Template errors

  • Template public:font_awesome_setup: [E_USER_WARNING] Template public:font_awesome_setup is unknown (src/XF/Template/Templater.php:781)
  • Template public:page_style: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/page_style.php:101)
  • Template public:page_style: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/page_style.php:155)
  • Template public:uix_config: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/uix_config.php:31)
  • Template public:uix_config: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/uix_config.php:32)

magic tricks

Apr 6, 2011
540
6
Lansing, MI
Tyler so your saying that someone who has simply watched DVD's of the 'latest greatest' tricks on the market is going to have the same understanding of magic than someone who is well read in the art? You see so many videos on youtube of young guys who have gone out bought the latest great card effect by whoever have 'learnt it' (use that term in a very lose way) and while performing it can't even do a convincing double that is required for the effect, why is this? Because they haven't taken the time to build the foundations you need and which you get from classic texts as royal road, card college.

It doesn't matter how creative someone is when it comes to magic if you only have a limited tool box to work with there is only ever so much you will be able to achieve. I know you will probably say something along the lines of you don't need these things you can make things up for yourself, and to an extent this is correct. But without a understanding of the foundations you don't have the starting block to be truly original. If someone sat you at a piano and you've never played, yes you could probably sit there for a while and come up with something 'original' but that doesn't mean that its going to be any good.

These tools come from studying magic which to be done fully has to come through reading. Are you saying that you can learn all the subtleties of misdirection that are discussed in books like the Books of Wonder or the general theory of magic from books like Strong Magic from watching DVD's? All these help build a magicians tool box to make you a better magician, and I'm sorry I will never agree that you can get all these from DVD's alone.

What I am saying is you can learn all the subtleties of every aspect of existence from a rock, or a blade of grass. My point is not to validate a poor learning curriculum for magicians, but simply to point out that none of it, not one bit, is required. Yes, it helps you SO much to have a good foundation. And 999/1000 it is necessary to have a foundation. But to assume that is the only way forward is just arrogant. There is only one factor that is THE deciding factor of learning, and that is the student. Everything else, is very, very important. But a great student can learn from the poorest of teachers, or even no teachers at all. And in reverse, the worst student could study under the very best of teachers, and learn nothing.

Now here is a real stretch, but it could actually be argued that if the best student studied magic with a blank slate, no presumptions, no former knowledge, just the instructions "show me something that looks impossible" he could in fact create better magic than the great student who studies only youtube. Or the good student who studies only DVD's. Or the poor student that studies only books. Or the worst student that studies all.

Physical input is meaningless, its our perception of that input that gives it power, meaning, direction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jan 11, 2013
168
2
Dubai
Tyler you are talking about someone starting with a blank slate and then starting to study magic. That's how we all start not knowing anything and then start our journey. But in order to learn something you need a source to learn from, otherwise you are just making stuff up and not actually learning anything. It's like what I said earlier you can sit someone in front of a piano without knowing how to play it at all, and yes after some time they will play something, but that something isn't going to be very good. That person needs to be guided, shown the basics before they can start to play something advanced and beautiful, and its the same for magic. Look how many greats of magic flocked to the magic castle just to be close to Vernon, what better source to learn from. Unfortunately for most today, an opportunity to study with an actual master isn't all that easy. So a smart magicians find the best resources best avenues so they can progress and advance on their own. And what im arguing is that you can really get better than books for that.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
My point is not to validate a poor learning curriculum for magicians, but simply to point out that none of it, not one bit, is required. Yes, it helps you SO much to have a good foundation. And 999/1000 it is necessary to have a foundation. But to assume that is the only way forward is just arrogant.

The autodidact has been heavily romanticized. But for every Agatha Christie or Eminem or Benjamin Franklin or Buckminster Fuller, the field is littered with the bones of tens of thousands who tried and failed. A true autodidact will find a way to learn regardless of what any of us say. But I say what I do because the simple truth is that most people are not that guy who's going to defy the odds and become the next David Bowie or Penn Jillette. Talk too much about the romantic autodidact, and pretty soon every schmuck uses that as an excuse to be lazy.
 
