"Notice that the framework I laid out in the previous paragraph doesnt depend on where the first idea came from a book, a performance, or wherever else. It depends instead on whether the second performer is adding new value. New Guys framework, however, does depend very heavily on whether the inspiration came from a book or performance.
Let me be clear on this point. My view automatically presumes a performer will "add new value" by his or her performance, otherwise why bother. This is not the crux of our divergent opinions.
I believe you understand my framework. You do not seem to understand the logical conclusion of the difference in our frameworks.
I am not talking about "Law" of any kind. If your actions broke the law (copyright, trademark, etc.) then the Courts could sort things out for the parties.
I am, and have been talking about the "more beneficial" behaviors in our community, a community I believe is very important.
Yes this is all opinion and point of view. I am tired of watching television shows, convention shows, contests and video tapes full of the same effects, over and over. This is not growth, it is death by repetition. Let me say that again- (just kidding.) Simply consider your own experience.
Why is Lennart Green so amazing? Because he is so different, so "Lennart."
Would you want a convention schedule full of exclusively Green-Derivative material?
This is why the killer act on any magic convention show is always the variety act - it is different. The good news is that the magic act always kills at the juggling conventions too.
"I believe that most performances contain implied invitations to their viewers to be inspired by what they see and to feel free to go create their own variations. Not an invitation to appropriate the identical routine; but an invitation to build on the basic effect and create a new routine from it.
I completely disagree on this point. Most magicians see something they like and go home and "tinker" with it, try to solve and understand the "how" of the method, to grow from playing with the material they see from other performers. Everyone does this, this is good.
The problem arises when the "tinkering" with these effects leaves your home and sets-up a new residence in your act.
"The question is what the *best* understanding is the understanding best for the growth of the art of magic. I believe a fairly generous understanding is best for that purpose.
for a look at the actual outcome when magicians share your view and approach. I wish it could be some other way.
Your way won't promote growth and sharing, it will foster more of the really interesting folks moving farther away from the mainstream.
"But the key question is a matter of degree: whether devising a new routine that involves cutting to the high card amounts to duplicating the precise thing Ricky Jay did or whether its just a case of borrowing a general plot and doing something new with it.
You misunderstood me. I do believe Ambitious Card is a General Plot. Not due to theft, but because it has been in print and in the acts and lectures of thousands of magicians for decades.
"(apologies in advance if I'm misreading him),
Apologies accepted. Sorry if I was unclear or confusing.
"Actually, no, I dont suppose I do understand the distinction between a general plot and a good plot; so far as I am aware it is New Guys creation.
Here is the difference: If everyone does it, it is a General Plot. It may be good, or bad, but it is widely known, considered, performed, varied - in a word - "General."
"Good" implies a quality of some kind. In this case, a good idea to refine the "General" plot of cutting higher to the great idea of "Just One Higher."
"the real point of difference between me and New Guy involves what norms about fair borrowing best serve the magic community: whether a practice of being inspired by a performance to work up a new routine built around an effect seen there will help or hurt the growth of magic
I swear to you that I would rather watch one Ricky Jay, than ten thousand acts "inspired" by Ricky Jay.
The community will grow by advancements in the depth of thinking, artistry, perfection and innovation of performers with their own vision. How can you be you when you are doing my act? (I'm not sleeping with your wife, I'm being my own version of her husband.)
Henry, you can relax. This will be my last post to you in this thread. In my opinion (and that's what ALL of this really is) you don't get it, and no amount of re-explanation will help you consider an alternative point of view, and the most likely effects of your approach upon the Art.
" I find myself somewhat more sympathetic to Henry than New Guy for the simple reason that Henry is willing to post behind a name rather than an anonymous handle.
This is not a character attack, this is a discussion of two opposite points of view.
I am not hiding. I use my real name to post on here all the time.
My choice of not putting names on the argument is because this is not about who we are, it is about what we choose to do- our behaviors and choices, not our personalities.
You get it. Every twisty, tough and not-so-fun-to-play-by-these-rules part of it. Happy to have you watching over us.
You get it too!
It is impossible to know if we are breaking new ground or treading on toes if we do not find our own path.
Your Seller's reference is a fine one, and I am aware of at least one earlier and one later.
I knew of all three but had no idea of the impact until the first time I saw Mr. Jay's show in NYC-
...and that night I learned everything I needed know without taking anything more than a second look at a show full of ideas that I had overlooked or had never before considered.
To Pete M,
We basically agree on most everything.
My use of the word "Thief" was intended in an argumentative way, not an accusatory or defamatory way.
It was not directed at Henry-I don't know the guy, it was my definition for the kind of person that does or does not behave in a certain way.
Even though I don't know Henry personally, I suspect we have many interests in common. We clearly both find Mr. Jay's performances inspiring, we just respond to the inspiration in different ways.
I originally tried to discuss this with him one-on-one, but his e-mail was not available.
The big difference is not "higher," but "just one higher."
"On the other hand, if its inspiration, then the effect I first described is Jay's, not mine. And, at that point, the "Charming Cheat" is out of buisness.
I do not suspect Mr. Jay would want to do anything that might put Martin Nash out of business...