|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
Tina I Regular user Oslo/ Norway 194 Posts 
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-11 23:29, kammagic wrote: Good one! It can't be said any better than that! |
|||||||||
|
Alewishus Inner circle parts unknown 1227 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-12 00:57, Tina I wrote: Think harder. A.
Sack subs, ok Ross?
We miss you asper. |
|||||||||
|
Alewishus Inner circle parts unknown 1227 Posts
|
And yes, I'm still in love, but now we seem to have to work at it, sigh!
A.
Sack subs, ok Ross?
We miss you asper. |
|||||||||
|
Alewishus Inner circle parts unknown 1227 Posts
|
I guess it's just me working at it.
A.
Sack subs, ok Ross?
We miss you asper. |
|||||||||
kammagic Inner circle 1304 Posts
|
All the exposure I have ever seen is always done really badly. So its quite easy to fool someone by doing the same effect well. Exposing gimmicks isn't really a big deal because when used properly they are seldom seen. The TT is one of the most overly exposed props in magic. Has it stopped magicians from using them effectively ? ..No. Exposure has been around as long as magic has been around and I have seen no signs of magic suffering from exposure. Even in these days of instant information on the internet. Just throwing a bunch of moves and jargon at an audience of layman who didn't come their with studying magic on their mind will teach them nothing. Even magicians who have been intensely studying magic for a year or two haven't completely got an understanding of it and can still be fooled by an accomplished pro. So to think a bunch of bad 14 year old magicians on Youtube or a pro throwing out a bunch of moves and jargon at people is going to hurt magic its ridiculous. What would have to happen for it to effect magic is if EVERYONE some how became magicians. But that is not going to happen. Because magic is hard and it takes a lot of patients which people have less and less of in todays world. So you could have a 24 hour magic exposure channel on cable and all that would happen is people interested in magic would watch and start a new hobby and those just interested in how tricks work wouldn't have the patients to learn any of the effects and would soon forget them. Has exposure ever been a problem in the past? ...No. Could it be in the future? ...highly doubtful.
, Jonathan |
|||||||||
|
clarissa35f Veteran user 363 Posts
|
If this has been said I apologize, I read through 3 pages of Posts, I will go back and read the rest after I put this up.
Will 99 % of the people that saw that performance remember how any of the sleights were done? No. Will they be on the lookout next time? More than likely not. Is it exposure? yes. Is it harmful in the short run? Yes. Is it harmful in the long run? Yes. Let me explain my last point. If we do not stand and say " ALL exposure is wrong" then basically we are saying that it is up to each and every performer to decide what exposure is wrong, and what exposure is ok... then you get different opinions as we have here. Seems to me to be easier just to say." never expose." Nice hard and fast rule. last time I checked both IBM, and SAM have this as a rule... " No exposure." I wonder why? Secondly, as time passes more and more magicians will use exposure as a means to ' set up the next trick" that means that more and more people will see the same moves explained over and over again. Some say that 99 % of the people that saw Nathan perform would not be able to understand those moves the next day. But what happens after repeated showings? it IS on the net. Also... as more and more magicians think it is Ok, to expose... to the extent of giving away the fact that sometimes we do DL's and False Displays some of this material WILL be absorbed by the lay person. If we do not take a stand and say " No exposure at all." then we put it on the individual performer to decide for him or herself whether this particular exposure is ok or not. Maybe what Nathan exposed was a trick that others love to use, and get great reactions from? And yes, while they may not be able to say.." That is an ascanio spread.." The next time they see one, they will think.." hmm there are more than 4 cards." or " That's a vernon Push off DL" maybe too much for them to remember but when they see it they will think" More than one card ." Here is the real danger. We are a community, and the actions of one, affect the rest. A simple rule." No exposure." helps everyone, from Hobbyists like me, to semi-pro's to experts in the community. But opening up the possibility of exposure, and putting it on the performer to decide for himself whether that exposure is " ok" or not. Really affects the magicians at the bottom of the totem pole disproportionately. Maybe not all of us have the skill to just laugh off Mr Nathan's exposure. I need to suffer, because Mr Nathan needs to set up his future trick, and the only way HE can come up with is to give away my bread and butter trick, with half of my sleights? With one hard and fast rule, all of us benefit. From lowly me, to Lance Burton, and David Copperfield. When you say.." well, it's a matter of opinion, we all need to decide for ourselves what is ok to expose, and what is not." it becomes a matter of opinion... and while the effect YOU expose to supposedly set up your next effect may not affect you, it may affect me. And what if someone else to set up His or her next effect decides to expose what YOU personally use? What then? I just think once on the slippery slope, where we stop.. no one knows... and in the long run, " Expose it, if you do not think it is really exposure." is the wrong message. Maybe the best are not affected, but as more and more do it... I might be. And I really really love Magic. As a reminder, I forget who said it but.." The reason we keep secrets is not to protect the secret from the Audience, but to protect the Audience from the secret." More often than not, the explanation is pretty simple in and of itself. It takes a long time to make the method invisible, but the audience will not see it that way. When they learn how simple...they may feel upset and annoyed, made a fool of... Isn't it better to protect the audience from the secret?
