|
|
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts |
I opened a can of worms that the original poster didn't intend to get into, on this thread. So I thought I'd start a new thread to discuss the worms.
How would you define appropriate, or "good" exposure, if you believe such a thing exists? How would you define inappropriate, or "bad"exposure, if you believe such a thing exists? Or another way of aksing this: where do you draw the line between good exposure and bad exposure? |
|||||||||
jwebyra Regular user New Jersey 140 Posts |
I think "good" exposure is when you are learning a trick like if you buy a trick or are being taught magic. "Good" exposure helps extend the art of magic by passing it on. If everything was a secret then the art wouldn't have survived.
"Bad" exposure is the opposite in which it hurts magic. There I think are two main types of "bad" exposure, accidental in which something happened unplanned that exposed how the trick work and Intentional exposure where somebody exposes with the intent to show "lay" people how tricks work. This is done for people who have no intention of performing the tricks. There is a lot of "good" exposure here in the Café in terms of doing something and you must prove yourself in order to find out. The Café does an excellent of making sure that if a person asks ie "How does x perform trick y? they get "shot" down by Café members and won't find out because that would be "bad" exposure. The "good" exposure is in terms of something in particular in a move, trick which a person needs help on from experienced magician. This is something a "lay" person would probeley not be into. Thank you for reading my 2% of $1.00 Ron |
|||||||||
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts |
Ron:
Thanks for your response. Would you mind being more specific? Could you provide an example of "bad," intentional exposure? If one markets an effect, book, or DVD, how do you know if they "intend" "lay people" to purchase it? Is it unethical to sell an effect to a "lay person"? Is it unethical for a "lay person" to purchase any book, DVD, or effect that is available for sale? |
|||||||||
jwebyra Regular user New Jersey 140 Posts |
Dear Sir,
The best example of "bad" inentional exposure would be the FOX television specials in which a they revealed several tricks and illusions. (Magic's Biggest Secrets...) Most bad intentioal exposure is done to show people how tricks are done with no intention of ever performing it. If person releases a book, DVD to be put to the general market they hope is to teach magic. As long as the tricks can be performed by the average person with items around the house and they can legally publish them. In terms of "lay people" buying magic which is for sale there is nothing wrong because they are paying for the secret and if they have the money then why not. If you go into a magic shop and ask to buy something they won't ask if you are magician just do you have the money. (This is if you go into a magic shop that does not know you.) What is unethical in my opinion is when you ask about a trick, (you ask about the effect and maybe a question on angles and etc) and the employee shows you how it works without you purchasing it. Thank you for reading my 2% of $1.00 Ron |
|||||||||
jwebyra Regular user New Jersey 140 Posts |
Of course I was thinking after looking at another post of a mixture of the two types of "bad" exposure. There are a few tricks that require the use of a audience member and they have to learn the secret in order to perform it. I feel in my own opinion that this is wrong because the magician is "exposing" the secret to an audience member who may expose it to their friends. I feel that these tricks need an assistant who can be part of show or a stooge.
Just my 2% of $1.00 |
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3042 Posts |
Geez, jimtron, you beat me to it... I wanted to spin off Patrick's thread too... man, I hate it when that happens... it's a bummer...
Anyway, you're asking for our personal definition of good and bad exposure. Okay, here's my take on this. The term "expose" has a dictionary definition; we don't need to make up our own. However, if we look at how society uses this term, it generally has a negative connotation -- unless you're talking about photographic film. The legal term "indecent exposure" comes to mind: it refers to a particular type of action on the part of an individual. Yet the same type of action in a doctor's office would be perfectly acceptable. And here's where I still fall into the "need to know -- want to know" camp: the doctor has a need to know, so the patient's action is acceptable. To me, the term "exposure" is negative: it's revealing something (in our case, the mechanics of a magic effect) to those who don't need to know it. But a "need to know" can have lots of different connotations. In medical school, the students aren't doctors, yet they need to study the human body in order to understand how it works. In my own case, I took a number of life drawing classes (i.e., unclothed models) as part of my art training as a set designer. When I was a kid studying every magic book in the library, I thought I was doing it to learn magic, not to "know how every trick is done." Personally, I'd like to reserve the term "exposure" for those cases where the mechanics of a magic effect are revealed to those who have no reason to know them (like the Fox TV series), and use a different term for cases where the mechanics are explained for a "legitimate" reason, such as the honest study of magic. I know this gets into the question of whether, for instance, Tarbell was "exposing secrets" or "explaining the mechanics for legitimate reasons." And yes, we could argue this until the cows come home.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts |
I should have specified; by exposure I mean revelation of conjuring methodology.
Quote:
Personally, I'd like to reserve the term "exposure" for those cases where the mechanics of a magic effect are revealed to those who have no reason to know them (like the Fox TV series), and use a different term for cases where the mechanics are explained for a "legitimate" reason, such as the honest study of magic. This is what I'm trying to get at; legitimate vs. "bad" exposure. What if someone has "no reason" to learn magic secrets, but they're just curious, so they go to the library to read magic books. Is that "bad exposure"? What if they purchase books and/or effects at a magic store, just for fun, or because they're curious about it. Surely that's not "bad exposure," is it? Quote:
And yes, we could argue this until the cows come home. I don't think we necessarily need to argue, but the purpose of this forum is to discuss these kinds of issues. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Perhaps it's a matter of context.
