February 08 :: Books Vs. Video

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
Let's take a moment to dispel a few myths:

MYTH 1:

DVDs are a more efficient (or faster) method of learning than books.

TRUTH:

It takes longer to watch a DVD than it does to read the same amount of information. Case in point: recently I was coordinating a project that required the purchase of a marketed magic item. The instructions for this prop were on a DVD. This DVD, was in French and subtitled. So, I ended up "reading" the instructions anyway. Had I transcribed the printed text I would have had no more than a page or a page and a half of material. However, it took about 30 minutes to watch the instructions - about 25 minutes more than I would have required with a printed text.

You do not need to "see" something being done to understand what needs to be done. Further, with books, you can quickly scan a paragraph and know whether or not it needs to be read thoroughly. If it is a description of a move you already know, you can skip it or skim it. With DVDs, you never know what you will be missing unless you watch every moment.

MYTH 2: You actually get more information from watching an explanation than you can be reading about it.

TRUTH: While you might be able to get a better understanding of the timing of a move, DVDs fail to provide all the necessary information needed for a complete understanding of a piece to the level needed for professional performance.

Case in Point: Richard Osterlind released a series of commercially succesful DVDs which some consider excellent. However, he also felt compelled to release a series of companion books explaining theory, structure, and elements of performance he felt were needed for a full understanding of his material. Why was this material not included on the DVD? Clearly it was important, if not critical. The answer is simple. While DVDs are excellent at conveying visual information visually, there is so much more to our performance art than visual information. This type of information is not suited to be conveyed via DVDs. And while some have tried with interview sections in the like, they inevitably take far too long to wade through (see myth 1) and are not an efficient reference source to come back to.

With a DVD you will never receive the depth of understanding and type of information which can be conveyed via a well written book.

MYTH 3: I'm a visual learner and DVDs are better for me.

FACT: Having a Master's Degree in Education I studied learning modalities. People who are visual learners process information well through READING. READING is a visual modality.

People who say DVDs are better for them because they are visual learners are either ignorant of the proper meaning of the term or are lying to themselves. They are using it as an excuse. What they mean to say is, "I don't like reading" or "I'm not very good at reading" and I prefer DVDs. Let's stop deceiving ourselves on this one, shall we?

So, here are three MYTHS exposed. There are many more, but hopefully this will provide food for thought.

Brad Henderson
 
Personally I would choose books. Why?

Material: Most books have way more material than Dvd's. Also it's takes less time to learn effects if you put our time into it.

Presentation: Whenever I watch a Dvd there is most likey a performance on there with presentation. Alot of the time books don't give you this, or it's just cheesy presentation, This forces me to be creative and make up some completely original patter.

Exposure: Most of my performances are at school. A very challenging place to perform surrounded by Hecklers. Also a lot of the students go and look up tricks on the internet to find out how they're done. It's very hard to find effects in books revealed on the internet unless they were also explained on video. This prevents people from going up to me and obnoxiously saying" I know how you did that!"

Creation: Books can sometimesbe confusing. This can be turned into a good thing. Sometimes I misread an effect in a book and create a new effect entirely.

Also, Dvds have more mainstream material. If you picked out an effect from a book, most likely, you won't see anybody else performing it.





I rarely buy Dvds, but the good things about Dvds are:

Teaching: IMO it is easier to get information from a Dvd. It may take longer, but most good Dvd's teach the tricks in complete detail. It gives you timing, angles, and it's could be a lot more entertaining than a book depending on the magician. Also Chupacabras eat books and not Dvd's, so that's a Pro for Dvd's.


Thats my input. Love the topic.
 
Jan 6, 2008
355
0
54
Seattle
www.darklock.com
FACT: Having a Master's Degree in Education I studied learning modalities.

Then you ought to know they're wrong. The divisions are simply inapplicable. Allow me to digress slightly onto other results in modern research (and by "modern", I mean "since the 1960s").

