen Shakespeare's company act, you are speaking hypothetically, aren't you? C'mon...aren't you?

But OK, I'll play along.

In the 5th's famous "Dah-dah-dah-DAHHHHHHHH" passage, Beethoven writes a half note with a hold over it the first time the phrase is played. The second time, he writes a whole note with a hold over it, indicating that he wants the second hold to last twice as long as the first. It's up to each conductor to decide HOW long those holds last, but if you want to hear it EXACTLY the way Beethoven intended, he would have to be conducting. I would argue the same could be said of the pieces he wrote for his own performance. They can be played well by others, certainly, but you'll only hear them phrased EXACTLY as he intended if he's behind the keyboard.

In Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech, Shakespeare writes in iambic pentameter. The actor's emphasis would be thus: "To BE or NOT to BE? That IS the QUEStion." Shakespear's iamb was a deliberate indication of how he wanted the words spoken. INDICATION, but not handcuff. Does that mean when you hear an actor say "To BEEEEEE or not to be? THAT is the question", he's wrong? No, not at all. But to hear the line exactly the way Shakespeare intended it to be spoken...well...you know the rest.

But again, I'm not talking about things meant to be interpreted, I'm talking about deeply personal, idiomatic presentations.

Like Eugene's Gypsy Thread. At one point--I believe it was Max--suggested he accompany it with "Ballad of the Harp-Weaver" which ROCKED. But Eugene wasn't satisifed, so he wrote a pieced based on the Hindu story of creation.

Now, could you give an effective performance using his exact lines and choreography? Probably. Would it resonate as deeply as it does when he performs it? No. You haven't lived his life. You haven't paid the price he has in deep study of religion. It's not in your wheelhouse.

In deference to Dustin, whom I'm pissing off with my agrumentativeness, I yield the remainder of my bandwidth on this...

P&L
D

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 27th, 2007, 6:44 am

Tricks and their scripts can be (though not always), and if the performer is good enough (and its a big IF; I never said anybody), he/she will not only make it work, he/she will understand why it works.>>>

I agree completely on the "why it works." The "why" I've been speaking of is a deeper "why".

p&L
D

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 27th, 2007, 9:34 am

Dee-
Well said. As an actor who has had the opportunity to play a few of Shakespeare's characters your assessment of the situation resonated with me. Much more so that the "theoretical" ideas shared in other posts I have read online. It is obvious that you are a performer with experience. Or you are a great [censored].

I have a theory when it comes to performing. You either get it or you don't. Those that like to intellectualize about the process general seem to miss the point all together. And anybody in their right mind will tell you that reading a book about performing is a PALE PALE experience when compared to getting out and DOING IT! But hey! That is just me intellectualizing...so I guess I miss the point as well.

What was the point of this thread?

:D

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4550
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Brad Henderson » April 27th, 2007, 9:38 am

SO, then, Dee you agree with me. If you are going to say that only a creator of magic can ever present an original idea "ideally" because he understands the "whys", then you have to agree that only performances by Shakespeare or Beethoven were truly "ideal" performances of their works. There is a long standing tradition in music history that supports this too. (Long standing in so far as it began in the post modern era - the belief that "translations" or "representations" will always be innacurate.) Now the question becomes - are we worse off for it?

Would an audience member having seen Shakespeare performed under his direction find the play "better" or more resonant than say to see it under someone else directorship?

Who is it to say that Shakespeare had the resources to present his work in the ideal light? Who is to say he was a competent director? Seems that any "translation" of idea into action, unless that action is performed by the person who created the idea (like Beethoven's piano works) will always be in imperfect representation (as the postmodern theory to which you subscribe states.) Even if the person who had the idea acts it out, the limitations of their talent will often produce a less than ideal representation. Sometimes, a person's body type, vocal manners, and looks can bring something to a piece that makes it seems better than the alleged idealized presentation by the creator. Everyone has limitations.So can one EVER see the "idealized" presentation you claim exists?

Besides, who is to say that Shakespeare had his "whys" right? Who is to say that Shakespeare created the perfect work? I know I have seen many performers who in their life have added one line, or pause, or gesture (often at the suggestion of someone else) and both they and the audience feels that it is an improvement. I have seen great performers stumped by a simple question from a critical eye when some inconsistency in a presentation is mentioned - something they failed to see.

If only the original creator/performer has the ability to present the perfect "idealized" presentation because he or she understands the true "whys", then this could not have been the result. Clearly people other than the performer have the ability to look at a routine and find these flaws. Hearing the difference is the first step toward improvement.

If one of your idealized creator/performers sought the aid of a director, would their contribution be a blight on this idealized form filled with perfect why's? Afterall, the director cannot every truly know what is going on in the creators brain. (Which would be a point you would have to accept, since you have agreed to the postmodern argument.)

Of course, perhaps Paul Anka is not the exception but rather the rule. Maybe all of us are less than perfect beings and even in our best creations, creations for which we know all the whys, there is room for growth. So doesn't it stand to reason that someone who can see that growth could then make those changes and then make it better?


If other people can make suggestions that are accepted by the performer as an improvement (that fits with the whys) then there is no reason to think they could not learn and perform the routine too.

Brad

p.s. I find it troubling that so often you shoot down Dustin's ideas based on the fact that he is an amateur performer. Yet, none of us know (at least I do not think we know) what your background is. If credibility on these matters stems solely from one's professional experience (which you have suggested) then would you mind sharing your professional background with us?

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 27th, 2007, 9:53 am

The transmitter and the receiver may share an experience of the signal, but not necessarily the meaning.

Puzzled by this discussion of "interpretation"?

The artist had something in mind when they created a work.

