theory11 — Magic Tricks & the World's Finest Playing Cards
Originality in Magic
- Thread starter Josh Burch
- Start date
I thought the video was a little vague. They say that your effect, in order to be original, should add significant value if you're basing it off of an effect that already exists. That makes sense, but who decides if what you're adding is a significant change? On the forums we use French Kiss a lot as an example. The method is known already. What Wayne added was the signature and changed the presentation. Who decides if what he changed is significant? I know you have defended it before, and that is fine. That is your opinion; however, in my opinion that wasn't a significant change. It adds value, but very little. I wouldn't call it significant.
That would be like me taking card to mouth, adding a signature, and instead of putting it in my mouth I put it in my butt crack. Adds value? Perhaps. It is way funnier perhaps, but I don't think it is a significant change. Similar to the plunger example by Matthew in the video. Smart change, not significant enough to release it as his own effect.
Then Matthew talks about "different words":
Hhandling: add a little bit
Variation: add a little more
Version: add a little more (starts to be really different)
Based on: my trick based on such and such
Inspired by: my trick inspired by such and such
Based on an idea of: based on idea of such and such
These are all pretty vague, but I think more importantly he didn't say at which stage we should be able to release our "original" effects.
I agree with Garrett that when you release anything to the magic community, you need to invest the hours necessary perfecting the trick; as well as, add a piece of knowledge to the tutorial that goes beyond just the method.
That would be like me taking card to mouth, adding a signature, and instead of putting it in my mouth I put it in my butt crack. Adds value? Perhaps. It is way funnier perhaps, but I don't think it is a significant change. Similar to the plunger example by Matthew in the video. Smart change, not significant enough to release it as his own effect.
Then Matthew talks about "different words":
Hhandling: add a little bit
Variation: add a little more
Version: add a little more (starts to be really different)
Based on: my trick based on such and such
Inspired by: my trick inspired by such and such
Based on an idea of: based on idea of such and such
These are all pretty vague, but I think more importantly he didn't say at which stage we should be able to release our "original" effects.
I agree with Garrett that when you release anything to the magic community, you need to invest the hours necessary perfecting the trick; as well as, add a piece of knowledge to the tutorial that goes beyond just the method.
Thought-provoking discussion. It seems that many, many effects and routines in magic (going back many many decades) are built on already established moves, sleights, and subtleties invented by someone else. For me, effects, sleights and methods, while important, are secondary in terms of the value of a trick or routine.I believe that the presentation is the most important aspect of a trick or routine in terms of bringing entertainment value to the spectator in our PERFORMANCE art (and after all, if the sleights are done well, the spectator never sees them, or knows about them). So, not to diminish the skill or creativity that goes into the effects, methods and moves, but for me, personally, the most important component of "originality" is not the effect, method or moves (which are more important to MAGICIANS), but in the presentation. Fitzke and Nelms are not about the "construction of effect," as Garret stated, but about construction of PRESENTATION.
I'd say that Wayne's changes might be a "Version" but as you said these are very loose definitions and it doesn't say when is a good time to release the trick.
I've thought more about the Wayne Houchin effect and I might change my mind about this later. In my view Scarne's Switchcraft was in the public domain when he first released his trick. What is the definition of a trick in the public domain? I'm not sure but the fact that Scarne was dead, and that his version was published at least 30 years before, and that other magicians (notably Frank Garcia and Anneman) simultaneously created similar tricks in method and presentation. None of these aspects by itself makes it fair game, but the combination of all three factors seems to make it okay that he published his version.
Maybe we can't agree that Switchcraft was or is in the public domain but I think we can agree that some moves are basically in the public domain. An example might be the classic pass. No one would object if I taught someone the classic pass with the claim that I was appropriating someone else's material. The classic pass has been a staple in card magic at least back to the times of Maskelyne.
Now, if I taught a specific version of the classic pass, maybe Alex Pandrea's Brick Pass, we get into a shady area. If I taught another pass or control, like Lee Asher's Losing Control, there's a clear problem.
Teaching Switchcraft, if it is in the public domain, is okay. Teaching Wayne Houchin's version of Switchcraft is probably shady. If he released the effect closer to the release of Switchcraft, and you could prove that it was Scarne's trick, I think Wayne Houchin would have taken steps to get Scares permission. He did do this in the case of a Jay Sankey and a Paul Harris effect included on the original project, that included French Kiss, Houchin released circa 2005.