An infant learns more readily from watching a physically present human being than from a video of that same human being (and, incidentally, we don't know why... that's how smart the "experts" are). A sound video, in turn, is more effective than a silent video. A silent video is superior to a series of still photographs. Photographs are superior to line drawings. Realistic line drawings are superior to diagrams.

It doesn't matter how well the child learns from diagrams; yes, many children learn better from diagrams than other children learn from video. But the same child will learn better from video than he will learn from diagrams. Every. Single. Time.

Experimentally proven, time and time again, the bread-and-butter of child developmental psychology. Mom teaches better than television. End. Of. Story. The key factor is not how the information enters your brain, but the level of abstraction your brain must track and decipher to extract the meaning.

No sensible human being can honestly expect to argue that words are a less abstract representation than diagrams.

The classical description of learning modalities is wrong, and has always been wrong, and it is only through sheer pigheadedness that the educational science community hasn't replaced it with a better model. If you have taught anyone anything with any degree of success, you know the key question is not whether they get the information through their ears or their eyes, but whether the information they get is readily understandable in the context of the information they already have.

Which is just patently obvious to anyone who's actually paying attention.

Learning modalities are really just bad descriptions of how much abstraction a particular human brain can correlate to reality, combined with a notion of how distant two abstract thoughts can be in cognitive terms while still being productively connected by the student, then expressed in terms of their source of sensory input. It's a linear scale measuring two variables that aren't even related, then arbitrarily labeling them as belonging to a physical capacity that has nothing to do with either of them.

That's... well, insane, not to put too fine a point on it. If you remember your calculus, you know that you simply can't do this. It's every bit as backwards as the idea of the four humours coursing through the body, and pressing books on people who learn better from DVDs is the intellectual equivalent of bloodletting.

What they mean to say is, "I don't like reading" or "I'm not very good at reading"

I say a DVD is superior to a book as the teaching mechanism for performance art, whether it be magic or guitar or martial arts or whatever, because it is simply unnecessary to encapsulate such an art in any sort of abstraction - verbal or otherwise.

Now tell me how much I don't like reading and am not very good at it.
 
Books are definitely major magic enhancement.....tools. They contain SOOOOOO much material that'll take hours to put on a DVD.

The only thing with me is that I learn visually more than by reading, even with pictures. For example, a book might say , "Now clip card on the outer right edge with your pinky and ring finger. Now rotate it counter clock-wise. Flip it in a way so that the back isn't exposed by alternating your fingers like so..." I just can't do it.

However, I would love to read books. I'm just not that great of a reading learner.
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
CD,

Whether or not modalities are an accurate theory is irrelevant to my point.

As learning modalities are defined, a visual learner (which is a term from that theory) is someone who learns well from information which includes READING - by definition.

When someone chooses to say, "I am a visual learner" and that they are handicapped by trying to learn from books they are invoking the "visual modality creed."

But, and this is my point, they are wrong.

In schools of education - where these concepts come from, whether you agree with them or not - teachers are taught that they need to appeal to a wide variety of modalities in order for their students to maximize their learning potential. They are taught about "visual learners" and that term and a general (but inaccurate) understanding of that concept has leaked into the public awareness.

When someone chooses to adopt the "visual learner" moniker and use it as an excuse for not understanding printed text, they are making an error - more importantly, they are making an excuse.

There are aspects to material conveyed via visual media such as DVDs that may make them more attractive to some people (I do not think anyone would argue with that), however it is NOT because these people are - as defined by learning modality theory - visual learners.

If you are going to invoke a theory as your excuse, the least these people can do is use that theory properly.

The problem isn't with the theory (which I too feel has it's flaws). The problem is with people who do not understand what it is meant to say, using it as an excuse.

Make sense?

Brad Henderson
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
I say a DVD is superior to a book as the teaching mechanism for performance art, whether it be magic or guitar or martial arts or whatever, because it is simply unnecessary to encapsulate such an art in any sort of abstraction - verbal or otherwise.

Now tell me how much I don't like reading and am not very good at it.



