talkmagic.co.uk

A week or so ago MSN had a banner on its main homepage here in the USA exposing "simple" magic. It clearly showed some basic sleights which are used to vanish small everyday object, Forcing etc. I raised a question about exposure on a stateside forum and sadly it did not seem to bother too many magicians. I am NOT a pro I just love this art and enjoying performing and learning, last thing I want is to perform a French drop and here someone say I know what you did. Just my 2 cents.

It's a shame that things like this are becoming more frequent, but that's just the way things are. It's more of a performance thing nowadays, and really always has been. The slightest change to the technique can fool anybody who has learned the basic move, and is great for fooling magicians.

I think it was Penn & Teller who once said:

'You imagine on nerd sitting there practicing something in a mirror, you just don't imagine two nerds there practicing the same thing together!'

As a full-time pro I have no problem with exposure. It keeps things fresh. Secrecy kills an art.

if ALL exposure does no harm, how would any of you feel if i stood outside where you gig and handed out bullet pointed "how to" guides just before you went on?

IAIN wrote:if ALL exposure does no harm, how would any of you feel if i stood outside where you gig and handed out bullet pointed "how to" guides just before you went on?

No one said "ALL exposure does no harm" so far. If you were to describe the french drop and the concept of card forcing to people before I perform for them, go right ahead. But your example is still bad since you'd be "exposing" methods right before they become relevant. Most people who see the french drop and card force exposures are probably going to forget about them long before they see any magician perform live.

Just because it doesn't have much of an effect doesn't make it OK. I could spend all day shooting bullets into the air above me, probably would have no effect... doesn't mean I should do it. Bad analogy but the point stands.

Like PD said in response to 'The Magicians' it turns it into just a bunch of secrets which we 'hide' behind. Removes the theatrical, performance aspect.

Exposing the french drop and a random card force should be ok based on the usual moral arguments against exposure. No magician is going to lose income because of it and no creators are being deprived of their money.

Penn and Teller exposed the French Drop. Did anyone lose money? Did laypeople all of a sudden cease to be deceived by even the best technical performances of the move? Was it morally wrong?

I don't think so.

sleightlycrazy wrote:

IAIN wrote:if ALL exposure does no harm, how would any of you feel if i stood outside where you gig and handed out bullet pointed "how to" guides just before you went on?

No one said "ALL exposure does no harm" so far. If you were to describe the french drop and the concept of card forcing to people before I perform for them, go right ahead. But your example is still bad since you'd be "exposing" methods right before they become relevant. Most people who see the french drop and card force exposures are probably going to forget about them long before they see any magician perform live.

you've missed my point...

well, lets take your examples, there's plenty of cracking effects that use a french drop and a card force or two...if exposure doesnt matter, then if i showed them to your friends - next time they saw you perform, they'd be convinced that pretty much all your tricks involved those two things and be watching you at all times...

are you saying exposure is ok as long as its not on the night of performance?

there's no real point in exposure, so why bother indulging it? if people forget it, why bother showing it?

i find the reasoning of "well, it helps things stay fresh..." incorrect - what helps keep magic fresh is not the exposure of the method, but the constant repetition of the same presentation until people are sick to death of it and groan as soon as it starts...

methods should be invisible, so therefore not seen nor understood by the punters - yet its the methods that get exposed...

IAIN wrote:you've missed my point...

well, lets take your examples, there's plenty of cracking effects that use a french drop and a card force or two...if exposure doesnt matter, then if i showed them to your friends - next time they saw you perform, they'd be convinced that pretty much all your tricks involved those two things and be watching you at all times...

are you saying exposure is ok as long as its not on the night of performance?

there's no real point in exposure, so why bother indulging it? if people forget it, why bother showing it?

i find the reasoning of "well, it helps things stay fresh..." incorrect - what helps keep magic fresh is not the exposure of the method, but the constant repetition of the same presentation until people are sick to death of it and groan as soon as it starts...

methods should be invisible, so therefore not seen nor understood by the punters - yet its the methods that get exposed...

I read exactly what you wrote. If I missed your intended point, it is because I lack Mr. Mark Lewis' psychic abilities.

Phillip mentioned that "The slightest change to the technique can fool anybody who has learned the basic move". This is absolutely correct. I have flexibility and I know how to make what I do deceptive. If I were to incorporate a basic move such as a card force or a french drop (incidentally, I don't use either regularly), I would use subtleties and varied techniques to cancel out the possibility of those moves in the mind of the spectator. It's really not that hard. A french drop and a well times lap can destroy the idea of the french palm to a layperson. And card forcing, hell, there are hundreds of ways to force a card. All I'd have to do is use one you didn't teach the spectator and the effect will be safe. And, of course, the force can have an indirect purpose in the effect such that it seems unnecessary to have the card forced to the spectator.

