Magic in BoingBoing

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.
performer
Posts: 3508
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » August 18th, 2015, 10:04 am

The right way is the way that I and others of my generation learned it. I have described it in my preceding post. I started to learn it from the book where Orson Welles wrote the foreword, where he ironically worried about the contents of the book being made secret. He needn't have worried- I couldn't do a single trick in the book. It was a very bad book for beginners full of tricks where you had to find unearthly looking props which could only be found in an obscure magic shop somewhere. It was really professional tricks from the Phoenix magazine and terribly unsuitable for a beginner. The book was "Magic as a Hobby" by Bruce Elliott.

I wish Harry Lorayne's "The Magic Book" had been around then as I would have made faster progress. However, it wasn't and I had to make further effort in my studies. I taught myself magic from books in the library and then later discovered the Royal Road to Card Magic and other books. It was through the sweat and effort expended that I reached a pretty good standard. I taught myself completely and never met a magician for the first two years of my study. I am glad I didn't otherwise I would have ended up as awful as they were.

I am convinced that if the internet had been around at the time I would have ended up a terrible magician. Too much information without any filter as to what is good and what is not. And too much of it exposed to the public.

No. You learn magic the old fashioned way. By the study of books. And eventually meeting magicians who you respect who can advise and warn on the correct way to go about things. Sure, you have to be very selective in your choices as most magicians are and have always been very mediocre indeed. Still, if you have half a brain you figure out who to talk to. I talked to very few people but I figure out for myself the best way to go about things. And I didn't need the bloody internet.

performer
Posts: 3508
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » August 18th, 2015, 10:09 am

P.T.Widdle wrote:
performer wrote: I don't even like the Dancing Cane but if it is really being exposed on this site (I haven't looked) I find this horrific. "

I haven't read this thread properly but if it is true (maybe it isn't) that the invisible deck is being exposed on BoingBoing this is really sickening."

"I haven't looked at the site properly so I don't know how horrified I am going to be."


When you haven't even visited the site this thread is about (or even read the whole thread), why should anyone listen to you? Oh, because you're the protected little angel here now.


Widdle old chap, the reason you have to listen to me is that I happen to be one of the world's greatest magicians whether you know it or not. Furthermore I don't have to read the thread or the site since I also happen to be one of the world's greatest psychics and already know what is in it. And I am quite serious in my last two statements.

And what you also don't seem to realise is that the reason I am protected ( I have only seen one instance of it) is to protect YOU!

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » August 18th, 2015, 10:50 am

Widdle, please stop with the straw men. I have not advocated that there is a 'right' way. To me, right and wrong are irrelevant to this conversation. What matters is effectiveness.

You claim that we want more people to be interested in magic. That you insist is 'good' for magic. I do not necessarily accept that but, and this should address Jon's post, I am willing to work within whatever framework you believe 'good' is.

So, the claim YOU are making is that exposure as done by this site actually works to attract people to magic.

Ok - prove it.

We can easily show cases of people having been exposed to the secret of a trick then dismissing both trifk and magic, we have all seen that happen, but that's not the claim being made. The claim being made is that exposure such as this is good for magic BECAUSE it gets people to start performing it.

Leaving aside the 'good' part, I ask, again, that you demonstrate that this type of exposure actually leads to people getting involved in magic.

Again, I don't care about right ways or wrong ways - that's an argument you are having with yourself. I am asking, does this course of action produce the results you claim they do, and to a degree that that counter balance or counter react any potential negative (based on YOUR value system - ie, leading people AWAY from an interest in performing magic) - that might arise as a result

having said that, I DO believe you can share secrets in a way that leads to a growth in magic, but I'm looking for evidence that the way YOU are advocating does that.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27047
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Richard Kaufman » August 18th, 2015, 6:29 pm

I do not want to see ANY negative personal remarks in this thread. None.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » August 18th, 2015, 8:31 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:So, the claim YOU are making is that exposure as done by this site actually works to attract people to magic.


I would amend that to say, "exposure as done by this site can work to attract people to magic."
I think we all know it would be silly to try and guarantee that claim, just as it would be silly to say the exposure is guaranteed to do harm.

In the case of the dancing cane exposure, it is presented as a how-to-make video with the actual effect not even shown until the very end. It's almost post-modern in that sense.

Why don't I present a scenario where I believe the video can cause someone to be attracted to magic? And then you can present a scenario where it causes harm:

Ok, some teenager comes across this post on BoingBoing. Dancing Cane? What's that? The teenager checks it out because a talent show is coming up and he/she is doing a musical number and this might spice up the act (The teen already has tried a cool self-working card trick that was on the site, and his friends liked it). The teenager thinks he can make this thing, and he likes the effect shown at the end. So he works up a cane, decorates it, practices in the mirror, and adds it to his act. Maybe that's the end of it. Maybe he gets curious and investigates other floating object tricks.

Or one more, probably a little more likely:

A dad sees this post and decides to make a cane with his son. They make it, decorate it, practice it, and show it to mom and other family members. Maybe that's the end of it. Maybe the son wants to do more, and together they make another trick, maybe check out a book or a magic shop.

Now, please tell me the scenarios where that post will cause harm.

------

On a related note, I would argue that Penn & Teller's Fool Us is treading a line of exposure, or half-exposures. And that audiences love it (it is the highest rated TV show for that network in five years, renewed for a third season). Not only that, but many magicians have cited P&T as inspiration, so one could say exposure helped get them into magic.

performer
Posts: 3508
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » August 18th, 2015, 8:48 pm

I have never been keen on Penn and Teller's exposures whether they are half exposures or whatever. Still , there is no denying their success. I detest the brash persona but my opinion is unimportant as is the opinion of any other magician from a commercial point of view.

However, from an art point of view rather than a commercial point of view I prefer my performers to be a bit more on the gentler side. Magic should be a thing of beauty not an exhibition of brash ugliness.

I detest the concept of the programme they are now involved in. The idea that you have to fool them. That isn't what magic is supposed to be about and it trivialises the art.

And I consider magic an art form even if not a single other person does. And exposure not only trivialises the art form it erodes it from the inside. A magic secret exposed is like a burst balloon. There is nothing left.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27047
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Richard Kaufman » August 18th, 2015, 9:31 pm

From your comments, Mark, I would imagine that you probably don't like Penn, but find Teller to be an artful magician.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

performer
Posts: 3508
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » August 18th, 2015, 9:41 pm

It is personal taste. I cannot abide the brash loud mouthed approach. I can't bear watching Penn. I do appreciate Teller because he doesn't say anything to irritate me.

Having said all this I can see MASSIVE indications that Penn is a very kind man. I sense his very soft side in interviews and conversations he has with people on television. Ironically because he is so much against psychics, it is my job to sense things. And I sense compassion, humanity and a very kind nature underneath the brashness.

I still hate his act though.

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » August 18th, 2015, 10:19 pm

There is room in an art form for meta examination. In fact, one could argue it is a sign a great respect for the art, which I think no one would doubt P&T have for magic. Their cups and balls is a meta examination of the art form, which far from trivializing magic, elevates the appreciation of it while simultaneously still operating in the traditional narrative (fooling).

I just think it's small-minded to choke off any other entre into magic other than the traditional approach (see live trick, find magic book, learn secret). What's invalid about learn secret, find magic book, see live trick?

I would prefer the potential of one person building that cane and going on to build and perform other magic, than the so-called "collateral damage" of exposure to thousands. Why? Because the damage is a mirage, but the potential is real.

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » August 26th, 2015, 8:13 pm

Magician proposes to his girlfriend with the "needles" trick (and no exposure!)

http://boingboing.net/2015/08/26/magici ... ses-t.html

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5911
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Bill Mullins » August 28th, 2015, 12:03 am


P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » September 2nd, 2015, 12:32 pm

Gasp! More one-way exposure! The horror....

http://boingboing.net/2015/09/02/bicycl ... -play.html

performer
Posts: 3508
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » September 2nd, 2015, 12:35 pm

Indeed. Quite disgraceful. Thin edge of the wedge and all that.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » September 2nd, 2015, 1:23 pm

P.T.Widdle wrote:Gasp! More one-way exposure! The horror....

http://boingboing.net/2015/09/02/bicycl ... -play.html


this was a nice little secret that many of us exploited. Tell me, what good does it do for non magicians to be aware that a regular deck has this anomaly?