If your understanding of "magic" is merely, "I place this finger here, I place this finger there, and they can't see the coin" then maybe a DVD is all you will ever need.

But as far as magic as an art, a tool which provides a feelingful response from those who participate/witness it, the abstract thought will be required. The artist must have an intent and then - using symbolic structures (paint, color, sound, even card tricks) - creates a presentation of those structures which produces in the audience that response. The very tenets of aesthetic theory are by their nature abstract.

You do not come to an understanding of them without abstract thought. I suppose you could have someone read their ideas to you on DVD, but not only is that an inefficient use of time it does not change the notion that we are still dealing with abstractions. Sure, they are words entering our head via sound versus light waves - but they are still abstract.

Of course, without practical application then you have little to nothing either. But that's YOUR practical application. Watching someone else does not "get us to the same store."

All great artists understand theory. Even "untrained artists" can tell you that something will work and something else won't and why. They may not use the same language, but they see more than the merely physical.

All theory is abstract. And you can't understand your art without theory. Without understanding, there is only mimicry.

B
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
If your understanding of "magic" is merely, "I place this finger here, I place this finger there, and they can't see the coin" then maybe a DVD is all you will ever need.

So there's nothing to be learned or gained from watching a performance outside of the purely mechanical?

All theory is abstract. And you can't understand your art without theory. Without understanding, there is only mimicry.

And am I to believe that books are the only way understanding can be achieved?

I recall when I first started taking this seriously. I watched performances very intensely and studied what was going on. I figured out the things that worked and why they worked.

That suggests two things. It could be that it is possible with the right frame of mind to gain from observation what could be gained from written instruction. Or it could be that I'm just a genius. Personally, I'm cool with either answer.
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
Of course, you can watch a performance and glean information from it. However, that is different from a teacher communicating theory in a usable form to the student. DVDs are an excellent tool for communicating visual information visually. However, there is more to our art than understanding purely visual information. Likewise, when we look at the body of work already in existence, you find (as a rule) authors relying on the printed word when it matters to them to communicate theoretical or aesthetic concepts to their students. Even Osterlind chose to supplement his DVDs with books because he knew that critical information was left out of the project. Not his fault. It was information that simply did not transfer readily for a mere watching of the DVD and clearly many people were missing the point. While you may be a genius and be able to draw the perfect conclusions from watching a performance, not everyone can. How wonderful is it that we have the opportunity for creators to share the insights so we can understand them EXACTLY as they intended, free from our guessing! How do they end up doing this - well, non-visually, through words. And the most efficient means to transmit words is through text.

But let's look at the real issue: A DVD is a tool. And sadly some are so emotionally attached to this tool they fail to be able to evaluate it critically. It can do some jobs VERY well. But like any tool, there are some jobs it can sort of do if you force it, and there are some jobs it cannot do at all.

Further, the quality of the teacher wielding the tool and the experience of the student witnessing the product produced by the tool also must be taken into account.

Simply because something is delivered via DVD does not make it good. Some brilliant teachers can exploit the medium brilliantly, and others fail.

Likewise, some material can be taught effectively through DVDs and other types of material can't.

The printed word, by its nature, can do a better job of communicating certain types of critical information in a more efficient and accessible manner than a DVD. Sure, you can have theory on a DVD. But I can also use a screw driver to remove a nail from a wall. Its messy. It takes longer than it should. And I end up with an ugly wall, but I suppose you can say it got the job done.

But when all is said and done, do you really want to build your house using only ill fitting tools, or would you be better serve investing in the best tools to get the job done to the best of your ability - even if that means taking some time to train with tools that may not be the easiest to use, at first?

Brad Henderson
 
Jan 6, 2008
355
0
54
Seattle
www.darklock.com
The problem isn't with the theory (which I too feel has it's flaws). The problem is with people who do not understand what it is meant to say, using it as an excuse.

If I claim that I like orange juice because I have more orange genes than blue ones, the explanation may be completely insane, but it doesn't mean I don't actually like orange juice.