What distinguished murder from execution from casualty form "collateral damage"? Are you sure you want to explore the walls of your box?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
Well, I'll stand by what I said in the other thread. I'll simplify it a little here. Exposure is allowing the executional workings of an effect or effects to be learned by those who are unlikely to perform them, and perform them entertainingly. Without the most remedial of attempts to prevent it.
|
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3042 Posts |
I think Jonathan put his finger on it:
Quote:
On 2006-03-28 08:06, Jonathan Townsend wrote: In all three cases a life was lost, but we use different terms for it depending on the circumstances. There's also the term "assassination," and a few others. This is where the term "exposure" has a negative connotation for me, and where I would rather use a different term when talking about learning a method legitimately. When the military, or a government, or a business allows someone to have access to classified information for legitimate purposes, that's not exposure. The other part of this (and here I'm getting a little punchy ) is that "exposure" comes from the exposer, not the exposee. If I'm a reporter and I dig into some politician's latest skeleton-in-the-closet long enough to find a juicy bit, that's not exposure: it's some other term. However, the moment I write it up and let the world know about it, that's exposure. And, for the politician to NOT have taken measures to prevent me from learning the secrets is not exposure on his part either. It's something else. And, yes, I stand corrected. We don't need to argue: we can discuss. But I'll stand on the cows coming home. Bull and all.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts |
Quote:
Are you sure you want to explore the walls of your box? Very much so. But I'd rather not get into a discussion about when killing=murder on this thread, as the topic at hand is pretty complicated as it is. Quote:
Well, I'll stand by what I said in the other thread. I'll simplify it a little here. Exposure is allowing the executional workings of an effect or effects to be learned by those who are unlikely to perform them, and perform them entertainingly. Without the most remedial of attempts to prevent it. Is that a definition of "bad exposure"? Or just exposure in general? On this thread I'm curious to hear where people draw the line between "good" and "bad" exposure, in the field of conjuring. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Jim, folks, the question is one of context, behavior and measurable net outcomes AND THE LANGUAGE used to describe them. As one of our café members often points out, the notions of "good" and "bad" require external validation to serve as more than subjective labels.
As Jim points out above, there is a notion of moral sanction for otherwise unacceptable acts which bears upon our discussion. The muggles are free to copy and post clips of any magic book or video as they see fit, and oh do they ever see fit, yet we are asking ourselves about what is right and when is "exposure" acceptable TO US. Context. Let's stay with "magic secrets", for this discussion.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts |
Quote:
Exposure is allowing the executional workings of an effect or effects to be learned by those who are unlikely to perform them, and perform them entertainingly. Without the most remedial of attempts to prevent it. When one publishes an effect, he or she has no control over who will perform it and how well (unless they release it in a restricted or limited way). Is Dover guilty of "bad exposure" because they publish so many magic titles, and distribute their books widely, including to big bookstore chains? What kinds of "attempts to prevent it" are recommended? |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-03-28 13:49, jimtron wrote:...When one publishes an effect, he or she has no control over who will perform it and how well (unless they release it in a restricted or limited way). ... Essentially, this comes down to the problem of an open market. If we put our stuff out in the muggle's market, we may as well put our secrets on the walls as graffiti or ... on the internet as is being posted and shared. Thus it plainly follows that IF WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR SECRETS SERIOUSLY, we need a separate market and some rules which keep the stuff out of the muggle market.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts |
How do you manage the second market? How do you determine who gets access?
One (of probably many) problems with this, is that those who market books, DVDs, or effects, usually don't want to limit or restrict sales (afaik). I often wonder why the folks that complain about exposure rarely if ever point to the source of the most exposure: magic books, DVDs, and effects that are sold on the legit market. I would bet that most people learn secrets this way, as opposed to the Masked Magician or Wikipedia. If something is available on the open market, no one should complain if anyone, anywhere purchases it. If someone puts another person's effect on the market without permission, of course they should be taken to task for that. But if a magician puts his or her own effect on the open market, that means it's available to everyone, not just those "worthy" of buying it. Even if they're not a magician; even if they're just curious, even if they're a bad magician. If something is for sale at an unrestricted store, online or brick and mortar, why shouldn't absolutely anyone buy it? |
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
Well Jim, looks like your mind is made up. I still have to ask you which requires more effort, turning on your television, or going to a bookstore, purchasing a book, taking it home, and reading it? I am in no way saying I condone the public sale of magic books, serious ones anyway, but if you can't see why one is a bigger problem than the other, I'm going to have to believe it's because you want to not see it.