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » September 2nd, 2015, 1:26 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:what good does it do for non magicians to be aware that a regular deck has this anomaly?


When the "non-magicians" are interested in doing magic tricks.

performer
Posts: 3508
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » September 2nd, 2015, 1:38 pm

But they are. I wish they weren't.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Jonathan Townsend » September 2nd, 2015, 1:45 pm

P.T.Widdle wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:what good does it do for non magicians to be aware that a regular deck has this anomaly?


When the "non-magicians" are interested in doing magic tricks.


For most it's not even idle curiosity. Facile... fascination with trickery.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5911
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Bill Mullins » September 2nd, 2015, 2:26 pm

P.T.Widdle wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:what good does it do for non magicians to be aware that a regular deck has this anomaly?


When the "non-magicians" are interested in doing magic tricks.


But the vast majority of the readership of Boingboing isn't interested in doing magic tricks. They might, however, read the exposure posts out of a prurient interest.

Is the trade-off (introduce a few into magic vs expose to many) worth it?

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » September 2nd, 2015, 3:08 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:the vast majority of the readership of Boingboing isn't interested in doing magic tricks. They might, however, read the exposure posts out of a prurient interest.

Is the trade-off (introduce a few into magic vs expose to many) worth it?


Seriously?

Anyone that clicks on the link to this post has (in my mind) shown enough interest in cards and/or magic to justify pointing them toward a couple of Dover published one-way tricks.

The percentage of people clicking on this link to learn a secret just for the hell of it (and then remembering it)? ZERO. I repeat - zero. Your fantasies of exposure are a mirage.

Like it or not, some people may find these cards cool, and they will want to buy them, perhaps for a weekly Poker game, for example. What is the matter with showing them how to do a magic trick with their purchase?

Don't be snobs.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27047
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Richard Kaufman » September 2nd, 2015, 4:19 pm

Considering he's explaining the one-way principle using a reprint of an old deck that most people will never see, I really can't see the harm in it.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » September 2nd, 2015, 4:54 pm

Widdle - if they want to learn magic then why teach them a principle with applications using a deck most don't have? (richard, the are selling these decks currently I believe)

how, exactly, has the reader been empowered by that? how has the reach of magic or the depth of experience of a magical performance been enhanced by that information?

far better would have been to teach a trick using obviously printed one way decks (kitty cats anyone) that the reader may likely encounter.

all he has done is potentially created some half smart laymen for will now want to turn your cards end for end before they rub their edges.

I have been teaching magic for over 26 years. I teach well over a thousand people each Summer. I have seen exactly how this information gets processed and how it impacts their magical experiences.

It becomes an obstacle. Not for the magician - for them.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27047
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Richard Kaufman » September 2nd, 2015, 5:10 pm

I didn't say the decks weren't being sold, just that they aren't available to most people (what laymen would even know about them?).
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » September 2nd, 2015, 6:13 pm

which is all the more reason that this isn't an instructive vehicle but mere exposure.

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » September 2nd, 2015, 8:20 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:all he has done is potentially created some half smart laymen


Oh, get off your pedagogical pedestal Brad.

Here we go again with the condescending to both the BoingBoing audience, and to Frauenfelder, whom, I would argue, is just a good magic teacher as you.

Look at this post again:

http://boingboing.net/2015/09/02/bicycl ... -play.html

The title is "Bicycle 130th Anniversary Playing Cards" with a picture of old-timey looking cards.

So who might click on that? Some troll who sees an opportunity to bust people doing card tricks? Maybe.
Or perhaps a dad whom the picture or the title trigger a memory he had playing cards as a kid. Or a collector, or a gamer? or who knows? Are those people not worthy of your time, professor? Speaking of time, many of those kinds of people (adults, people with jobs) might only have the time to click on an occasional magic item in a blog they follow as part of their busy day. Is that not learning? Is it somehow worse than your classroom instruction (I'm assuming classroom because of the large number of students you've boasted about)?

And what about the teacher?

"Jason and I are both fans of Bicycle playing cards, manufactured by the United States Playing Card Company (USPCC). I have been handling USPCC cards for an hour a day or longer for the last couple of years (while on the phone, watching TV, hanging out with friends) and I have become a card snob."