No. I did not say that exposure is ok as long as it's not on the night of the performance. I said that the time between when people see exposure and when they actually see a real, live magician is generally going to be long enough that they will forget enough about the exposure so the live magicians' effect will still be strong.

Penn and Teller have a point to their exposure. They demonstrate methods or basic techniques to show everything from the beauty of illusions to the limits of perception. Teller has also exposed certain methods to illustrate how illusions are not limited to blatantly obvious magic tricks-- pseudo psychics can use magical methods to convince even highly intelligent people that they are psychic.

I'm not going to try to justify exposure by saying anything about it keeping magic fresh. My point is that exposure is not inherently some evil, horrible activity that magicians as a community should scorn and stress over.

well, thanks for the diluted sarcastic response, rather than the straightforward debate/retort...well done you - brilliant...

here's the bottom line (in my opinion) - any form of exposure is tiresome and ultimately pointless...

in my example, i was showing that exposure can be harmful/spoil a performance dependant on timing...

and as i said before - the methods involved in any presentation should be invisible, so to deliberately expose them (rather than accidently via lack of practice or whatever else) doesnt actually do anyone any good...

IAIN wrote:well, thanks for the diluted sarcastic response, rather than the straightforward debate/retort...well done you - brilliant...

well, thanks for the diluted sarcastic response, rather than the straightforward debate/retort...well done you - brilliant...

IAIN wrote:here's the bottom line (in my opinion) - any form of exposure is tiresome and ultimately pointless...

in my example, i was showing that exposure can be harmful/spoil a performance dependant on timing...

and as i said before - the methods involved in any presentation should be invisible, so to deliberately expose them (rather than accidently via lack of practice or whatever else) doesnt actually do anyone any good...

We have something in common. My first line was, I admit, a bit sarcastic (as was yours), but I gave you the arguments afterward. You didn't address them; you simply dismissed all of my actual arguments as diluted sarcasm.

If you wish to proceed with a straightforward debate, don't dismiss my arguments then reiterate your position. Argue against my Penn and Teller example. I believe they contradict your position of exposure being tiresome and pointless. If you disagree with me, tell me why.

I gave you an example and some reasons as to why the exposure usually won't have a significantly negative effect on the vast majority of magicians because of timing. Again, argue with me.

Penn and Teller expose methods with very tight scripts. The methods are visible or offered (as in their trunk escape, Honor System). Because they have a reason and give meaning to their exposure, it DOES do people some good, whether by enlightening them to the beauty of illusion or showing them them the limits of their observatory/intellectual abilities. Both do the audience some good.

I think the issue is 'do better'. Watching Rene Lavand... well I doubt any exposure of basic principles would help me work out how he does his stuff. Too flawless, too brilliant. There's a leap between what and how.

to be pedantic, you were sarcastic first - i just pointed out that you had missed my point...

"it DOES do people some good, whether by enlightening them to the beauty of illusion or showing them them the limits of their observatory/intellectual abilities. Both do the audience some good."

completely disagree - doing the first (beauty of illusion) i feel is at odds with itself, the beauty of illusion is the illusion itself, not the mechanics of it...that spoils the illusion...

and making people aware of their own limits in both observatory/intellectual capacities is nothing more than smugness and rudeness on the part of the entertainer doing the exposure...

"oh? you didnt stop to think that the truck might be weighted on the other side?"

if an effect is "too old", or "over used", just means that YOU should retire it from your act...and not have some kind of say-so over others and how they choose to work...

i found derren's exposure of pepper's ghost pretty damn poor on his science of scams show, absolutely no need, and i very much doubt anyone who wanted to get people to believe that a house was haunted - would have to go to so much trouble...just turn the lights out and let the house creak away and the people's minds twist it out of all proportion...

exposure is pointless...

Arle Le'Quinn wrote:I think the issue is 'do better'. Watching Rene Lavand... well I doubt any exposure of basic principles would help me work out how he does his stuff. Too flawless, too brilliant. There's a leap between what and how.

but you dont need to expose anything to "do better"...what if your classic pass served your own purposes and worked well for you? would i have any right to expose the classic pass and say "use my version of the pass cos its better..."