“Amateurs practice until they get it right.
Professionals practice until they can’t get it wrong.” <Anonymous> "There is no such thing as magic, there is no other way that could have been done" <Whit Haydn> |
|||||||||
Robert M Inner circle 2482 Posts
|
That pretty much sums it up. This is the only intelligent answer - no exposure.
Robert |
|||||||||
ringmaster Inner circle Memphis, Down in Dixie 1974 Posts
|
That was not exposure, it was educating the audience. He didn't expose anything, instead he taught them that what he did involved a hell of a lot of skill. In Japan magicians compete on television, performing difficult slights, like the muscle pass, and are graded on skill technique and presentation like dancers and athletes. The japanese respect magicians as skilled entertainers, there are numerous magic bars in every city where layman pay every night to watch good magic. People like what they know. Here if you introduce your self as a magician, most likely you'll hear"it a shame we didn't bring the children"or if they like you, they might tell you you are good and politely ask what you do for a living.
Last year I saw Bill Malone do a routine where he quietly named every slight as he perform it. He want be able to do card tricks for THOSE folks again. Not only that, he pronounced them correctly. Unless he belongs to a magic club there's not much we can do about it though.
One of the last living 10-in-one performers. I wanted to be in show business the worst way, and that was it.
|
|||||||||
|
clarissa35f Veteran user 363 Posts
|
Does it happen? yes. Should it happen? I don't think so. I think what we need to ask is.. is it a good idea for magic in general to say " hey it's perfectly fine to give away secrets if people like you."
While Bill Malone may use this as a way of being liked, and being asked to perform at other venues, does not mean I have to like it, or him for doing so. I would like to thank you for bringing thios to my attention. if I ever felt like buying anything from Bill Malone, Now I know better. I'll just download a torrent file with his Material, after all, how can he mind? he's giving his sleights away for free right? Another aspect that I don't see anyone commented on. Along with the idea that "No Exposure is good for magic " comes the idea that it is not ethical as a magician to try and learn magic from other than the source. Yes, Youtube Video tutorials and Bit torrent files are bad. But my understanding of it is because they hurt the originator. Now many magicians are saying that " Exposure does not hurt magic." I have been very loud on the front of never using Youtube tutorials, and torrent files because they are bad for magic in general, and the originator in particular. But if it is true that " Exposure is not bad for magic." then why would I pay Richard Sanders $30 when I can download a torrent file for free? Why is it ok for Nathan to expose magic secrets. But I need to buy my magic from legitimate sources? I mean if it does not hurt Paul Harris to have Nathan expose reset on the trade show, then why do I need to pay Paul Harris to learn reset when I can download it free? I do not feel Paul Harris would like everyone coming here and saying "Expose away, No harm done... no one is getting hurt...tell everyone how Reset is done." In my mind Exposure is Exposure...whether it is Nathan and his trade show, or youtube kids with their tutorials. I believe in supporting the people that create the effects I want to use by putting cash in their pocket. But...hey, suddenly it seems I can download a torrent file for free... it keeps $30 in my pocket, and does not hurt magic at all. or...have I misunderstood?
“Amateurs practice until they get it right.
Professionals practice until they can’t get it wrong.” <Anonymous> "There is no such thing as magic, there is no other way that could have been done" <Whit Haydn> |
|||||||||
|
LeConte Special user Bay area 830 Posts
|
Does it expose secrets or hurt magic to buy DVD's, copy them, and then sell them to others for way below market value?
No matter if you are presenting, buying or selling magical secrets, there are many ethical choices that you must make. I hope we all are making the correct choices.....
Drive Carefully
|
|||||||||
|
clarissa35f Veteran user 363 Posts
|
LeConte, My previous Post toward the end was pretty sarcastic. I think that making copies and selling them way below market value hurts magic, and hurts the originator of the effect you bought. it is also Illegal, and Unethical.
You bought the right to own, and use the material, you did not buy the right to copy, and sell the material, unless you are sending the originator of the material a percentage of the profits as agreed upon by contract? I thought not 
“Amateurs practice until they get it right.
