Secrecy Fosters Stagnation

Discuss the historical aspects of magic, including memories, or favorite stories.

Postby Guest » 08/28/07 01:47 PM

All the talk about exposure. It's been an issue and has been argued for over 125 years, and magicians don't seem to have arrived at any better consensus after all that time.

Interesting.

I'm no deep thinker when it comes to magic theory. But the thought did recently occur to me that it is one of the very essences of magic (i.e., secrets) which "encourages" a lack of progress (stagnation) in magic.

Perhaps this thought is not at all original.

Clay
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/28/07 01:54 PM

True. The cyclical nature of this argument leads where? My philosophy is to put all the energy spent on crying about exposure into ourselves and enhancing our own magic.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/28/07 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Magicam:
...[secrecy] is one of the very essences of magic (i.e., secrets) which "encourages" a lack of progress (stagnation) in magic...
Really?

What sort of secrecy to you feel is slowing down the evolution of our craft?

-J
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/28/07 02:05 PM

Originally posted by audioslave:
True. The cyclical nature of this argument leads where? My philosophy is to put all the energy spent on crying about exposure into ourselves and enhancing our own magic.
The cyclical nature of the discussion as usually performed pretty much guarentees that the issues will not be addressed and the stagnation will continue unabatted.

Or we could go right to the roots... but that may mean ignoring some folks looking for a repeat performance of the usual.

Somewhere in the excluded middle of the usual discussion are the reasons Del Ray preferred to die than teach or sell his works openly.

Somewhere nearby is the reason this community lauds copyists.

What's it like having a map where terra incognito lies in the center and at the edges and there's always something new coming out soon?

So what's it gonna be folks, the usual trail of denial or maybe just for today in this time of stagnation the needs of the art are greater then the illusion "anyone can..."?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/28/07 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
Originally posted by Magicam:
[b] ...[secrecy] is one of the very essences of magic (i.e., secrets) which "encourages" a lack of progress (stagnation) in magic...
Really?

What sort of secrecy to you feel is slowing down the evolution of our craft?

-J [/b]
Jonathan, are you asking the right question, if there is one?

First, do you agree that the evolution of our craft has been slowed? (I think you do.)

So the question is why has progress been retarded.

Im just a guy with a somewhat inchoate thought.

Tell me why you think progress has been slow or has been retarded. You can blame the copyists, but that doesnt tell us why copyists flourish or are tolerated.

C.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/28/07 02:49 PM

I'm fine with an open discussion Clay.

But then again I enough self respect to live up to my word about keeping other people's secrets. It means I may know a few. It also leads to situations such as needing to wait for over twenty years now to ask someone about his wonderful spoon restoration method for the Sawa trick and even longer to find out about other things in magic. And yes that's a long time but since when does anyone have a right to another's work?

I'll need to hear more from the rest of our group on this one.

Do we need to do the argument about the bucket and how magic data takes a long time to refine and add a drop to the bucket while exposure permits leaks in the bucket which drop out data by the cup? The obvious simile is that it takes far longer to add significantly to the bucket and may not even be possible to get the bucket full while its leaking.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/28/07 02:58 PM

I side with the intent of the initial question rather than the verbiage of its proposition. My bottom line, regardless of anything, is that magic in general is stagnate.

There are few engineers here. The rest follow. "Exposure" is of no consequence to me. I'm not so sure the community lauds copyist. My perception is that it's a don't ask, don't tell policy. But acceptance may in fact constitute advocacy.

It seems magicians are more interested in variations of variations of routines. Do audiences really care that a card can rise 720 ways, or the permutations of cards reverting themselves?

Where's the freshness? Originality? Or is it that those guys are out there working and unseen?

hmmm.
Guest
 


Return to Magic History and Anecdotes