The student has a problem - a real problem, and one which only he can see - which he is simply not equipped to understand. He does the best he can, but the available information is confusing... and what appears understandable to him, he doesn't properly understand.

So because of this ignorance, a perfectly natural and normal and understandable ignorance, the people who are equipped to understand the problem are claiming the problem does not exist. After all, his explanation is clearly wrong.

That's just plain sadistic.

Remember, my position is that these are people who have trouble understanding abstract concepts. If you observe that they improperly explain the abstract concept of how they learn, doesn't that actually support my position?
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
No.

First, you cannot equate the ability to understand abstract concepts with the idea that people process information better through certain channels over others based on the degree of abstraction inherent in those channels. Some ideas will always be abstract by their nature. Whether the contemplation occurs in person, on video, or in a book there WILL be abstraction and we might as well accept the fact that in order to be a well rounded succesful person, we need to develop the skills to be able to deal with abstract thought/ideas.

But you argument misses the point.

The idea of learning modalities have allowed many people to claim an unearned victim status - "It's not my fault I did bad in class, my modalities are not being addressed."

In magic we see it all the time - "I can't learn from books, I'm a visual learner." The reason they glom onto this idea is because they believe that it gives them an excuse. It's not their fault they have a hard time with books - it's something genetic - inborn.

The title "visual learner" is almost like putting a handicapped sticker on one's liscense plate. But the thing is, they have filled out an application for something they are unqualified to receive. If Learning modalities exist, which apparently these people beleive as they have adopted the language of the field, then their self defined modality is NOT the reason they have problems reading.

Now, could there be other reasons they have difficulty with the printed word? Of course. You and I are in complete agreement.

They could have a real learning disability - dyslexia for example. They could have issues with memory. They could simply be unpracticed and unskilled at comprehension.

But all of these are accurate reasons and do not carry the same "victim mentality" the "I'm a visual learner" does.

There is nothing wrong with having a difficult time reading. When I was in high school, reading was a chore. I could not understand my text books if my life depended on it. There is nothing wrong with not liking to read. It wasn't until my college years that I began enjoying the process. But this IS something wrong with making excuses, and the "I'm a visual learner so Ic an;t learn from reading" mantra is - by its very nature and definition - nothing more than an excuse.

And here's why it's a problem.

When you "give up" which most self proclaimed visual learners seem to be using their title as an excuse to do, you will NEVER improve. I couldn't read a text book in High School. but I can work through the most challenging of materials now. It used to take me hours to read a few pages, but I can devour a book now.

If I made excuses and gave up, I would have never improved - and an entire world of knowledge would have remained closed to me.

"I'm a visual learner" is an excuse. People who make excuses will not improve. And if you do not improve, you are selling YOURSELF short.

If you have a real problem with reading, that's understandable. But real problems have real solutions. Made up problems are the lazy way out.

Brad Henderson
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
How do they end up doing this - well, non-visually, through words. And the most efficient means to transmit words is through text.

But what good is theory without execution? The two are inseparably linked.

It's not enough to read theory, you have to witness it through field-testing and personal experience. Part of this is watching others perform. Does the printed word convey complex theory better? Generally, yes. Obviously, there's some merit to the spoken word or no one would ever go to see lectures, but as a general thing...

But it really doesn't matter if you don't have a visual cue to follow in the earliest stages.
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
You are confusing teaching and performance. Theory cannot exist without practice. From a teaching perspective, books do a much better job of communicating theory explicitly.

Of course, without putting those ideas into practice in your own work, it remains purely academic.

We have hundreds of years of history of people who have developed an amazing understanding of magic solely from personal practice and books. ( Of course, they may have had access to fellow magicians from whom to learn, but that condition still exists in the DVD world.) The very act of reading a book and translating those ideas into practice FORCE understanding as decisions must be made. We KNOW that you can become a succesful and well rounded magician solely from books. We have hundreds of years of proof to that effect.

