I don't think very many magicians are worried that the exposure "ruins it for the rest of us". I think most just feel that it is inappropriate and sends the wrong message to laymen and magicians. Poor comedians use swearing to get cheap laughs.
I think many here think this magician uses "exposure" as a "cheap" way to gather a crowd.

I am in the camp, that exposure, makes magic less magical. Not just because the lay person may know the secret. But as has been mentioned by someone that took the opposite position I did. The appearance of the importance of the secret, makes the entire thing seem more magical. The More we protect it, the more important it seems to lay people, the more magical everything is.

As Starsini said. It sends the wrong message to other magicians. I rather that every magician communicate to lay people that " The Smallest sleight I use, is to be kept totally secret, that sleight is THAT important." than have them communicate.." some things are important, others are crap, and can be given away... umm..guess what you're getting?" I just feel that the audience respects a magician more, if they feel that he or she values everything they keep secret, than someone that" tosses them the garbage.. because they won't know any better."

PS I was at Barnes and Noble doing some book shopping, and I strolled over to their Games section where they have the magic BooksComplete Course in magic by Wilson for $19.95, and then I saw a Book for $24 promising to divulge " The real secrets and routines the professionals use." When I looked over the book, a Lot of the stuff offered was in the Public domain. Some card stuff, but No DL, no Palming. No controls.. basically key Card principles and self workers. I was offended.

I just feel that a some magicians that sell to the " lay person" are basically giving away what we do not use, and claiming it is " the good stuff." and this is just gonna be taken the wrong way by our audience.

Laymen never believe what we tell them anyway...I'm sure everyone just thought he was lying.

I'm a little disappointed in everyone for acting like magic is only about secrets. It's the performance that is important, not the methods. I fool magicians all the time using Svengali decks. Thousands of magicians still perform the linking rings and tricks with Thumb Tips (yes I said it), and those are perhaps the two most "public" secrets of magic. Shoot Ogawa fried a room full of magicians with his ninja rings, and every single person in there knew the "secret."

If the performance is masterful, polished, and entertaining, everything else melts away. I have attended countless magic lectures where a professional magician stands up on stage and shows a group of magicians magic tricks, and all the magicians in the audience are blown away. How (you may ask) could magicians who know all the secrets already, be fooled by another magician? Is it because of brand new super underground techniques or special gimmicks that nobody knows about? NO! It's because it's not really about the magic. It's about the person up on stage, interacting with the audience.

If a symphony plays Beethoven 5 do you think the audience sits there saying "Well this is terrible, I already know how this piece goes." Do you think the musicians worry "Oh no, that other symphony orchestra played the same piece we are playing, our audience won't like it." No. They don't think that because it's silly. All that matters is you, connecting with your audience. A great performance is a great performance.

So what if Paul Nathan said a certain name while he did a certain move? Really, honestly, so what? I saw that routine in person, and I couldn't even follow it.

I would rather a professional magician purposely reveal a trick during a polished entertaining show, than have a trick be revealed through mistakes made by some amateur who just bought it 5 minutes ago and decided to post it on youtube for the world to see. The real exposure is bad magic. At least people have doubt that what Paul is saying is fully true, because the routine looks so good, and the effect afterwards makes them completely doubt the fact that any of those other parts were even real. It honestly looks like he made them up just for that trick.

Put your efforts into ranting about exposure through bad magic and leave Paul alone.

-Jordini

There is a Huge difference between an orchestra playing Symphony Number 5, and a magic effect. The Orchestra does not have to fool the audience to entertain, or keep the method of playing the basoon a secret.

Half of the attraction of a Magic effect is that the audience does NOT know how it is done. All the performance in the world will not amaze, if the audience KNOWS, how it is done. They can suspect... they can have a hint or a clue...but The lay person is NOT another magician.

To another magician yes, we are amazed by wonderful performance. Or by how well a fellow magician hides the sleights. Even when we KNOW the sleights , the way that it is performed amazes US.

The lay person cares about the fact that they do not KNOW. And if you take that from the lay person, they will not react as we do. You forget magicians are different from lay people. Here's something for you to try since you believe this. From now on BEFORE you do an effect.... tell your audience EXACTLY how you do it... Not after... BEFORE... and then do it exactly as you explained, then tell me you get the same reactions or better to what you got when they were totally ignorant as to method. I seriously doubt that they will say.." Wow I love the way you do that DL." And No... I will NOT define a DL. or call a TT ...I happen to really believe that secrecy is important. Not just to protect the secret from the audience but to protect the audience from the secret.

When you tell the audience how some magical effect is done, you rob them of the magic they wish to believe in deep down...even though they know there is a trick...they suspend their disbelief. When you TELL them you deny them the opportunity to suspend their disbelief.

As to leaving Paul Nathan alone,... maybe if he had not exposed people would.

First of all, it's bassoon. (Two s's)



What about the other half?



It's not like the magicians knew what was going on and appreciated the performance, they were genuinely fooled by something that they already knew the secret to.



Actually they hate not knowing. The love thinking that they do know, and then still being fooled, because they thought they knew what to look for and yet they didn't see it.



Of course they wouldn't compliment me on my slights. I could get a great reaction if I did what you said, so long as I performed it well. I know a magician who once (during a show) said "there is nothing up my sleeves, and I'm not using any sort of fake fingers, or anything like that." They he proceeded to do the trick using a TT, and he fooled everyone in the audience who thought they knew about TT's, including magicians.

With today's youtube magicians, they learn all the slights and moves and gimmicks, but there is no audience interaction. If they flub up, that's it, everyone sees it. There is so much more involved with live performance. It's not about "look how secretly I can shift this card from the 27th position to the 14th position. It's about knowing your audience. Fooling people has nothing to do with mechanics of tricks. There's a reason Houdini vanished an elephant and nobody in the audience was fooled, whereas David Copperfield can amaze america with two rubber bands. It's not what you do, it's how you do it.



Dai Vernon exposed part of the cups and balls routine in performance. So did Paul Gertner. In fact, so do many many magicians. Really all sucker tricks are exposure. What difference does it make if the explanation you give an audience is true of false? To the audience they both look the same.

Sometimes the secret to an effect is actually more entertaining than the trick itself. I saw the routine Paul did. It was boring, until he explained it at lightning fast speed. Then he did a trick that was actually exciting to watch.

I'm not condoning exposure, but I am saying that everyone is making too big a deal out of this whole thing.

The other half is based on the first half. take away that first half and no lay person will be amazed. It is magic...Not orchestra. No lay person cares How well a sleight is done if he is not amazed by something that appears magical. The moment they know how something is actually done... no matter how well it is done to them it ceases to be magic, and becomes Nimble fingers. may as well be amazed by someone doing Lightning fast needlepoint.

Thank you for telling me how to spell bassoon... that totally undid my argument. I bow to your greater wisdom since you can spell bassoon.

All I will say is, when there is "NO exposure." I know for a fact that nobody knows. And that is the way I like it. I paid money to learn how to perform an effect. Having someone else give the secrets away for free, because he is not imaginative enough to come up with another way to make HIS magic entertaining as far as I am concerned Cheapens what I paid to learn.

You can find what he did magical. That does not mean that it is worth the price he paid for it. Not as far as I am concerned. I saw the video... the whole thing sucked as far as I was concerned. the moment he explained an Ascanio spread and a DL I stopped watching... maybe that is why I missed how magical his presentation was.

B.D. Erland's 9 part (and counting) guide to dealing with exposure.

http://erlandish.blogspot.com/2007/03/lu......ure.html

And I know nobody asked. If you think that's bad, notice how they get progressively longer and longer as they go along. It's like verbal diarrhea, except it's typed.