That's the first paragraph, where no magic is yet mentioned, just his love for "handling" cards, and examples of when that might be a fun thing to do.

He continues:

"Playing cards made by USPCC use three layers of paper: two outer layers of thin paper, and a thicker stiff piece of card sandwiched in the middle. The result is a strong, springy card that feels good and has a nice snap to it. A lot of cards made by other manufacturers use just two layers or even one layer of low quality paper. They crease easily and wear down quickly and are unpleasant to use for games or magic tricks."

Second paragraph, well "below the fold" and really getting into cardstock talk here, (probably losing a few readers), but magic is not mentioned until the end, along with games.


"The Bicycle 130th Anniversary Playing Cards ($4 on Amazon) are made with the same 3-ply process used in all of USPCC's cards. They have the "Wheel No. 1" card back design from 1887. One interesting thing to note about this design is the three-winged symbol in the center. This makes the card asymmetrical, which is a desirable feature for card cheats and magicians. "

Finally, a "feature" is tipped half-way in the third paragraph as an "interesting thing to note," before Frauenfelder provides a link to a kind of stuffy entry in an old Dover book. How very traditional!

Is it Dover you have a problem with? What kid hasn't run across Dover magic books as part of their magic learning over the years? Remember the Dover book store in New York, anyone?

Browsing at Dover was kind of like following BoingBoing. So many interesting subjects along with a little magic. Didn't Racherbaumer say something about magicians having many interests? That's Dover. That's BoingBoing. That's learning - as much as anything you do in your classroom.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5911
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Bill Mullins » September 2nd, 2015, 8:56 pm

P.T.Widdle wrote:Anyone that clicks on the link to this post has (in my mind) shown enough interest in cards and/or magic to justify pointing them toward a couple of Dover published one-way tricks.


But people aren't even taking the step to click a link to the post. Boingboing has thousands of people (like myself) who are daily readers out of habit -- it is an interesting blog. And anyone who reads through the blog will be told the secrets of one-way decks. A small secret, to be sure, and one that may well be soon forgotten. But either the principle involved ("don't expose secrets gratuitously") means something or it doesn't. I think it is a principle worth honoring -- like Weber says, we don't keep secrets from spectators, we keep them for spectators.

And note that word "gratuitously" -- I'm all for sharing secrets with people who demonstrate legitimate interest. But that isn't what is going on here, and in other Boingboing posts.

The title is "Bicycle 130th Anniversary Playing Cards" with a picture of old-timey looking cards.

So who might click on that? . . . perhaps a dad whom the picture or the title trigger a memory he had playing cards as a kid.


You got me. If a 138 year old man reads the post, then I'll concede the exposure is worth it.

performer
Posts: 3508
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » September 2nd, 2015, 10:26 pm

I agree with Bill and Brad. I have never been a rabid fanatic about exposure. Alas I have reluctantly come over to the other side because of the bloody internet. There is too much trivialisation of magic as an art, too much easy access to secrets and too many horrible teenage magicians who should be out shoplifting like normal kids do instead of exposing badly executed tricks on YOU TUBE.

Magic is supposed to be a SECRET art and once it is no longer secret the whole thing becomes a complete waste of time. Sure beginners have to learn somewhere but the internet is not the place for it. Online is just a quicker way to become a bad magician of whom there are already too many.

Nowadays I hear laymen describing the actual names of tricks to my utmost horror. And today I met a 12 year old "magician" who complained that he would show a trick at school and impress all his friends but the next day they told him how it was done because they looked it up on the bloody internet.

And these teenage magicians are learning or attempting to learn tricks which are way beyond their capabilities and trying to run before they can walk. Instead of learning Elmsley counts and advanced sleight of hand and ostentatious irritating flourishes they should be spending their time learning self working tricks and perfecting their abysmal presentations.

I am a dinosaur who cannot bear this awful new age of conjuring.

My art deserves better.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » September 2nd, 2015, 11:35 pm

Widdle, you prove my point.

This article had nothing to do with magic and basically slips in a great secret that people didn't care about and now serves only to demystify ANY card trick they see.

yes, any.

Do you perform magic for real people, Widdle? I don't think so or you would know that NO young person is running across magic books, let alone Dover books.