Professionals practice until they can’t get it wrong.” <Anonymous> "There is no such thing as magic, there is no other way that could have been done" <Whit Haydn> |
|||||||||
|
kammagic Inner circle 1304 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-12 21:05, clarissa35f wrote: I believe you shouldn't expose magic but I also believe the little bit that seeps out and does get exposed does not hurt magic. Can anyone really name a trick that has been hurt by exposure other then grampa removing his finger. I honestly can't think of one. |
|||||||||
|
clarissa35f Veteran user 363 Posts
|
There is a difference between a Little bit seeping out... as can happen when someone performs something when they are not really prepared for it. And deliberately letting the cat out of the bag.
One is regrettable, and while so, all that can be done is, to tell the person," Listen you need to practice harder so that the onlooker does not catch on..." The other is deliberate exposure. Just curious. On the one hand we tell the amature hobbyist " practice, practice, practice, so that you do not give away our secrets." And then when a professional magician actually stops to educate an audience in the very sleights that the amature is trying hard as hell to NOT get caught... because we all say.." Don't let the spec find out how it's done from lack of practice." All we say is.." oh well, no harm was REALLY done... besides he had a good reason...it helped set up his next effect." Am I the only one that sees something not exactly kosher in this? We work hard to make these sleights undetectable... but it's ok for Nathan to actually come out and TEACH the very sleights we are working at making invisible? if a Hobbyist flashes a DL, he doesn't hear the end of it, But Nathan comes out and says." I really turned over 2 cards as one..isn't that cool?" and we say " no worries, they won't remember anyway." What is Ironic is that I may have this called as exposure. where I define what a DL is, on a Public Forum, where my audience is a bunch of magicians and maybe Lay people interested in magic. But Nathan actually teaches his audience, and that is " ok..No harm done"... isn't this a bit hypocritical? Another thing. A lot of the Nathan apologists are saying.." His effect is negligeable, 99 % of people will not remember, it won't really affect us." How do you know for sure? I mean if there is " No Exposure" then I KNOW that no spec will know the sleights, because there is " No exposure." if there is.." Well, if you feel you need to expose, just make sure the next effect is a KILLER. And as long as only the newbs are affected and I am not...No skin off my nose." Well, maybe there is no affect to me personally, but I would never know for sure would I? That is why " No exposure" works. It works for everyone, and Not just those of us that are skilled enough to " swap in other methods if the one we are using gets blown." Some of us are just starting, and those sleights Nathan gave away, we are still working at making invisible?? And for what? So that magicians like Nathan think that it is perfectly fine to blow my best tricks, and effects to make HIS Mac's Aces look better? Sorry, this makes very little sense.
“Amateurs practice until they get it right.
Professionals practice until they can’t get it wrong.” <Anonymous> "There is no such thing as magic, there is no other way that could have been done" <Whit Haydn> |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
What about effects like Silk-to-Egg where the hollow, plastic egg is frequently exposed, as a sucker effect preparatory to changing the silk to a real egg? Should that exposure be verboten as well?
If so, someone should let Whit Haydn (amongst others) know. |
|||||||||
|
clarissa35f Veteran user 363 Posts
|
There is a difference between a Hollowed out egg. That is used as a sucker gag, and 7 actual working sleights. I have to say the ONLY time I have seen silk to egg, was as a sucker gag to set up the real egg finale.
But to expose Ascanio, double lifts, double turnovers, etc... which were never intended as sucker gags, and to do it slow enough for people to understand? He claims that he did it to " dazzle..and confuse." Ok, I was neither dazzled nor confused, and I have only been serious about performing magic for 5 or 6 years. People watching know what an Ascanio spread looks like. And while they may not know what it is called, the next time they see anyone including me perform one, they will think " hmm she has more than 4 cards there." same with the DL. I doubt you can compare showing 1 hollowed out egg. With blowing half a dozen sleights. Another thing, although when you " expose" the hollowed out egg, as explanation to a lay audience the moment they see the real egg at the end, they will believe that the " exposure" was total BS since the real egg at the end can only be explained by a lay audience with the idea that.." well, that explanation he gave was just BS." There is nothing like that here. He explains Reset. But he does not do anything similar to allay audience suspicion that the sleights he gave away were anything BUT real sleights. There is a huge difference in my book.
“Amateurs practice until they get it right.