So long as we're on a "spelling" kick - it's "sleight," not "slight." Sorry, didn't meam to get involved. HL

PS: And it's "mean," not "meam." Hah. hl

Erland Loved the essays by the way... Harry Thanks for the Speling lessonns (jk)

When you say that Shoot fried them, do you mean that he entertained them, or that he gave them the experience of witnessing the impossible? I suspect the former.

The rub, of course, is that we, as magicians, are supposed to to be doing the latter for our (lay) audiences; it is this that makes magic different from music, or comedy, or juggling, or dramatic theater.

Having someone in our profession exposing the methods we use - whether they be sleights or gimmicks - diminishes that experience for our audiences.

As to the argument that a competent performer can "fool" a lay audience by using the very sleight that they recently saw exposed, I'd simply reply with a statement that each of us encountered during our formative years in this art: if the audience suspects that you've done a move - whether you have or not - the magical experience is lost. I submit that exposure of methods causes the audience to suspect such things, even if they have no idea what method is used nor when it is used.

"But," you'll counter, "the audience always knows in the back of their mind that this isn't real magic; there's always a secret method and they know that."

True enough. And there's nothing we can do to remove that knowledge from the back of their mind. Our job, I believe, is to prevent that thought from coming to the front of their mind. Exposing methods undermines our ability to do that.

I don't think we're ever going to reach an accord on this issue. I'm against exposure on all levels and I think it's un-nessacery to enhance an effect. While I agree that it's not going to end magic forever, you end up ruining it for another spectator. I respect everyone who posted here as they have made well thought out arguments for whatever side they're on. That's why I said this isn't going to resolve any time soon. But' I'm glad we can keep a respectful dialogue here. Harry, that was a great post you made earlier. I love your work.
James

I can see a city banding together to stop crime. Crime is a problem and we see evidence of it every day.

But I don't understand the uproar by magicians over exposure when they do not have any evidence of it effecting magic at all. As long as there has been magic there have been people exposing magic. Magic is more popular today then ever and exposure is more easily accessible today then ever. So where is the problem?

I understand keeping the fantasy alive and telling our audiences that magic is special and that we keep it a secret. I understand that from a theatrical aspect. It creates the illusion of a mysterious secret magical world. That's cool. That makes sense to me. But to use the reasoning that exposure ruins the magic we perform because people now know how it works is a very week argument. There is very little if any proof of this and I am accepting grandpa pulling off his finger as an example of an over exposed effect.

, Jonathan



Oops! I forgot about "I got your nose" that doesn't fool many people anymore.

While I don't disagree with this notion, I do think that certain aspects of magic theory are able to tackle it. For instance, changing the timing of a move. I've got a buddy in Minnesota who does "Be Honest, What Is It?" so well that he fools people who know it from Ellusionist. We're not talking non-magicians here, we're talking people who've learned the routine, and afterwards said, "But I didn't see the t** c*****...?" At which point my buddy nods and says "Exactly." Osterlind and Banachek both have presentations that involve a specific technique in mentalism that also deal with the exposure of that technique. If we really seek to understand what it is that we're doing, we can still deal with these problems.

Does his version look magical to them? (You've already answered that in the negative.) If not, he's failed as a magician.

He may be very entertaining, but to that audience he's failed to be a magician. And there's nothing he can do about it. That's the problem.

The cards appeared under surprising conditions that the spectators weren't ready for. Sounds like magic to me.

These are guys who had an interest in learning magic, and they got fooled and surprised with the method even when they knew it. When you're that capable, then non-magicians, in my opinion, have no chance.

Whether the cards appeared under surprising conditions or not. The point that S2000 is making is, that for a spectator to experience magic, then The illusion must be unbroken from the very instant that the spectator believes the effect starts until the very moment that the spectator believes the effect ends. Ortiz's Critical Window.

The Audience can suspect that hanky-panky is going on. They can imagine they believe they know what that hanky-panky is, as long as they believe at the end that they have seen the impossible then they have experienced magic. Once they "KNOW" what that hanky-panky IS, even if what they "KNOW" is not so, even if they do not catch the magician doing it, then there is no magic. ALL they can say is that the magician was sneaky enough to slip it past them. The sleight was so sneaky the fingers barely moved. This is not magic, but just very good performance and great skill with sleights.