See, the half smart layman isn't an insult. It's a statement of a condition. Take for example the young man I sat behind at a performance at Esther's Follies in Austin TX. There is a giant glass window behind the stage. The audience can see 6th street through it.

their magician lowers a curtain and levitates a girl in front of her. This young man, upon seeing the hoop make a single pass over the girl, turns to his date and proclaims. "there's a forklift behind that curtain'

See, he saw a TV show and that's how they taught the trick. So now whenever he sees a levitation he knows how it's done.

Or work a gig in New York and do any card trick. "It's a double flip!"

What's a double flip you ask? It's what a performing duo in NY called a double lift in part of a trick they "taught" during their shows.

Now, I should mention that you are going to hear 'double flip' with ANY card trick you do. Because that's what people know.

Or how about those people raised when stripper decks were a popular pitch item? 'Excuse me, can I see those cards?'

In each case, these people's magical experiences are DIMINISHED because someone forced just a little bit of magical knowledge into their head. Mind you, none of these people LEARNED to do anything with this information. they got at most half of the information, they were merely exposed to it and because of that a lot of magic now fails to mystify, not because of the magician but because exposure does not open minds to magic, it closes them.

exposure is not synonymous with explaining a magic secret. When we expose we turn magic into a dead end. When someone knows how the sawing works, they lose the ability to feel wonder when seeing it. And as we have seen, this even keeps them from being able to feel wonder when seeing a different method!

When we teach, we may demistify to begin but we empower the initiated to spread the magic to others. we can teach in ways that increase appreciation, that allow one to feel more deeply when experiencing great magic.

Your boing boing friend may have exposed a lot of magic information to a lot of people, but I defy you to prove that he has in any way positively impacted magic via this exposure.

EVERY person who leaves my class leaves with a deeper understanding and appreciation of magic, they leave better able to discern good magic from bad, and have a better idea as to how to be a good audience for magic.

If I can do that, anyone can do that. The issue is are you doing this to promote yourself or to promote magic. Boing boing exists to promote boing boing.

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » September 3rd, 2015, 9:45 am

Brad Henderson wrote:Boing boing exists to promote boing boing.


And Brad Henderson's Magic Class exists to promote Brad Henderson.

Brad Henderson wrote:
This article had nothing to do with magic and basically slips in a great secret that people didn't care about and now serves only to demystify ANY card trick they see.



And you call yourself an educator? Do you really think that taking Brad Henderson's Magic Class is the best and only way to for one to learn magic? Does learning magic mean that it must be compartmentalized as a subject and taught that way as well? In Finland (the world's leader in education), they recently decided to limit subject-based teaching because it, "removes the content from it's pragmatic context." You can learn about Math, Science, Art, and History while baking a cake, for example. In fact, if your first exposure to math is in that context, it may stick more (pun intended).

It is entirely possible, even desirable, to learn about magic (or learn magic) within the context of a like-minded interests blog. The people reading the blog are legitimate potential students of magic, despite your denigration of the medium and the teacher. Their entre is different than Brad's Magic Class, but not inferior.

The article doesn't merely "slip in" a great secret, it rewards the reader for already showing interest in cards by clicking on the link, and by further reading through three and a half paragraphs of related material. Furthermore, a link to an old magic book is provided (not to a video, mind you). What is disrespectful or gratuitous about that? It is a legitimate lesson, and a good one, because the magic is woven into the context of a related subject - a wonderful way to learn.

So now that I've hopefully explained why this blog can be a legitimate form of learning about magic (for people who may not have the time for Brad's Magic Class), that leaves the issue of whether the potential exposure of magic secrets to laymen is worth it. I stand by my previous remarks that ZERO people will read this post with the intention of busting a magician, and ZERO people who do read the post will have their card magic experiences ruined (despite your fear mongering anecdotal examples of the horrors of exposure). And the people that do click to the Dover link have shown themselves to be magic students, like them or not.

I also teach a magic class to kids, (as well as being a teacher by profession), and I know that the traditional instructionalist approach to learning can be limited and uninspiring. What makes education so amazing is there's so many ways to learn something. And to teach it. But not if you're close-minded.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » September 3rd, 2015, 11:21 am

P.T.Widdle wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:Boing boing exists to promote boing boing.


And Brad Henderson's Magic Class exists to promote Brad Henderson.