These days, I think it would be worth sacrificing magic, just to get people to read. |
|||||||||
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts |
Quote:
Well Jim, looks like your mind is made up. I have opinions, but I welcome hearing arguments on the other side. I've changed my mind about issues before. Please tell me what you think I got wrong. Quote:
I still have to ask you which requires more effort, turning on your television, or going to a bookstore, purchasing a book, taking it home, and reading it? Turning on the TV takes much less effort. Do you think more effects are learned by the Masked Magician than by other means, like buying books, DVDs, or effects from a legit store? By the way, I'm in no way advocating what the Masked Magician does; I've said here before I don't approve of it. I'm just saying that I believe that more secrets are learned other ways. Think of how many magic books are published, and how many magic stores exist. How many effects has the Masked Magician revealed? How many effects have been "legitimately" exposed via sales? Quote:
These days, I think it would be worth sacrificing magic, just to get people to read. I wish people would read more too. Quote:
Exposure is allowing the executional workings of an effect or effects to be learned by those who are unlikely to perform them, and perform them entertainingly. Without the most remedial of attempts to prevent it. JackScratch: I'm still curious to hear how you believe attempts should be made to prevent the exposure you mentioned in the above quote. If you sell or publish an effect, how do you keep the "wrong" people from learning it (those who are unlikely to perform then, or who won't perform "entertainingly")? best, Jim |
|||||||||
Patrick Differ Inner circle 1540 Posts |
Hi, jimtron.
Please allow me to opine. You ask about 'bad exposure'. When I use only the word 'exposure', and all its various conjugations, I use them with great venom. It's one of the words in the languages I speak that practically spits itself out of my mouth. (Blegh!) Saying 'bad exposure', to me, is tautologous. To me, 'exposure' is enough for me to make the point. You also ask about 'good exposure'. I am pretty sure that I know what you're asking, however, I don't ever call it that. Instead, I call it 'confidence', as in to confide, confederate, confidential, etc. And confidence is a matter of choice. To wit. "I took Jonny Dope into confidence and showed him my own five minute 4 Ace routine. That dirty rat went and exposed it to the whole magic club. I hope his fat fingers fall off." To further wit. A weirdo wearing a raincoat walking through the park in the middle of the night does not take anyone into his confidence. He exposes himself. Our choice of words, especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness, is vital to these types of discussions. It helps us stay on the 'same page', it keeps the subject at hand on top of all the stuffing, and does wonders in making sure nobody's feelings get all bent out of shape because of misinterpretation. :hmm:
Will you walk into my parlour? said the Spider to the Fly,
Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy; The way into my parlour is up a winding stair, And I've a many curious things to show when you are there. Oh no, no, said the little Fly, to ask me is in vain, For who goes up your winding stair -can ne'er come down again. |
|||||||||
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts |
Patrick:
To me exposure, in the field of conjuring, means revealing methodology. That can be done in ethical or unethical ways. I agree that choice of words is vital to these discussions; that's why I'm discriminating between "good" and "bad" exposure. When Dover publishes a magic book, that's a kind of exposure. They are exposing magic secrets via the books they are selling--books that are available to anyone (some of their magic titles are available at big chain bookstores). In my opinion, this is an example of acceptable exposure. When a magician takes, say, a Dai Vernon card effect, and comes up with his own version, and puts it on a DVD that is publicly sold--that's a form of exposure too. The magician is revealing Vernon's effect (possibly without permission from Vernon) and profiting from it. This is not unethical in my opinion, but it is a form of exposure. I wouldn't call either of these "confiding," because these are products available to anyone across the globe (and confiding suggests private communication). Do you find the above two example ethically acceptable? Would you use the term "exposure" to characterize them? Also, on this thread you defined exposure thusly: Quote:
Exposure is the revelation of private information to any and all that aren't personally invited. Since you asked for only definitions and not further discussions on the other thread, I'd like to ask you here about this. What about purchasing magic books, DVDs, or effects. Are they forms of exposure (unless the author/originator personally invites you to learn the effects)? What percentage of effects do you know that you were personally invited to learn? best, Jim |
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-03-28 19:10, jimtron wrote: Well, I would have to say that by "remedial" I mean anything at all is at least a start. I would certainly prefer magic books weren't sold anywhere but magic shops. Even if that never comes to pass, at least they are sold, which is a small start, but a start none the less. They are books which as mentioned above is a hurdle in itself. Like I said, at least it is something. It requires more effort than turning on the television or typing "magic" into a search engine. As for who or how many have learned magic from Valinto or any of the other sources considered "exposure" or "bad exposure" or whatever. I'm a little more concerned about the people who learn who weren't trying or intending to. Pity the poor sap who watched the show thinking it would be "interesting" only to discover what we already knew. It was more interesting before he knew. He is now denied some of magics charms, simply because he didn't pause to consider the in depth ramifications of watching a show on the most holy of devices. I mean, isn't that realy what we do, when we as magicians keep secrets, prevent people who don't want to know, from finding out, wether they know that they don't want to know, or not. Lets face it, this is the information age, if you realy want to know something, what could possibly stop you? Certainly when I discuss "exposure" I am concerned with magic falling into the wrong hands, but my ultimate concern is the wrong hands then "exposing" the secrets to our potential audience, in one way or another, and there are so many ways. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Your definition of exposure: good & bad (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |