talkmagic.co.uk

bmat wrote:B) Perhaps it is just me but I have no desire to really fool anybody or make them look stupid. I'm not one of these magicians who give fake explanations to people just to get them off my back. I'm a huge follower of Doug Henning who's main goal was to give his audience that 'sense of wonder' any explanation is going to ruin that wonder regardless of the actual method.

I agree with this point in particular. When someone asks me how it's done, depending on my mood I say "magic" or talk about how knowing the method ruins the magic (that the magic is in the experience of wonder, not the method behind it)

Though if other people (eg. derren brown) want to give fake explanations, it seems to work for them...

FFS Y'all get back to practising your Bobo Switch and forget this nonsense (without which, I reeiterate, none of us would be practising).

Screw this snobbery over, I learned something from Wiki - I LEARNED FROM A BOOK I BOUGHT!

I'm not sure I can be bothered to argue, Gary, but writing up tricks in a magic book that people have to make the effort to buy is not usually considered exposure.

I agree that the wikipedia editing is a waste of time, but I sympathise with the viewpoint of those who don't like it.

I really feel sorry for the seeming plethora of those hosting the defeatist attitude I'm seeing here... did anyone get the point I was trying to make earlier... how it is up to YOU to go outside the original script and even methods?

It's simply not that hard to do if you learn how to engage that grey ooze between your ears and make yourself practice magic... I don't mean the how to do an effect based on what the instructions said initially, but how to take that premise and shake it out and reconstruct it based on alternative resources, technology and skills... then again, having a good set of nads wont hurt either.

I'm all for protecting magic and its secrets, please don't think I'm being nonchalant on that point. I get exceptionally upset over hall easy it is for the average joe to get their hands on material that most really don't need any business with. It's all part of this instant gratification culture we live in and the lie that "if I have the money to buy it, then I can do it..."

Trust me when I say that I've seen dozens of young little rich kids toss hundreds of thousands of dollars at a John Gaughan magic kit only to fall flat on their faces because they didn't know how to actually perform and be a "Magician".

... then again, that goes right back to what I pointed out earlier; how some of the worse exposure comes via half-wit "performers" who don't practice, don't rehearse properly, who refuse to accept constructive critique as well s direction, et al.

It really isn't that hard to find out the "basics" of magic. You will find books at the local library (that's one of those institutions we had long before the Internet) as well as on eBay, Amazon or Barnes & Nobel. My first "how to" books came from the traditional bookstores in the public shopping malls as well as ads set within comic books. Then too, in those long ago days, one would learn how to do tricks via Mark Wilson or any number of other Tv personalities of the time, via packages of Jiffy Pop Popcorn and any number of morning cereal boxes... most of this "exposure" being done by people bearing the names of Dunninger, Blackstone, Christopher and in latter years Henning and Copperfield.

For years there were "pitchbooks" sold to the children's performers such as 101 Tricks You Can Do, that were give-aways not to mention the catalysts that inspired many to take up magic as a hobby or more.

So when we weigh all of this I'd hope we could step back a few paces and recognize, as I've already pointed out, that exposure is here to stay and too, it's simply not that hard now days to get your hands on our secrets; just go to the U.S. Patent Office and you'll find all you need to know about the Copperfield Flying rig along with a myriad of other "exclusive" effects and it won't cost you a dime.

Are we going to give the U.S. Patent Offices the same hard time you want to give Wiki or YouTube?

What about the public library systems about the globe?

Would you go on the attack when someone like Copperfield or even Derren Brown signs a deal with some food product company, sharing a handful of simple mysteries... after all, I first learned the Center Tear from the back of a box of cereal in the late 1960s and found it as well as the Professor's Nightmare in the Boy Scout's Handbook as part of a merit badge study.

The bottom line is, where do we draw the line? When and where do we curb our paranoia and simply learn to "accept the things we cannot change and have the courage (and tenacity) to change the things we can..."

and of course, having the wisdom to know the difference

Good post, Craig.

I'm not sure about the Patent Office and library analogies. As I think you've mentioned recently (someone has), you'd have to know what you're looking for to find the patents for magic apparatus. With a library, you have to get off your behind and go look at the books.

With wikipedia and YouTube, you don't have to move at all from your PC. It's the ease with which things can be found that upsets some people. It doesn't require more than a few minutes (or even seconds) to find an answer. In some cases you are given links to other, similar items.

Yes, tricks are often given away in papers or freebie books, or on the back of cereal boxes, but that will often be ignored because, at the time, the reader might not be interested enough to really register what is happening. It's an abstract concept in print; they haven't seen it done. If you are interested, you will persevere. If you aren't, it is quite likely that the information will fall out of your brain.

With the internet, you can go looking for how to do a particular trick that you have seen. It combines ease of use with detailed information - something none of the other sources have.

Having said all that, I still don't think it's worth worrying about. I love the St Francis of Assisi quote; it is very appropriate.

I like to alter effects I buy. I'm particularly fond of combining two of three effects or principles into one item. Sometimes, though, the existing way is perfect.

In some cases (the card through window example given above is one), it might not be possible to conceal the obvious elements that would be put into a search engine. In that case you can come up with your own method (but people might still think you did it the exposed way), apply the same principle to something else, or do a different trick.

Just to simplify the above post, people who go out, find the necessary and best books, and go through them to learn the secrets generally have a real interest.
Those who sit on youtube/wikipedia just wanna satisfy their curiosity. It's not to learn.

Creating, editing and recreating tricks is great but it would be a shame if all the currently existing tricks had to be scrapped. In the extreme unlikely scenario of course.
But having said that, if people know all the secrets then you can't create new ones. It's all based on different implementations of the same principals.

As Nas said: "No idea's original, there's nothing new under the sun. It's not what you do, but how it's done".

Of all the people I tend to loathe the most Jamie Ian Swiss and Penn Jillette tend to top the list and yet, I watched them do something one evening that was quite cool.

Prior to intermission Penn exposed a particular card slight on purpose, so as to show people how he did a certain gag. Everyone chuckled and said "Ah! That's how they do it..."

During the break Jamie jumps out into the audience doing card tricks and blowing people's minds to dust left and right.

The joke, known only to P&T, Jamie and a few others is that every single effect Jamie did during the break used the exact same move Penn had just taken ten minutes to demonstrate and 'expose'

NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON IN THE ROOM CAUGHT ON OR EVEN SUSPECTED IT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO HAVE DONE SUCH.

This is just one example as to why I keep preaching the fact that it simply don't matter as long as YOU know how to do YOUR JOB.

It's not a matter of tossing all those exposed effects off to the side, it's just a matter of doing them cleaner, better and in a variety of manner so as to dispel the explanation that the laymen "think" is the right answer.

That's a great story and a brilliant example.

We all know, one technique has untold uses - it's only limited by your imagination. Rather than straight forward tricks - i guess usually the self working kind - which can be found and exposed, this is a good example of how if you do it right, and it's not clear where you've done your 'secret move', then they will have no idea.

I woulld like to thank everyone especially bmat and Craig for their imput as I am soaking up their advice like a sponge. The real reason I I got interested in trying to stop Wiki was at a because I gave a performance at a high school a while ago. One of the tricks I performed was the Linking Rings. Of course there was that one kid in the audience who wanted to "impress" his friends by figuring out the trick. Anyways, I make the the Linking Rings a running gag the entire show so the rings keep on Linking as thee show progresses. Anyways, this boy left the auditorium for no more than 5 minutes. He went to the computer lab and checked Wikipedia to see how I was doing the trick. Unfortunately for me he came back to the auditoriumand just as I was finishing up the final linking of the rings this guy cmes into the room and yells out what I'm doing "I checked Wikipedia and figured out the ring trick...(and he procceded to explain over my attempts to get the crowd back). He breaks the tension that I had worked so hard to buid. The crowd was for the most part mad at this guy for disrupting the show. But, I left feeling mad not so much because the kid found the method to the trick- a guy with that kind of commitment to ruinning an act can find anything- but more mad at how quickly he found it.
Craig earlier you mentioned on this thread that if I wanted to stop exposure on Wikipedia I should also stop the Libraries and the Patent office and such. The reason I spoke specifically about Wiki is because it is so easy to access. Most laymen wouldn't bother to go through a pile of books to find a secret, however, they would just google a couple words and click on the first site to appear. It's not so much that laypeople can access the info, it's how easy it is to get it.
Again I thank you guys kindly for the words of wisdom.
Cheers!!!!

Exposure sucks!

But on the other hand, if nobody would expose or let's rather say: teach, we would not get any new magicians. My feeling is that it should be moderately difficult to find answers.

I think that if you really, really want to know how something is done, you should be able to go to a library and make the effort in finding a certain book or go to a magic shop and buy a book or a trick.

