Could you provide some sources for that? I'm not questioning the information, but I've never heard of this and would love to do some reading on the topic.Magi were advisors to kings, and often their "tricks" were acts of divine inspiration or messages from the gods. If a king found out you made a fool out of him by doing basic tricks you could expect a swift, all-be-it brutal execution.
I agree. 95-ish% of the magic 'tutorials' out there are pretty bad. They teach wrong techniques, or bad habits, or they're just in bad taste, as in they don't make the viewer actually interested in the art of magic, regardless of how good the 'trick' itself was explained. I also agree that learning from books has several advantages (intricacy being one of them).Most people putting stuff on youtube are either inexperienced themselves, having just learned a trick, or are in violation of ethical behavior, which is never good to begin with.
Thank ya Thank ya. I'll admit shortly after posting I realized it should've been: "Stupid Questions don't exist", but oopsie.I just wanted to say that this thread was not at all what I was expecting from the title alone, and that it is an awesome thread
Which I find somewhat hilarious, and an amazing coincidence if it is one.But what's your opinion about the few channels which are taught by magicians who genuinely do love the art form, who teach their own/public domain material, whose instructions (and video) have high quality and so on?
Because thanks to You Tube's algorithm, these are the videos on top of the search results when looking for magic online in general
What about learning things from legitimate magicians who give credit/teach their own stuff on YouTube?
I (like to) think that we don't guard them from the layman, but for the layman.The issue isn't the quality of the teaching / crediting. It is about there being no barriers to viewing. Although I agree with Steinmeyer's observation that we are guarding an empty vault, I think that the more people know about some methods for magic effects, the more they look for the methods in every magic effect. It conditions people to view magic as challenge to figure out the method. That is the same reason I don't like Fool Us -- fooling people isn't the point of magic, entertaining them is.
While the name of Penn and Teller's show talks about fooling, the strange thing is that I've sent those videos' links to my non-magician friends and even watched the performances with them, and they almost never seem to focus on the fooling part of it. What more, they look at magic more with a better context (they realise there are different types of magic, sub-types, and so on). In my opinion, the way Penn and Teller speak at the end of the show, praising the magician for their work first THEN only hinting at the possible method, ironically makes them care less about the method and more about "what do those two expert magicians have to say in general about this performance which fooled my pants off me?".That is the same reason I don't like Fool Us -- fooling people isn't the point of magic, entertaining them is.
It is a coincidence, but I think anybody keeping a close eye on the posts here was bound to ask that sooner or later, because as I said before, the quality is improving (nowhere near the optimus maximus, but getting there).Which I find somewhat hilarious, and an amazing coincidence if it is one.
They are simply collectibles, often really precious and give you bragging rights because they are rare. They are like a piece of art in their own, can make your wall look amazing and are also a great point of conversation. While I'm sure a creative individual can come up with a 'practical' use for uncut sheets, but mostly, their point is to be appreciated just for how aesthetic they are, like a painting, or those 'Anything is Possible' (or 'Impossible') bottles with decks or ships inside them.What's the point of uncut sheets?
Dai Vernon (short for David Vernon, June 11, 1894 – August 21, 1992)
You mean you literally plagiarized that from some site. Props I guess, for only taking less than five months to admit it?
So the definition of plagiarism is: "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize).
I can't find any website that has the same ideas or wording that @WitchDocIsIn used. In fact, a Google search using his wording only turns up his post. For facts like his first name was David and the years of his birth and death, no citation is necessary because those are generally available facts - not words or ideas. I don't see any plagiarism here and I think you are wrong to make that accusation.
However, your post seems to be a paraphrase of information (without attribution) contained on several websites all of which presumably are taking it (without attribution) from the introduction to The Dai Vernon Book of Magic. Of course, I'm assuming of course you don't have the original newspaper article (which if you did, you should have cited) and weren't there to see people misname "Vernon" for "Verner" or didn't hear the story firsthand from Dai Vernon himself. So where are your cites to your sources? "
But wait," you say, "those are all facts - I shouldn't have to cite them." Exactly. So is what @WitchDocIsIn posted.
These forums aren't Twitter where you get points for "owning" someone. Be respectful.
P.S. I deleted the video you posted because it was unnecessary and added nothing to this conversation.
There is a saying that, as magicians, we stand on the shoulders of giants. Isn't it nice to know who's shoulders we are standing on?Why is crediting important?