In your opinions, is it right to expose the method of a trick, if it makes another trick your perfroming better. Let me give an example:

I perform the Docc Hilford Assassin Card Sword, which uses a genuine sword. Would it be right of me to explain about the trick sword, then do it with the regular sword.

I know some magicians do a similar thing with linking rings.

So what do you think, throw it at me!

I think it's a bad idea. You are exposing an insiders secrete. One that, for the most part only magicians know. Now that being said, magic is first and foremost about entertaining your audience. In reality that means whatever acomplishes that, should be fair game. However, you would have a hard time convincing me that the only way you could entertain your audience was by exposing an effect. Another thing to think about is the psychology of your audience. How precisly do you prove that any sword you perform that effect with isn't a card sword, once you have explained the concept. I'm not saying no no no no no. I'm saying that you can't fall through thin ice if you never venture on to it.

Like most types of exposure, this is a very gray area. What about the famous trick where you have a spectator up on stage and make paper balls (or whatever) dissapear, while everone in the audience is in on it except the one guy on stage. That exposes the French Drop, or whatever move the magician uses. Is this unethical exposure?

Some good points, thanks.

Just so you know, I'm not intending to expose the card sword, just using that as an example. I had considered that as a presentation at one time but came up with a much better one.

The paper balls over the head is a great example. I think the main concern is the entertainment of the audience. that's our goal. I think exposure should only be used if absolutely necessary, and only as a way to blow the audiences theorys out the window.

I guess there is no definative answer to the question. Would love to hear more opinions.

Why get on this slope at all if it leads to exposing gaffed coins so you can fool them after with a non-gaffed method, or exposing sleight of hand to fool them using gaffs after? Both seem like contaminating the audience with knowledge they might use to catch us later.

Perhaps the "exposure" of an elaborate and absurd method... so long as that way of thinking is not applicable to any real performable pieces. A Rube Goldberg setup perhaps as explanation for card to pocket might be funny... parrots and all.

Penn and Tellar are notorious for such Rube Goldberg devices. I also have to say that their clear cups and balls expose nothing.

More great points. I like the Rube Goldberg setup idea.

But, if you explained a stupid method that is never used in real world conditions, would the audience still believe these methods to be true and useable? I wonder this because, when people guess a method, normally it is something silly that wouldn't work.

I remember years ago, first when David Blaine was on TV, I did a bitten coin for a freind as he asked if I could do it. He said it was a special coin that went invisible when wet, then you blow on it and it goes visible again! Silly, but he still thinks that's the method.

Doesn't matter, either way, it becomes part of the performance. If they ebilieve it is how it is done, but you do it in a way the eliminates that method as a possibility, then you have still done something incredible. You still haven't given away anything that anyone would use.

Not sure where I stand on this topic.

I remember seeing a "torn and restored napkin" routine, where the magician shows that he has an extra napkin and switches the torn pieces for the whole napkin. Of course, at the end, he restores the "torn pieces" too, so he's now restored two napkins. But it still exposed a method some use for t&r tricks. Seen the same thing with a silk-to-egg routine (ending with the magician breaking open the egg to show that it's actually real.)

Audiences do like to be "let in on" the secrets, and I often perform "What's Next?!" in my Gospel shows (in a discussion of the difference between "illusion/magic" and "real" magic), but sometimes I do feel a bit uneasy about giving away secrets, even if they're "partial secrets" that are undone by something you do later.

I guess it depends ...

That reminds me of a great Martin Lewis routine where he uses to different colour napkins to explain the method, but basically leads then down the garden path and restored both bits.

I hear this over and over again regarding P&T's Clear Cups and Balls, but based on this link, I have to disagree. Check out the last "TV Spot" in the right column.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/fordmagic/videogallery/

If this doesn't expose C&B, I have a misunderstanding of the effect and I have been performing something else for a long time!