Jul 13, 2010
526
34
I agree with this 100%, but my point is to first get the techniques, theory ect which you will work hard at practice and perform books are a far better resource than DVD's. Please don't get me wrong DVD's have their place, its not like I don't own any, but to only rely on them as your only resource and neglect some great books which are out there, you are really limiting your personal progress as a magician.
I don`t disagree with you. I own less than 10 magic DVDs (and a couple of downloads) but more than hundred books about magic btw. I am a book-worm and I prefer books over DVDs any day. ;)
I just wanted to say that all these things are meaningsless if you don`t do it, go out, perform, practice etc.
I also like other aspects of books (historical aspects, biography of magicians etc). I collect them and don`t see them as exclusive learning tools.
Do I rewatch a DVD I´ve seen ? No, normally not. Do I reread a magic book ? Yes, regulary. I don`t know why, but I can`t rewatch a magic DVD very often. Many of my books however show serious signs of usage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apr 6, 2011
540
6
Lansing, MI
The autodidact has been heavily romanticized. But for every Agatha Christie or Eminem or Benjamin Franklin or Buckminster Fuller, the field is littered with the bones of tens of thousands who tried and failed. A true autodidact will find a way to learn regardless of what any of us say. But I say what I do because the simple truth is that most people are not that guy who's going to defy the odds and become the next David Bowie or Penn Jillette. Talk too much about the romantic autodidact, and pretty soon every schmuck uses that as an excuse to be lazy.

Alas, you are correct. I just don't like seeing such absolutes, because there is nothing wrong with taking your own path, and I don't like to see that being discouraged. However there are undoubtedly path's that are less than beneficial, and should be advocated against. Just with a grain of salt.
 
Dec 18, 2007
1,610
14
65
Northampton, MA - USA
Alas, you are correct. I just don't like seeing such absolutes, because there is nothing wrong with taking your own path, and I don't like to see that being discouraged. However there are undoubtedly path's that are less than beneficial, and should be advocated against. Just with a grain of salt.

Ahhh so we now see the truth in things. . . you hate authority and the rigidness of discipline that comes with it. You don't like being limited and having to focus on one single path even though that is the proven course of success.

In order to achieve anything one must have a foundation from which to grow. . . seeds must be planted and nurtured before knowing fruition. In your theory many more weeds will grow than attractive flowers or plants that nourish us and appeal to our imagination.

Sure, one in 30 might grow up through the cracks in the concrete that shines brightly because they are unique and have a unique way of seeing life but even those that have accomplished such started from a seed and gains roots -- a foundation that would allow them to stand and blossom. The course you're suggesting isn't just primitive and yet evolved, it is haphazard and risky; irresponsible when it comes to the laws of creation and trust me, there are parameters that must be adhered to even in the midst of chaos.

If you feed us nothing but a challenge and no knowledge or basis from which to build you are assigning an impossible task; you can't get something from nothing. There must be something in a vessel that pertains to the challenge, if we are to create and make things happen. For much of the past 1,500 or so years that's involved the product of the Printing Press and before that, it was access to scrolls and schools of higher learning (which can be traced back to before the rise of Babylon itself). Even during these times Oratory has been a key -- teaching the student by repetition so as to plant their feet firmly in a course of discipline vs. the arrogance of self-will going rampant.

Sorry, but your theory cannot hold water for there is not container -- no structure around which to capture it.
 
Dec 18, 2007
1,610
14
65
Northampton, MA - USA
Well said Craig, glad some one is on my side when it comes to books :)

As for the Million Dollar Mystery I believe Mike Caveney performed this a couple of years ago at a Conference on Magic history ( correct me if im wrong)

Michael may have performed part of the routine, the complete routine takes about 12-15 minutes to execute.

Many people use the method because it's most practical for a big stage show -- a vertical trap you might say.

If anyone would do the whole act I'd say they worked close with John Gaughan to recreate things. . . especially the long box part of the illusion, which I've never seen performed.

I believe Michael has Dante's unit, btw. We had the original Thurston cabinet and it was sold to a collector sometime in the mid-80s (I remember because the tube wasn't shipped at the same time and John was asking me to help track it down). . . I know that Will Rock did most of the original routine in his shows and one of the single most amazing variations to it that I've ever experienced was in the Siegfried & Roy show @ the Mirage. . . it was absolutely impossible! Bill Smith was the engineer behind it and did an awesome job.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Alas, you are correct. I just don't like seeing such absolutes, because there is nothing wrong with taking your own path, and I don't like to see that being discouraged. However there are undoubtedly path's that are less than beneficial, and should be advocated against. Just with a grain of salt.