The audience at that time got something from what the artist presented.

Taken into a different context or audience... the work will elicit a different response.

Another artist may find something entirely different in the first artist's work and choose to explore that.

This second artist's work will get its own response.

But does this justify posting the methods and procedures in this craft onto the open internet?

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 27th, 2007, 10:29 am

Brad says>>>If you are going to say that only a creator of magic can ever present an original idea "ideally" because he understands the "whys", then you have to agree that only performances by Shakespeare or Beethoven were truly "ideal" performances of their works. There is a long standing tradition in music history that supports this too. (Long standing in so far as it began in the post modern era - the belief that "translations" or "representations" will always be innacurate.)>>>

I never used the word "ideal", and I'm not sure of your context here. But if you mean "The way the creator intended it to be experienced" then yes.

>>>Now the question becomes - are we worse off for it?>>>

I leave it to you to decide for yourself. My personal preference is for deeply personal, original performances. Does that answer the question?

P&L
D

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 27th, 2007, 12:13 pm

Amateur? Did Dee use that word? I have to go back and read this thread again.

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 27th, 2007, 1:21 pm

This thread keeps reminding me of something one of my teachers (in another field) says quite frequently:

"Yes. That's true ... Except when it isn't."

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » April 27th, 2007, 1:42 pm

Quote:
p.s. I find it troubling that so often you shoot down Dustin's ideas based on the fact that he is an amateur performer. Yet, none of us know (at least I do not think we know) what your background is. If credibility on these matters stems solely from one's professional experience (which you have suggested) then would you mind sharing your professional background with us?

Seems like a fair request.

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » May 5th, 2007, 3:53 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wiki people are operating under the fantasy held by many people in today's society that "information must be free." This brings about the downloading and trading of music, videos, magic books, all manner of copyrighted material without compensation to the owners and producers of that material.

What those people fail to understand is that when people aren't paid for their creativity they stop creating.
This is a very old and completely wrong argument for these reasons:

1. It assumes that people only create if they are paid. There are plenty of people creating things, including magic, and sharing it for free. They do this because they enjoy creating and they enjoy sharing. Not everything is driven by dollars. Fact.

2. It assumes that if marketed things are exposed, that people will not buy, and therefore the creator won't get paid. It asumes that people are buying only to find out the method. Wrong. Buying solely to find out the method is a very bad reason to buy. The market for magic is largely among magicians. And magicians know methods. Most magicians know the method before they buy anyway. They are buying for other reasons. For the props, for the routine, for their personal morals, for the in depth knowledge, etc etc etc.

So, this creativity = $$$ and that's all, argument is wrong.

In many cases "creativity" consists of nothing more than reworking a 20 year old effect with a couple of bells and whistles. We all know it.

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » May 5th, 2007, 4:43 pm

I notice you have an ugly little website that seems to have areas specifically designed for what the kinder folks here would call exposure, and I would call theft.

The arguments that "creativity isn't about money", and "people that pirate buy anyways" have been used by kids my age for years when referring to other mediums.

Such arguments are [censored].

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » May 5th, 2007, 4:56 pm

I don't know about [censored], Stuart:

I was surfing today using Firefox, and regularly use Linux. Both pieces of software were created by people who gave up their time for nothing. It is difficult operate a computer using [censored], but in this case it seems to have been possible.

We're not going to agree on exposure, but my point of posting was to address the fact that creativity is not solely related to dollars. A point which I have demonstrated via cogent argument. I don't think you have expressed a cogent argument which refutes any point I made.

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » May 5th, 2007, 7:06 pm

While I would agree that a creator doesnt necessarily create solely for financial gain, I think they do go to the work of presenting their creations in an accessible form primarily so they can get paid. Im sure someone like Paul Harris very much enjoys creating new magic and would continue to create regardless. However I think when he goes to the trouble of writing descriptions of his creations or presenting them on film hes doing so expecting to be compensated for his time and effort. I doubt very much he would go to the trouble if he expected to receive nothing in return.

The notion that magicians dont buy effects to learn methods is absurd. I would think that nine times out of ten thats precisely why theyre buying an effect, to learn the secret, as opposed to getting whatever bells and whistles might come with it. Sure magicians know methods, but good methods are invisible, and I highly doubt folks are going to be in a rush to buy something when the method is transparent. If you think otherwise, just throw something together and try and sell it and see how well you fare. Its equally absurd to suppose that people would want to pay for something when the method has already been exposed to them. Such high ethical standards being possessed by those who blithely trade and steal copyrighted work seems more than a little unlikely.

I completely agree with Stuarts assesment that such arguments are [censored].

Guest

Re: wiki-exposure

Postby Guest » May 5th, 2007, 7:27 pm

I don't know about [censored], Stuart:

I was surfing today using Firefox, and regularly use Linux. Both pieces of software were created by people who gave up their time for nothing. It is difficult operate a computer using [censored], but in this case it seems to have been possible.

We're not going to agree on exposure, but my point of posting was to address the fact that creativity is not solely related to dollars. A point which I have demonstrated via cogent argument. I don't think you have expressed a cogent argument which refutes any point I made.
The important point is that the creators of Linux and Firefox chose to provide the results of their creative output for free. Don't you think that, equally, those who decide to sell the results of their own creative efforts should be able to choose to do so? You're then free to choose whether or not you want to purchase what they've created. Right? When people steal and provide such content on sites and elsewhere for free, they are taking the choice out of the hands of those creators. It's the creators who wanted remuneration for their efforts who thus become pissed off and might decide to stop putting stuff out.

I'm glad I could explain this to you.

Joe


Return to “Alternative Media”