So because it's not being utilized to it's fullest, it must be equal to, but not better than books? Not sure how that's logical, let alone a strong argument. And because books have worked just fine, that means DVDs are not a better media format? Again, not sure how that's logical or a strong argument.
Books are pretty much at their technological height. The addition of pictures was huge for print media. For video, the format is still advancing. It's not even being utilized to its fullest at the moment (especially because people seem to not really put much effort into it, or at least a lot less than they should--the media is such that clarity should not be an issue, but like you've mentioned, in many cases it is, which is sad, but that's just how some people are, I suppose).
Also not sure why I'm even replying; this matters not to me, nor will this affect anything (people will still watch/read what they want, and people will still rush out to either media format just to get their name out there, putting a LOT less into their work than they should be).
The reason you are replying is because you care about magic and discussing the means of best learning it are important.
Sorry I have been away - am trying to cut back ont he typing I do on the blackberry.
But here is my issue - and it is almost a semantic one.
you are claiming that DVDs can be clearer, better, etc than books.
First, let me be clear, I am not here to argue preferences. What works for you works for you (just, for god's sake, don't tell me you prefer using dvds because you are a "visual learner." That's like saying you need handicapped parking because you walk well.)
However, there is no evidence to suggest that DVDs are better/clearer/more efficient/whatever because they are simply dvds.
Now, we can see HOW the differences they offer MIGHT result in a different learning experience, but just because something is presented on DVD does NOT make it a more successful learning experience for the student.
What you are saying is akin to "We are a school that is known for producing nobel prize winning scientists. We have just added a new program that has lots of new, fun, exciting elements and people really enjoy being in the program. This new program will produce more and better nobel prize winning scientists."
Well, maybe. It might.
But just because a program is new or different doesn't guarantee it will be successful, EVEN if it looks like it should.
Case in point - magicians have used film for instructional media for decades, but effectively we can point to the mid 80's as the beginning of mass market magic instruction through video.
We've had over 25 years of people using video to learn magic. Has the performance quality of magicians increased over that time?
Here's what I see - and we can debate this here or at some other point - but I see more and more mastery of technique and less and less understanding of performance and the structure that goes into creating deceptive, commercial pieces of magic. I have also seen a pandemic of derivative and outright identical ideas and styles as people seem to know less and less about what has come before. This I don't think has to do with the media of video per se, but the derivative performance styles IS a function of video learning.
Here is why I am replying to this thread: Magic is important to me. And I want future and current generations of magicians to make choices and have tools that empower them to reach their greatest potential. This requires evaluating and reevaluating the manner in which we learn.
I think video instruction can be a great adjunct to learning. I have no doubt that people find it easier. But if we pronounce it as being better/clearer/more efficient then we insure that is what we will be handed by the content providers of the world.
If it is truly a better means of education, we should use it. But there is no evidence that the DVD media - as a media - is the best way to learn magic. Or the most clear. For somethings, in the right hands, it might be - but it is not the panacea you make it to be.
Again, we can argue why: part of it is the fault of the "teacher", part of it may be that we are trying to use the dvd to teach concepts for which it is not clearly efficient - but ultimately to proclaim that dvds can be more clear than a book is simply factually untrue.
and to claim it as truth is to do a disservice to others who want to learn.