Terry

When I saw this performed on a TV special, I did not see the loaded cups till it was display time. The fourth ball load, getting three under the center cup etc all worked very well from that performance and IMHO in this clip as well. Was the camera angle awkward for this clip? IMHO again yes. Did this expose the trick... my feeling is it does so more in plot than in method.

Consider the Svengali Deck. Pitched coast to coast. Sold in the many hundreds of thousands (proably milions). Each 'lay person' who buys a deck learns its secrets. Some just watching even get to know the workings. Many of those can get their own decks and sell them and pass on the 'secrets...or just tip the workings when doing for friends or family...yet...and it's a BIG YET...how many people have you run into in the 'wild' who know how it works? How many people who are tipped in a demo remember 2 weeks later how it worked? How many bazillions can still be fooled at fairs and events by the Pitchmen? Many bazillions.

The question then arises, what IS the impact of exposure? Probably Nill.

Take The Invisible Deck as another example...not as readilly available but fairly accessable at Magic Shops...Impact?

Card Toon?

When is exposure less important? Ever? Never?

Again, when I, porsonaly speak of the effects of exposure. I speak not of it's effects on our end of the business. I speak of the effects of exposure on each individual unwiting audience member. When I speak of avoiding the damage of exposure. I speak not of avoiding an audience who knows "how it's done". But of allowing that information to fall on the perceptions of a person who would have otherwise enjoyed not knowing. Allowing this either by action, or by inaction.

The question then becomes, " Will my actions, in exposing an effect for the purposes of strengthening another effect, cause a person who would have otherwise enjoyed not knowing, to learn the workings of an effect?" I believe the answer %99.99 of the time will be yes.

I don't think exposing one trick to prove that's not how you are doing another effect trick helps sell the overall effect.

I think it is exceptionaly unlikely as well, but I generaly don't like to think in definitive terms on these things. I imagine it is possible such a case might possibly exist, where it would be. It would have to be a career making presentation. One which all who saw it would speak of for the rest of their lives, but it is possible I suppose. I think Penn and Tellars "see through cups and balls" is about as close an example as I can think of. I don't realy think it is exposure, but it is good enough to warrant exposing as much as it does.

Any exposure of useable methods in my beleif, is bad exposure.

I have made up ABSURD methods to explain to the audience how it is done. Sets them up thinking they are getting secrets, only to be entertained at the absurdity of it.

Sincerely,
Wayne Stevenson
The SpookClub

In the case of the card sword, I cant imagine a lay person already knowing how this is done. I don't think there is any added effect bu showing them how a normal card sword works, and then using your method.

Think of the fellow performer who is doing the very thing you are exposing, and imagine how gutted you would feel, if someone exposed something you 'played for real'just to get a cheap laugh. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, such as some of P&T's stuff, but a helluva lot of thought has gone into those routines and they are clever enough to do this.

In my opinion we should take the place of the audience and try to see as our spectators see the whole situation.
I do not think that if you expose a trick (real trick, used by us magician) and then do the "real" magic (for the audience) they will ever believe that the first exposure was a real exposure.
Audience DOES NOT believe (does not want to believe) that the linking rings are working as they are working. If you show them amd than do a real magic, they will forget about it.
Our audience is not in the game!
Even the french drop (I also perform the paper on head but I avoid to show the french drop: I'm still too much magician for exposing that) shouldn't be a problem. The audience does not see what the specator sees in that moment and cannot understand the whole thing.

One of the best tricks I remember (from the audience point of view) is the exposure of silk into egg and than than produce a real egg. The Climax is wonderful BUT ( and somebody here above has already mentioned this): you have to show it to the right audience and in the right moment. I think it's a feeling that tells you if it is ok to do that trick or not. Be prepared to do something else instead.

I have been working in the automotive painting industry for several years. I was catching painting defects in ANY car that was around me. Now I do not see them anymore (I work in another business...) and the cars are always painted in the same way and with the same technology.... In my opinion we do the same when we are magicians: we forget that there is an audience of non-magicians!

The Bonnie Kids