Once again Widdle, you’re wrong.

I have zero interest in promoting myself through my magic class. I have exactly two goals in my magic classes: to instill a deeper appreciation of magic as an art and to help make better audiences for magicians.

Now if you have proof to the contrary I would love to see it.

Oh wait, you don’t.

How about proof to back up your claim that people who are exposed to magic on sites like this end up becoming magicians? (and those outweigh the number who are turned off to magic by it)

Oh wait, you don’t.

And while I have presented anecdotal evidence, you claim that people are not demystified by being exposed to magic. What proof do you have for that, beyond “nuh-uh”?

Ah, yes. NONE.

And I thought you were the skeptic guy here who insisted that claims be backed up with facts.

I guess not.

You are, Widdle, at best, a fan boy. It’s cute how upset you get when your hero’s come under scrutiny. They should make you president of their fan club. Maybe they can send you a poster you can hang on your bedroom wall.

As a renowned magic teacher, Widdle, have you given thought to the differences between teaching and exposing? (Notice I ask rather than make unsupported accusations that show my behind - a lesson you would do well to learn, Teacher.)

See, and I can’t believe I have to explain this to a professor, merely exposing people to information is NOT teaching. I realize that may come as a surprise to you. I’m sure they understand this in Finland. Explaining calculus to people who can’t add may make you feel smart, but ultimately teaching shouldn’t be about the teacher, it should be about the student. As you get a little more experience under your belt, Widdle, you may come to see the futility in explaining engine repair to someone who has never held a wrench, let alone owns one.

Allow me to give you a clear example. I don’t expect you will get it, because I don’t expect you will seriously read and consider it. But there may be people out there who do care about their students and magic and this may be of use to them.

There is a difference between teaching and exposing and as a teacher it behooves one to make a call as to what that difference is. If someone comes to me and asks how the sawing works, to expose the method is not to teach. That person, upon learning the magic, can expect only demystification. Whenever they see the trick, they know. It is a dead end for magic. A closed parenthesis.

If, however, someone comes to me with props in hand and asks for help, I will show them everything I can. While we still achieve demystification for the student, they are then empowered to create mystery for others. The magic continues and grows. An open parenthesis. Likewise, I can teach magic in a way that opens the mind to magic as an art and instills appreciation. This of course requires more than a mere description of the method. Again, an open parenthesis.

In the middle case, the student has not only the interest, but also the ability and resources needed to “learn” the lesson. If I as a teacher have the time, knowledge, and ability to convey the information, then learning (and thereby teaching) can occur. Without all of those elements, you do not have teaching. You have exposure. You have closed parenthesis. You devalue magic.

The people who read this blog post did not even show interest in magic. You say it’s a reward. “A blog done on video is called a vlog.”

Was that a reward? Or just some random tangential bit of information that fails to make the point of my post but merely shows that I know something that you may or may not have known? Was it needed? Did it help me make my points clearer? No, not at all. This exposure in the blog merely takes up space. It is, at best, padding.

And let’s not forget, not only have the people reading this blog NOT shown any interest in magic (Newsflash: being interested in cards does NOT mean an interest in magic.) But they don’t even have the equipment they need to perform the trick taught!

So, we expose the secret to people who haven’t demonstrated any interest hoping that will motivate them to go out, buy the deck, practice the trick, and show it to friends?

That’s what “professor” Widdle believes???

With no evidence to show that has ever happened.

Uh-huh.

Look, I’m not opposed to teaching on the internet. But this isn’t a discussion of the medium of instruction; it is a discussion of the instruction, or lack thereof, itself. There are many ways to learn magic. All of them have their pro’s and con’s. I love seeing new and innovative ways of teaching. But new ways of exposing are not new ways of TEACHING. My teaching experience is relevant only because it has forced me to grapple with these issues. The boing boing people have not. But that’s to be expected. They don’t care about magic. They care about content. And that’s fine. But it doesn’t mean we have to like it, support it, praise it, or ignore it’s limitations.

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » September 3rd, 2015, 12:04 pm

Brad, you continue to stand on your pedagogical pedestal, denigrating BoingBoing as a place where only gratuitous exposure exists, with no learning of magic.