What I don't approve of is blatant exposure, like on Prime Time TV (like Penn and Teller have done) when laymen are looking for entertainment and wouldn't mind if they see Little Britain or Dallas, but in stead they see magic exposure. People that are not seeking secrets of magic and stumble across it by accident. Also, I don't like those 13 year olds that put their videos on YouTube, exposing copyright material etc. or web pages with the same.

Penn & Teller exposed their own elaborate setups, but not the real secrets of magic. Not generally anyway.

Although someone recently posted about a Penn & Teller show where they exposed a card sleight and then used it constantly without the audience even knowing. It may even have been in this thread, i cant be bothered to look for it. Either way, its a brilliant example of how, if you're good enough, they wont know the method regardless of how much exposure they may have seen.

MagicBell wrote:Penn & Teller exposed their own elaborate setups, but not the real secrets of magic. Not generally anyway.

Although someone recently posted about a Penn & Teller show where they exposed a card sleight and then used it constantly without the audience even knowing. It may even have been in this thread, i cant be bothered to look for it. Either way, its a brilliant example of how, if you're good enough, they wont know the method regardless of how much exposure they may have seen.

In the early days P&T were more than well known for exposing real secrets; they created a huge stir at the Castle back in the early 80s for doing so... and too, that bloody Rose Illusion, which is probably what kept them from getting lynched.

Yes, they have learned to create logical-il-logic and sell that as their methods here and there but they've trod on the thinner side of the ice flows far more than most realize.

As to the Linking Ring problem... invest a bit of money into some King Rings or whatever equivalent we have on the market today; they operate nothing like most are used to and unless you know how to trigger things, you can't get them to do their thing.

I believe Ger Copper used these for some years but 20 years ago they were more than $150.00 per ring.

Craig Browning wrote:In the early days P&T were more than well known for exposing real secrets; they created a huge stir at the Castle back in the early 80s for doing so... and too, that bloody Rose Illusion, which is probably what kept them from getting lynched.

Yes, they have learned to create logical-il-logic and sell that as their methods here and there but they've trod on the thinner side of the ice flows far more than most realize.

The Dastards!

Maybe then, that goes to show that it makes no difference because people don't pay enough attention.

Although I disagree with myself here. If you expose a huge trick, then its more memorable and that trick can never be performed again in the same light.
If you expose techniques, then you're creating minefields for the performers in many other tricks.

Maybe people don't absorb it, in general, but there will always be some who do.



I don't agree with those who say exposure/'teaching' is what allows us all to learn.
It's not the same thing.
I imagine most non-magical minds believe that, to learn magic, you have to be part of some secret ultra-exclusive society, eg. The Magic Circle. Obviously their knowledge is very limited and they don't care enough to look further into it. If they don't care, then they shouldn't know the secrets. Yet these are the same people who see the 'Magic Revealed' shows on TV or the vids on youtube - those that require no real effort.
Until I found my way here, I was very much the same in terms of ignorance. I felt that DB's Pure Effect book was one for these ultra-secret types and was going to be the key to getting into the 'real stuff'.
Luckily I was set straight quickly before parting with my cash in that direction, but my point is that I have since made the effort to find the right materials for learning magic, so therefore, I guess I kind of qualify as 'deserving' of them.
These books are purely for people who want to work through them and learn it. A youtube video, although it may be used as a learning tool, is obviously going to be for entertainment purposes and will be seen by thousands who have no 'right' to see the secrets being exposed. It's just too easy and accessible.
Also, the makers of these videos can in way have the intention to 'teach' these tricks. Anyone who really wanted to learn could find it through the right avenues, these people just want a little recognition through video ratings and comments.

MagicBell wrote:Penn & Teller exposed their own elaborate setups, but not the real secrets of magic. Not generally anyway.

Are you joking? Cups and balls is amongst the oldest magic tricks, used to entertain the Egyptian faraos. Penn and Teller exposed that with clear plastic cups. They have also exposed sleight of hand and card moves. How much more general can you get in exposure?

gunnarkr wrote:

MagicBell wrote:Penn & Teller exposed their own elaborate setups, but not the real secrets of magic. Not generally anyway.

Are you joking? Cups and balls is amongst the oldest magic tricks, used to entertain the Egyptian faraos. Penn and Teller exposed that with clear plastic cups. They have also exposed sleight of hand and card moves. How much more general can you get in exposure?

You seem to have not read my last post, in which I admitted to not knowing P&T went that far.

Although i didn't say so much, I felt it was kinda obvious.