Juggling, acrobatics, dancing, all of these fall under this criteria....except magic is different. Why? Because part of magic is amazing the audience presenting them with something that to them appears Impossible.

Tamariz said that to design an illusion you need to eliminate all the non-magical explanations that a layperson might come up with, INCLUDING the method actually used, for the spectator to have experienced magic. It seems to me that to go and educate the audience on the method is basically saying the exact opposite. In other words times have changed so much that what Juan Tamariz had to say about magic no longer applies? Do you seriously think Juan Tamariz would say.." expose...No harm done. Times are different now." I do not think so.

Performing for magicians is not the same as performing for laypeople. I think that the lay person experiences magic if all he can say is he " thinks " he may know how it was done...but is not certain. We are magicians, if we KNOW how it was done, we have not experienced magic, just very good performance of sleights. As I said... " superfast kneedlepoint."

While I do not know anyway to ever " lose the knowledge" I have to re-experience magic as a lay person. I do know that the one thing that makes up for that loss, is my ability to help the lay person experience the magical. In my opinion these forms of blatant exposure endanger that in two ways.

First indirectly. By educating my audience in things that take place on the sneak, it breaks that illusion that " no move was performed" from beginning to end. I can be as sneaky as I wish, and if all they can say is.." I did not see you do the move." then no magic was performed. Just really fast kneedle-point.

Secondly and worse. When you educate the audience, you rob them of that magical moment, yet they have nothing to replace it with. They have the worst of both worlds. the KNOW enough to not be able to experience the magic...and yet do NOT know enough...to help others experience it through performance. In effect they have been robbed. Yes, Paul Nathan is a thief.

I just feel that, while it is important that we protect the secrets from the audience...for obvious reasons. And that while magic may or may not suffer if the secrets are not protected from the audience, we must also protect the audience from the secrets. When we deliberately divulge those secrets, we are forcing these secrets into the lay person's face. Secrets they more than likely do not even wish to know. And the justification offered...it sets up a better response to the next effect.... hmmm... I think there are other ways to do so.

There ARE some that can do this and make it magical. Silk to egg was offered as an example. And I agree, when I first saw it I found the ultimate reveal of the real egg, most magical. And there are sucker gags that bring the spec in. Dai Vernon, is a perfect example. But Paul Nathan is not Dai Vernon, heck if we are going to be honest Paul Nathan is not even Penn and Teller.

In my opinion... Paul Nathan 's "work" here does not reach that level, he gave away too much, for something which in my opinion did not merit the loss. I have done "Macs Aces", and I believe the effect stands well enough alone, and does not need exposure of "Reset" to make it magical. If Nathan feels he NEEDS to expose "Reset" to make it so...I believe that says more about Nathan's ability as a performer, than of "Mac Aces" ability to astonish...when properly performed.

Sounds like surprise to me. Cards appearing under impossible conditions sounds like magic to me.


"Have no chance" to do what? Catch you being sneaky? If it's magic, there's not supposed to be anything to catch. Figure out your method? If it's magic, there is no (natural) method to figure out: magic is the method.

For the record, it's weak... not week. ;-)

This has been an interesting thread. IMHO, some people are still missing the point. To me, this is all about ruining the next magician's show because you exposed a multiple lift or an Ascanio Spread or a pinky break, etc. for your own personal gratification. I honestly can't believe that some are still trying to defend what Paul Nathan is doing. It's just bad magic.

Robert

The only point I was trying to make was that even if they know the method, you can still get them to the extent that they will not believe the method was possible. Tyler was performing under more challenging conditions than a regular magician dealing with an audience who's had method exposed to them. These were guys who learned the method to the routine he'd done and yet they still didn't see it. If he'd wanted to, he could have denied ever using a TC, and they'd be in exactly the same position as any regular audience who has no idea how the magic was done.