I recommend you read "Mastery" by Robert Greene. It's a detailed exploration of the learning process and how the path to mastery is virtually the same for every person. I've said this numerous times, and it's worth repeating. The path to learning a skill follows the same five steps in the exact same order every time:

1. Imitation
2. Comprehension
3. Evaluation
4. Invention
5. Innovation
 
Apr 6, 2011
540
6
Lansing, MI
Ahhh so we now see the truth in things. . . you hate authority and the rigidness of discipline that comes with it. You don't like being limited and having to focus on one single path even though that is the proven course of success.

In order to achieve anything one must have a foundation from which to grow. . . seeds must be planted and nurtured before knowing fruition. In your theory many more weeds will grow than attractive flowers or plants that nourish us and appeal to our imagination.

Sure, one in 30 might grow up through the cracks in the concrete that shines brightly because they are unique and have a unique way of seeing life but even those that have accomplished such started from a seed and gains roots -- a foundation that would allow them to stand and blossom. The course you're suggesting isn't just primitive and yet evolved, it is haphazard and risky; irresponsible when it comes to the laws of creation and trust me, there are parameters that must be adhered to even in the midst of chaos.

If you feed us nothing but a challenge and no knowledge or basis from which to build you are assigning an impossible task; you can't get something from nothing. There must be something in a vessel that pertains to the challenge, if we are to create and make things happen. For much of the past 1,500 or so years that's involved the product of the Printing Press and before that, it was access to scrolls and schools of higher learning (which can be traced back to before the rise of Babylon itself). Even during these times Oratory has been a key -- teaching the student by repetition so as to plant their feet firmly in a course of discipline vs. the arrogance of self-will going rampant.

Sorry, but your theory cannot hold water for there is not container -- no structure around which to capture it.

Mr. browning, I believe you are missing my point entirely. I am not advocating the wild path, I am not claiming its virtue or its success. I am simply stating it is in the realm of possibility for it to succeed, and to ignore that benefits no one. What I did advocate was taking your own path (which is inclusive of all paths, both good and bad), because I KNOW that a man learns better from his own mistakes than from the mistakes of others. This does not negate the value of suggestion, or the value of trying to help guide someone. But it does mean that there will never be a path that is truly better than any other with the end result being skill, there are only paths that are easier. Learning the foundations, taking the steps, is undoubtedly the smarter, safer, less time wasting, and more productive choice. But that fact does not negate the potential of other paths.

And yes, I will not even attempt to deny that I defy authority. I try my very best to take nothing for granted, and to consider each thing that comes my way on my own terms. I have no faith in blind faith.

And Mr. Browning I feel I should note, that on my own journey I have very much focused on what has been considered the successful path. Because after my own consideration, I came to the conclusion that it is absolutely, 100% the smarter choice. I spent my first three years in magic doing almost nothing but asking for books and sources, finding them, buying them, and studying. I continue to do so, although I have slowed down significantly, as I instead spend more time out performing, and scripting. I do not disagree with what you, or anyone else on this thread, says. I disagree with how you say it. Because even though this way is smarter, it does not mean that other paths are without merit. And speaking in such absolutes.. rules out the other options.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apr 6, 2011
540
6
Lansing, MI
I recommend you read "Mastery" by Robert Greene. It's a detailed exploration of the learning process and how the path to mastery is virtually the same for every person. I've said this numerous times, and it's worth repeating. The path to learning a skill follows the same five steps in the exact same order every time:

1. Imitation
2. Comprehension
3. Evaluation
4. Invention
5. Innovation

I will definitely look into this book, I've seen you mention it's ideas numerous times. I definitely agree with that idea, however I don't think that we all strive for mastery. I certainly don't.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
And yes, I will not even attempt to deny that I defy authority. I try my very best to take nothing for granted, and to consider each thing that comes my way on my own terms. I have no faith in blind faith.

Skepticism is certainly a healthy thing to have. But there's a quote from Andrew Mayne I like:

"It's not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo. You have to be right."

I will definitely look into this book, I've seen you mention it's ideas numerous times. I definitely agree with that idea, however I don't think that we all strive for mastery. I certainly don't.

I think perhaps then we're not using the same definition of the word.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results