DVDs however do not force the same level of understanding. Further, I do not think any would argue that they are a less efficient means of communicating theory explicitly. Finally, there are many people who think that they "know a trick" because they saw it explained on a DVD. You and I both know this to be bunk, but I say this to affirm your point that these ideas must be brought to life through PRACTICE by the performer in order to be real.

This can be done through both books and DVDs however books necessitate understanding, DVDs do not. Both books and DVDs can communicate theoretical concepts, but books do so much more efficiently and effectively given the nature of the medium of communication.

I was around when the very first magic videos appeared.

I consulted on some of the most influential early video projects.

I have seen how the producer's goals were met, and were failed to be met, by the intended audience. I have seen how the "magic scene" has changed and how students have been affected.

With a diet solely of DVD content, one can get by with mimicry and imitation without understanding. With books, that is nigh impossible. Great students can learn from DVDs but in every case they eventually realize the importance of books.

How's this for a simple fact, there are thousands of essential texts that will NEVER be realized on DVD. They can't be. The best we could hope is one man (or woman's) interpretation of the material in a great classic text, but even then, unless we go to the text, we will never know if we truly are getting a representative picture of the author's intent.

The smart student learns from all sources. The smartest students learn from the sources which teach the most, most efficiently.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
We KNOW that you can become a succesful and well rounded magician solely from books. We have hundreds of years of proof to that effect.

DVDs however do not force the same level of understanding.

I'm just going to let this stand on its own and trust the rest of you to figure out what I'm implying.

With a diet solely of DVD content, one can get by with mimicry and imitation without understanding. With books, that is nigh impossible. Great students can learn from DVDs but in every case they eventually realize the importance of books.

But in the end, performance is the crucible.

How's this for a simple fact, there are thousands of essential texts that will NEVER be realized on DVD.

Quite a bold statemnt. Also difficult to prove.

The best we could hope is one man (or woman's) interpretation of the material in a great classic text, but even then, unless we go to the text, we will never know if we truly are getting a representative picture of the author's intent.

This sounds more like a rant about Lord of the Rings than magic.

What of textbook standards like Royal Road and Modern Coin Magic? Luke Jermay at one point was going to work on a DVD set for 13 Steps to Mentalism (although that fell through for a couple different reasons).

Nobody's going to try to put Strong Magic on DVD, because it just wouldn't translate well. Not even Ken Burns could make it watchable. But it's not beyond the imagination to take a textbook and turn it into a DVD.

And you talk a lot about forcing a level of comprehension and understanding. Isn't that what I did? I watched performances to figure out why they worked. Then I went and tested them to see it for myself.

As I said, performance is the ultimate crucible. It doesn't matter how many DVDs you watch, your first performances will still look like a robot. And it doesn't matter how many books you read, your first performances are still going to be bland.

You say to use what tools teach most efficiently. I guess that's why my library includes DVDs like Art of Card Manipulation, Ring Thing, and Psychokinetic Silverware right alongside books like The Secret Art of Magic, Capricornian Tales, and The Garden of the Strange.
 
Sep 1, 2007
479
0
Philadelphia, PA
Tommy Wonder - Books of Wonder vs. Visions of Wonder. Now I don't own Visions of Wonder I only own the books. I am still reading the books but I plan to buy the DVD's simply to watch Tommy perform and make me feel like a little kid watching his style and presentation of the wonderful routines contained in the DVD set.

You have a better chance of convincing a pit bull to drop a beef flank from its teeth than you would of telling me that those videos remotely compare to the content of those two volumes. This particular example is one where I fail to see how much of the content (essays and theory) could be conveyed in a DVD or video that is more enjoyable or better understood than reading it from the book itself.

I don't own a library of books but this particular example came to mind simply because I happen to own these books and have seen bits and pieces of each DVD. I am sure a more well-read magician that has been around the block could pull plenty of more examples similar to this out of their hat.