Brad Henderson wrote:
And let’s not forget, not only have the people reading this blog NOT shown any interest in magic



How would you know? Maybe some people follow this blog, and when there's a magic item, they read the post. Is that not interest in magic? And maybe some people will be turned on to magic (or trying to perform a trick) for the first time by reading this post. Is that inconceivable? or more importantly, is it not a legitimate way to learn a magic trick?

How very snobby and narrow-minded you are as a magic teacher to believe one shouldn't learn a magic trick from a non-"magic-only" blog. People can learn their first (or second or third) magic tricks from many different places and situations. Is an uncle showing you how to do a trick (when you've never shown an interest in magic) not a Brad Henderson-accepted form of teaching? Is there some established criteria for one to be "interested in magic" before one is allowed to learn a trick?

Brad Henderson wrote:The boing boing people...don’t care about magic. They care about content.


How cynically presumptuous of you. I see Frauenfelder as caring about magic and about content, just as you care about magic and about collecting a fee for your classes.

This particular post, as many of BoingBoing's magic posts, is respectful and shows genuine interest in magic by its author. You may not approve of him as a certified magic teacher, but then neither was my uncle.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » September 3rd, 2015, 12:14 pm

so you didn't read or understand what I posted.

got it.

for you own well being, please don't light any matches. There must be a lot of straw at your place to be able to build so many men.

tell me, mr valid claims, what proof do you have that people read that blog and become magicians

apparently you missed that question

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Jonathan Townsend » September 3rd, 2015, 12:30 pm

performer wrote:But they are. I wish they weren't.


Scot skipped teaching the paddle move in Discoverie and recently the Sleights of Mind authors skipped part of the Nemo 1500 item discussion in their book. Need to know...
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby MagicbyAlfred » September 3rd, 2015, 1:25 pm

I have been searching for a silver lining to the cloud of rampant exposure that is a by-product of the "information age." While i do not condone exposure in any way, shape or form, is it merely rationalizing to say it might substantially heighten public interest in magic, and thus the patronage of magicians, writers, lecturers and dealers? And perhaps, additionally, incentivize us to come up with new creative tricks and methods?
Last edited by MagicbyAlfred on September 3rd, 2015, 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » September 3rd, 2015, 1:35 pm

that's what the masked magician claimed.

The problem is people when they think they know how something is done close their minds and new methods become irrelevant. Like our frat boy friend and his forklift. Never mind there was a glass window and city street behind the curtain. he 'knew' how it was done.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby MagicbyAlfred » September 3rd, 2015, 1:46 pm

Yes, that seems like it could be a nettlesome problem. But I will say that, although the exposure on YouTube, for example, has been going on for years, I rarely encounter anyone who claims they know how I did an effect. The spectator reactions are generally great (please excuse any lack of humility), and do not appear faked. And I perform close up professionally three to four nights per week on average. What has happened in your experience?

performer
Posts: 3508
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby performer » September 3rd, 2015, 2:04 pm

Alfred. They don't know how it is done the night of the performance. However, if you have impressed them enough they will know the next day. If you haven't impressed them then they won't know. It is a very bad sign, I am afraid if they don't know how it is done!

Isn't that a catch 22 depressing thought?

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby Brad Henderson » September 3rd, 2015, 2:59 pm

youtube for the most part requires searching. Sticking a secret in the middle of a popularly read blog does not.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby MagicbyAlfred » September 3rd, 2015, 3:01 pm

Agreed.

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » September 3rd, 2015, 3:04 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:what proof do you have that people read that blog and become magicians?


What proof do you have that people who read the blog suffer detrimentally from the so-called exposure?

There is no way to validate either claim.

We disagree as to the intention of the post. You believe it is gratuitous exposure of magic, and I believe it is a magic lesson.

P.T.Widdle
Posts: 694
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Magic in BoingBoing

Postby P.T.Widdle » September 3rd, 2015, 3:12 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:youtube for the most part requires searching. Sticking a secret in the middle of a popularly read blog does not.


You have to click to read the post. That's effort. Your reward is a nice little magic lesson (with a link to source text).
Whether you believe that lesson belongs in a "popularly read blog" (that consistently features magic items, by the way), is a matter of how you view education. You believe magic should only be taught... where, when and by whom, exactly? Brad's Magic School?


Return to “Alternative Media”