Since the other thread is locked for some reason lets try to keep this unlocked as it kind of matters.

Exposure is a tough topic. Everyone treats it like George Carlin says we think of other peoples driving. Anyone going faster is an idiot, anyone slower a moron, and us just right.

We pick and choose and justify positions. Some of us reel hard against exposure and yet have routines we publish anyhow, "exposing" them to the public. Some rant and rave about bootlegs, and buy them anyhow, and the examples abound.

It is easy to say "Exposure is wrong!", but it is tough to live the line. Many seem to think that just enough exposure to let them learn what they want is exactly the right amount. Any more is morally wrong and should be stopped at all costs.

So how to get around this and keep the topic unlocked is the question isn't it?

Me personally I feel if we cry too much we are nothing more than the sum of our tricks, and to me that seems bad. Not a real gutsy position to take, but pretty easy to follow.

Lets see if we can keep this thread unlocked and civil. No accusations, no names, maybe, just maybe a solution or 2.

Can we start by agreeing that it's not exactly useful to expose the mechanics of guile to our audiences in performance?

I argue that since the 1970s the mechanics of establishing and modifying beliefs and inner experience has been public knowlege and what's left that distinguishes our craft from the other performing arts is the very "secrets" we use to create the magic for our audiences.

Yes we can. That is a good starting poing in general. Exposing through lack of talent or skill is also bad I will concede this as a valid point.

I will also concede that to have "magic" we may indeed need secrets.

Boy that will be hard. If the question is what do I feel as an individual, that's gonna bring out a bunch of different opinions.

Few would be magicians if someone didn't expose it to them. However, everything is too readily available now. When I started I had to hunt stuff down (No computer, no local magic shop), so If I wasn't really interested in magic I would have given up.

My wishes:
I would like magic to be available to those who are willing to put in a little work.
I would like secret seekers to run into many road blocks to just find out how someone did something.

My beliefs:
I do not think I am in any trouble of a secret seeker finding all my methods, because for the few effects I do there are simply too many, from too many sources.

I realize exposure is probably inevitable, and those with the most to fear are those who have a less than great presentation using common gaffs or effects.

I do not think most people run to their computer when they see a magician trying to find out how they did it.

I think the short attention span and inability to pay close attention along with short memories (Those and other human traits we take advantage of) help in themselves to combat exposure.

I believe that the exposure we should be most concerned with, and we have the most control over, is our own. Do we attempt to make our magic flawless? Do we share our secrets sparingly?

My apology:
Sorry for all those words. As no one will read them anyway, I guess it's not such a problem.

I contend that there is a need for secrets in many levels and areas of human society. But: I think it is precisely in those other areas that somehow an argument developed that "exposure" can somehow be noble. Somehow we confuse wisdom with having no secrets.

Magic, however, requires what Jonathan calls the "mechanics of guile." Without them, magic--as an art form--doesn't exist. Can we agree on this as well?

Jeff

I hope we can continue in this way, it does seem productive.

I say expose EVERYTHING. Then there will be nothing left to expose and we can start from the begining.

A wave goes toward the beach.

Sadly the hard work done over the millenia by those who can keep secrets is not so easily replaced.

Spectators having a magical moment as the function of magic, using "mechanics of guile" to express the method:

What are the mechanics of guile worth without the presentation to make them worth watching?

What is magical presentation worth without the mechanics of guile that make them magical.

Comedy magic without the trickery is just comedy.

Without the mechanics of guile it may be watchable, but not magic.

Secrets are essential. I think it is obvious.... But now, what must we decide? Will it matter?

What are the mechanics of guile worth when not used to entertain? Lots.

As magicians we have a sort of social contract to use those mechanics to bring delight, not to con others out of their wealth by pandering to their weaknesses.

Also to use those mechanics in an ecological manner. Yes ecology is significant here as we are not supposed to be charlatans offering people a chance to placate or to witness the splendor and terror of some strange new (or old) god. Notice how carefully the bizarrists frame their presentations. Nobody goes home from a show expecting to find a Deep One waiting the the shower or a giant shapeless horror to rush out of the subway tunnel early in the morning on their way to work.

Even those who do use our craft in their religious teaching functions know their limits. Our society is not so tolerant of false prophets even when they claim to serve a good book.

We work standing on the shoulders of giants.

Is that a tick joke?

The tic ruled

Danny, I'm sick of you derailing these threads. The original poster asked a question, either answer it or shut up!

Just in case you can't see me smiling, I am.

Some of the most useful material I've studied, although available to the masses, would bore them to tears. (Including this web site)

Even though I study a great deal, and own the complete Tarbell set, I occasionally am fooled.

The people I respect understand the futility of open exposure. I can't control the boneheads or the internet. So why sweat it?

Josh Riel hasn't ruined magic for the world, so it must be pretty durable.

But Josh, have you seen the websites devoted to his pics. OMG they think we all look like him now. He's become a cult bigger then CA or DB. What can we do? I mean aside from wearing Josh buttons.

Which Josh are you talking to? Josh #2 or Josh#B? Now I'm not smiling.

Mock me, don't mock my "Josh buttons". Unless you are talking about Josh #2

I have seen what many magicians look like (Like Josh #2). Now I am an admittedly unpleasant man to look at, but compared to some of "Us" (By "us" I mean everyone uglier than me not me. If your reading this you are one of "us", not me though, you)where was I? oh. But compared to some of "us" (See above) I am an Adonis.

And I haven't ruined magic for the world yet!

Q: Can you do that thing that Josh Riel does?

A: Sure. Get me a case of beer, a tub of Cool Whip, and the latest issue of "Porcine Biker Grannys".

You gonna start selling those "Just Joshing" buttons?