--Jim
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
Steerpike,

When you study literary criticism you will learn that there is always an issue when it comes to translations. If a text is written in one language and translated into another, that translation can NEVER capture the full meaning and quality of the original. Teller himself was quoted as saying "All translations suck." Translations reveal as much about the translator and their understanding of the topic and language as they do about the original authors intent.

Do you really believe the DVD edition of Modern Coin Magic accurately reflects the content of the text? Have you read the book? Do you know what coin work is supposed to look like?

Paul is a smart card man, but even he will tell you that these are his interpretations of the material in Royal Road. He is not seeking to replace the book, only offer his contributions to the original work.

Luke is a dear friend, but when he approaches 13 Steps he does so with his experiences and understanding. Those experiences and understanding will color his interpretation of the Corinda material. If you never go to the book yourself, you will never know if you are really getting what Corinda intended - or what you would have thought Corinda intended. You are now playing the "telephone game" and we all know how that turns out.

No "Lord of the Rings" stuff here, just ideas that have been understood by semioticians, academics, and literary critics for decades.

Now, as to my statement that thousands of books will never find their way to DVD, that's something you can bank on. Sure, the TEXTS may be reproduced on DVD, but that's not what we're discussing. Houdin will not come back from the grave and share with us his thoughts on The Secrets of Conjuring and Magic. The countless contributors to Expert Card Technique will never come back and share with us what they knew. I don't know if anyone - maybe 2 guys - really understand what Zingone was going for in is Tabled Pass. And believe me, those 2 guys are NOT going to do a DVD, EVER! Hofsinzer, DeCremps, Carlysle, Buckley, Goldston, Hilliard!. Greater Magic on DVD? Never.

Who among us is qualified to try and put out a Greater Magic DVD? No one. And if you choose to avoid that text because you can't "watch it" you are choosing to handicap your magical studies. Same with Houdin.

I am not of the school who says "DVDs are bad, burn the DVDs." I am of the school that says the student should avail themselves of the best material available. If someone willingly chooses to ignore valuable material because it is printed on paper, that person is either an idiot or arrogant beyond words.

If you choose to avoid magic books you are choosing to remain ignorant. Likewise, someone interested in gambling technique would be a fool not to own Forte's videos. But the video's without his books produce something we see in our world - people whose fingers can do the moves, but whose mouths betray utter ignorance of where, when, and how these moves work.

Open you mind. Take advantage of all the wonderful tools available to you. Stop making excuses.

Brad Henderson
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Do you really believe the DVD edition of Modern Coin Magic accurately reflects the content of the text? Have you read the book? Do you know what coin work is supposed to look like?

I don't actually own the DVD set. I'm just playing the devil's advocate since nobody else will.

Luke is a dear friend, but when he approaches 13 Steps he does so with his experiences and understanding. Those experiences and understanding will color his interpretation of the Corinda material. If you never go to the book yourself, you will never know if you are really getting what Corinda intended - or what you would have thought Corinda intended. You are now playing the "telephone game" and we all know how that turns out.

But if what we're concerned with is pureness of message, why are the voices of yestertear's experts more valid than those of today's? And through performance, don't we eventually come to our own interpretation of an effect or routine anyway?

Who among us is qualified to try and put out a Greater Magic DVD? No one. And if you choose to avoid that text because you can't "watch it" you are choosing to handicap your magical studies. Same with Houdin.

I never said I would avoid the book. I simply question why I shouldn't be allowed to have both.

If someone willingly chooses to ignore valuable material because it is printed on paper, that person is either an idiot or arrogant beyond words.

If you choose to avoid magic books you are choosing to remain ignorant.

And I'm presenting the mirror argument that to deny the value of a well-made DVD is also foolish.

Open you mind. Take advantage of all the wonderful tools available to you. Stop making excuses.

I'm not making any excuses. Didn't you read the part where I said I own just as many books as DVDs? I'm questioning why everybody seems to believe that one medium must be inherently superior to the other.
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
But if what we're concerned with is pureness of message, why are the voices of yestertear's experts more valid than those of today's?



The voice of the creator is always to be given primacy. Al Baker understood his material better than anyone else. To read Roy Benson in his own words is to reveal elements of magical performance that cannot be found in print anywhere else. When we allow others to translate for us, we are choosing to remove ourselves from the source material. We are loosing the chance to understand the lesson of the master from the master. How many magicians alive today truly are in the rarefied echelon of Baker, Benson, Cardini, Vernon, Miller, Malini, Leipzig, Koran, or Fogel? To restrict ourselves to the study of people who are alive today is to intentionally cut ourselves off from dozens of masters whose lessons are waiting for those willing to seek them out.

And through performance, don't we eventually come to our own interpretation of an effect or routine anyway?


Sometimes. Not always. I worked with Ammar on the ETM series. He was convinced that these tapes would become tools for students to reach out to teachers and texts which may have alluded them; he hoped his real secrets would help students understand the tricks and help make them their own. Is that what happened? No. It's not.

What we saw (and this isn't just something which happened with Michael's work) were people mimicking everything on the tape, from the rhythm of speech, to the exact handling.

Bob White was approached by a young man who asked for his help. He did a trick and White was puzzled. Everything the boy did was backwards - literally, backwards.

Why?

Because he was copying the moves on the TV EXACTLY.

This is the danger with DVDs. You CAN copy them exactly and then parrot them in performance.

While people like you, Steer, may be more conscientious than that, you are the exception, not the rule. And that's the danger of DVDs. Unless you add more to the process, you will relegate yourself to parroting and mimicry.

Can the same be said of books? Not so much. Sure, someone like you who uses his books as a tool will get more out the them, but by their very nature the student is forced to add a bit of themselves to the process.


I never said I would avoid the book. I simply question why I shouldn't be allowed to have both.


Well, in some cases, you will NEVER have both. You will never get anyone to replicate the entire Houdin ouvere on DVD, you will never find someone who can bring Greater Magic to life.

But, let's say someone decides to release their work in both formats - as Carney has done, for example.

Of course you can have both. But you are trying to make this argument about YOU and the way YOU think when I am trying to address the bigger issue: the person who believes that DVDs are superior to books and that they can get a full education and training from a diet of them alone. These people exist, they have commented on this thread. There is no problem with using the best tool for the job, we just need to remember that our job is more than technical. We NEED books.

Historically we KNOW that you can receive a full magical education from books alone (coupled of course with personal thought and practice.) Can the same be said of DVDs? Right now, based on what I and others have seen, it does not seem to be the case.

And I'm presenting the mirror argument that to deny the value of a well-made DVD is also foolish.


No one would or should argue with that. However, the bigger issue is the same: Even the most well constructed of DVDs tend to fail when it comes to communicating everything one truly needs to know about a performance piece. Can the student figure this stuff out on his own, as you have done? Clearly. But a great teacher should strive to empower their students fully and completely. You can do this through a book; I have yet to see it done with a DVD. Is it possible? Maybe. But I have yet to see it.


I'm not making any excuses. Didn't you read the part where I said I own just as many books as DVDs? I'm questioning why everybody seems to believe that one medium must be inherently superior to the other.

You may not be making excuses, but others do. Again, this discussion is about something bigger than you and your approach to magic. But to the larger issue, I think it is fair to say that one medium IS inherently superior to another when it comes to conveying certain types of information. It's the nature of the beast. When we rely on the right tool for the right job we will be successful. When we choose to fill our tool belt with only screwdrivers and nothing else (as some seem to want to do) we are destined to fail.

I bought some of the very first magic videos that came to press. For someone who did not have access to professional caliber magicians, they taught me a lot. I am not some "old timer" that dismisses technology because it is shiny and scary. I was right there from the beginning.

But having been there from the beginning, I have been able to see how they have influenced and affected those who have adopted them as a learning tool. Like dynamite, in the right hands for the right purposes that are invaluable. But, you can't do fine work when all you have is a quarter ton of pyrotechnics.

Ok. enough with the analogies.

Here's the bottom line. If you love magic, if you want to be the best you can be, you need to avail yourself of the best information available. A lot of that information is in books - important books - books that you as a magician NEED to study. (when I say 'you' I mean everybody). If you choose to avoid these texts, you are choosing to leave gaping holes in your foundation. Is that what you really want to do?

Brad Henderson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
The voice of the creator is always to be given primacy. Al Baker understood his material better than anyone else.

Granted.

When we allow others to translate for us, we are choosing to remove ourselves from the source material. We are loosing the chance to understand the lesson of the master from the master.

How does this apply to the teaching of that which is so old we can no longer trace the creators?

How many magicians alive today truly are in the rarefied echelon of Baker, Benson, Cardini, Vernon, Miller, Malini, Leipzig, Koran, or Fogel?

I can name a few whom I would be willing to wager will survive the test of time. I own material from a few of them as well.

To restrict ourselves to the study of people who are alive today is to intentionally cut ourselves off from dozens of masters whose lessons are waiting for those willing to seek them out.

Of course.

This is the danger with DVDs. You CAN copy them exactly and then parrot them in performance.

When I said that performance was the crucible, it wasn't a one-dimensional statement. For a serious performer, it allows that which does not fit him to be slowly burned away, leaving only the pure, true personality within.

On the other hand, performance is also the crucible in that it allows the audience to distinguish performers who have the greatest ambition, drive, creativity, and charisma. If you don't have these, you either quit or you work to develop them.

Can the same be said of books? Not so much. Sure, someone like you who uses his books as a tool will get more out the them, but by their very nature the student is forced to add a bit of themselves to the process.

That only works if they have something interesting to say.

I've met a lot of guitarists in my lifetime. Some of them were future virtuosos. But of those would-be guitar gods, I'd say only a few will actually go anywhere. Why? Because they had interesting lives outside of their instrument. Guys who lock themselves in their rooms all day practicing may have chops, but they have nothing interesting to say.

I've seen a guy who used the scripting right out of the book and looked at his hands the whole time. Needless to say, I wasn't impressed.

But you are trying to make this argument about YOU and the way YOU think

When you get right down to it, who am I more qualified to speak for?

Historically we KNOW that you can receive a full magical education from books alone (coupled of course with personal thought and practice.) Can the same be said of DVDs? Right now, based on what I and others have seen, it does not seem to be the case.

Again, you say historically. With DVDs/VHS we have, what... about a generation or two maybe? It's a medium still in its infancy.

Personally, I'd like to sit back and wait a few more years to see what develops.

I have yet to see it done with a DVD. Is it possible? Maybe. But I have yet to see it.

In typical me fashion, I've taken that as a personal challenge. I'm certainly in no position to make the incredibly ballsy move of trying to release a teaching DVD right now... but as a long-term goal perhaps.

But to the larger issue, I think it is fair to say that one medium IS inherently superior to another when it comes to conveying certain types of information. It's the nature of the beast.

I addressed that earlier. Art of Card Manipulation would suck as a book series because of the complexity of many of the moves and the choreography, and The Garden of the Strange would probably eat as a DVD because Caleb's theatricality is so heavily based on subtlety and scripting that a book is simply a more efficient way to keep it simple and concise without losing the most important details.

I bought some of the very first magic videos that came to press. For someone who did not have access to professional caliber magicians, they taught me a lot. I am not some "old timer" that dismisses technology because it is shiny and scary. I was right there from the beginning.

Good to hear. I can't stand the attitude that books are the end-all because they came first. And it's not just limited to the magicians either. I'm a man of many faces artistically and I've had to deal with folk music snobs who think music went downhill with the invention of the electric guitar, film theorists who can't stop carressing their Orson Welles plushie long enough to actually watch a movie made after 1970, and genre literature elitists who won't give even Neil Gaiman the time of day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results