I think he was okay to release it, but we're talking about originality. By the videos definition, though vague, I'd say French Kiss isn't very original. If I invented Switchcraft circa 2004, would Wayne's be original? I have many effects where I've changed the presentation. Are they original? Not to me.
Again think Card to Mouth but I changed it to Card to Butt Crack and added a signature.
Again think Card to Mouth but I changed it to Card to Butt Crack and added a signature.
Dictionary said:
Originality is difficult to figure out, for sure.
Magic has been around for centuries, and some of the most intelligent people in history were magicians. There's not a lot left to create, I fear. It seems like pretty much everything produced now is just a variation of something that's been in print for a hundred years. I remember reading Erdnase and thinking, "Oh, this looks like the basis of XYZ" just about every page.
I think legally speaking something has to be 10% different to be considered unique. I don't know how to determine 10% so my personal guideline is, "Would a knowledgeable person consider this to be different or original?"
I created a version of the bounce/no bounce ball that I use in almost every busking or strolling performance. The handling I use (as in the physical way I handle the props) is standard - I do it the way it's taught in the instructions. But my premise and script is completely different, and it achieves a different goal. Is that enough to be considered original? I think so. I think someone who was familiar with the prop would only realize I was using them at the final reveal.
When to release? I don't know. I'm inclined to hold on to things, personally. The two releases I have done, one was something I felt the magic world needed and the other was basically an offhand offer that ballooned into a much larger product when I got to working on it. I think it's best to run it in front of some knowledgeable people, and ask their honest opinions on whether it's worth releasing. A lot of what's out today should probably have stayed unreleased, in my opinion.
Magic has been around for centuries, and some of the most intelligent people in history were magicians. There's not a lot left to create, I fear. It seems like pretty much everything produced now is just a variation of something that's been in print for a hundred years. I remember reading Erdnase and thinking, "Oh, this looks like the basis of XYZ" just about every page.
I think legally speaking something has to be 10% different to be considered unique. I don't know how to determine 10% so my personal guideline is, "Would a knowledgeable person consider this to be different or original?"
I created a version of the bounce/no bounce ball that I use in almost every busking or strolling performance. The handling I use (as in the physical way I handle the props) is standard - I do it the way it's taught in the instructions. But my premise and script is completely different, and it achieves a different goal. Is that enough to be considered original? I think so. I think someone who was familiar with the prop would only realize I was using them at the final reveal.
When to release? I don't know. I'm inclined to hold on to things, personally. The two releases I have done, one was something I felt the magic world needed and the other was basically an offhand offer that ballooned into a much larger product when I got to working on it. I think it's best to run it in front of some knowledgeable people, and ask their honest opinions on whether it's worth releasing. A lot of what's out today should probably have stayed unreleased, in my opinion.
Chris JGJ wrote: "I have many effects where I've changed the presentation. Are they original? Not to me."
And really, the term, "original" is subjective and thus susceptible to interpretation. It's hard to draw lines on something like this. What the "creator" thinks is original might not be considered original to others. I think it is fair to say that where the presentation has been changed, then at least the presentation is itself is original, even if the effect and method are not. Well, at least if the presentation is unique, or very different than the original presentation. I happen to agree with Christopher T that when one comes up with his/her own premise or script, or the presentation achieves a different goal, then that is enough to be considered "original." But the originality lies in the presentation in such a case, even though the bottom line effect and method are not original.
But from watching the video Josh posted, I think what they were getting at in their discussion was that someone who is going to release, market, sell, something to the magic-buying public needs to be ethical and truthful in deciding whether they are truly giving something of value - something more than a mere imitation or knock-off of something that someone has already released. But the reality is that we live in a world where not everyone has a code of ethics, and magic is no exception...
And really, the term, "original" is subjective and thus susceptible to interpretation. It's hard to draw lines on something like this. What the "creator" thinks is original might not be considered original to others. I think it is fair to say that where the presentation has been changed, then at least the presentation is itself is original, even if the effect and method are not. Well, at least if the presentation is unique, or very different than the original presentation. I happen to agree with Christopher T that when one comes up with his/her own premise or script, or the presentation achieves a different goal, then that is enough to be considered "original." But the originality lies in the presentation in such a case, even though the bottom line effect and method are not original.
But from watching the video Josh posted, I think what they were getting at in their discussion was that someone who is going to release, market, sell, something to the magic-buying public needs to be ethical and truthful in deciding whether they are truly giving something of value - something more than a mere imitation or knock-off of something that someone has already released. But the reality is that we live in a world where not everyone has a code of ethics, and magic is no exception...