Professionals practice until they can’t get it wrong.” <Anonymous> "There is no such thing as magic, there is no other way that could have been done" <Whit Haydn> |
|||||||||
|
kammagic Inner circle 1304 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-13 19:09, clarissa35f wrote: How has exposure effected the magic we see performed today. Magicians are still effectively using Stripper decks Svengali decks and TT's. Paul Nathan claims to have been doing this effect for 12 years. Are there any magicians in that area unable to perform Reset? Has Paul noticed his own performance of Reset suffering from his own exposure? Can you name one effect that magicians have stopped doing because it has been over exposed? I still believe you shouldn't expose magic but not because it hurts the ability to perform these effects. I think you should not expose magic because it keeps the dream alive in the mind of the spectators. When they see us being adamant about keeping our secrets it makes magic more mysterious. It makes it special. The secret itself is not the important part. The important part is that we keep it. This gives the magic we do more importance. Now is Paul lessening the importance of magic by openly giving away secrets? I don't really think so. He gives away an effect that he proposes to the audience is not real magic. So the audience thinking will be this trick isn't important so these moves he is showing us are not important as well. Then he shows a trick he proposes to be real magic and he keeps the secret. Thus still making magic Mysterious and special. I think he did sort of a hacky performance of Reset on purpose. This allows any competent magician to do a good performance and still fool their audience. Its quite easy to change the speed and tempo and presentation and fool the audience into thinking it is a completely different effect. This is how I see this whole Paul Nathan thing. Its a shame really that so many people were so hard on him. , Jonathan |
|||||||||
|
clarissa35f Veteran user 363 Posts
|
While what you say makes sense. And while I agree, that it is important to protect the secret from the audience. It is as you said, also important to protect the audience from the secrets.
My main complaint has been that if it becomes acceptable for Magicians like Penn and Teller, or Paul Nathan to stop protecting the audience from the secrets and yes... the secrets from the spectator, where does it stop? How do we react when everyone and his magician second cousin decides to Give away secrets? Just say..' have fun, no harm done?" Lastly. If this becomes vogue, then what of the magicians that choose to keep their sleights secret? When they say." I took an oath, sorry I can't tell you" and the audience says..' I don't get it... Penn and Teller took an oath, Paul Nathan took an oath...fact is..all these modern magicians that took oaths tell their audience how they do it... why can't you?" I agree I carry it to an extreme, but I just feel it's one thing to acknowledge that something is happening and say." what can you do?" it's another to say.." You go Boys give those secrets away, it only makes the effects you keep secret more magical!!!" I just do not agree that this message is a good thing. I will let this go at that. And respectfully agree to disagree.
“Amateurs practice until they get it right.
Professionals practice until they can’t get it wrong.” <Anonymous> "There is no such thing as magic, there is no other way that could have been done" <Whit Haydn> |
|||||||||
|
jfquackenbush Special user Out here on the desert 607 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-10 03:16, Tina I wrote: This resonates a lot with me. I can watch The Professor do his AC on Revelations Vol 1 I think it is over and over again, and even though he's talking and pointing out his p**s as he does it, and he's getting on in the video and his hands aren't as steady as they once were, I still love seeing it, and he still fools me even though I know exactly what he's doing and when he's doing it, and even can see what he's doing some of the time. That's deception as an art, and he's not even doing a full performance of it, just talking through how he used to do it as part of his USO performance. So as much as I like the fact that we magicians put up high walls around our secrets, I don't think it's a disaster for a good magician for someone appreciative to know what they're doing. To take another example, I love Ricky Jay's Alaskan Poker Routine that's made the rounds on youtube. even though I'm pretty sure I know what he's doing at every point in his handling, I still can't catch him on it. Which is to say, as much as I like the high walls built around our secrets, and exposing the DL is particularly egregious, I don't think knowing sleights really is going to hurt a real sleight of hand artist. if anything, I think we magicians are probably more appreciative of a good performance than a lay audience as a result of our secret knowledge.
Mr. Quackenbush believes that there is no such thing as a good magic trick.
|
|||||||||
|
molsen Special user Copenhagen 552 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-14 04:07, jfquackenbush wrote: If we as magicians watch another magician perform, and our thought is "Wow he did that move well!", then we may have lost exactly what the spectators stand to loose with exposure; the magic feeling of "Wow that's impossible!" I believe this is what other posters meant with "protecting the spectators from the secret" as opposed to the other way around. I second that train of thought. Although people may not remember the sleights they have been shown, by name or otherwise, they DO remember that it appeared to be a relatively simple sleight. It is bound to take their experience of the magic down a notch, or at the very least make the suspension of disbelief harder for them. Exposing how Reset is done will probably not enable the spectator to perform or explain it to others. However, it will certainly change the feeling they walk away with after watching Reset, or any slightly similar effect, performed next time. Believing otherwise is, in my personal opinion, naive. Thus, my grief with exposure is not just giving away the secret, it is stealing the sense of wonder from the spectator. Worrying only about the secret of the sleight is focusing on the mechanics of the performance. From the many threads on presentation etc. I don't think many here focus only on the technique when performing. Why do so when discussing exposure? Michael |
|||||||||
|
Tina I Regular user Oslo/ Norway 194 Posts
|
Quote:
If we as magicians watch another magician perform, and our thought is "Wow he did that move well!", then we may have lost exactly what the spectators stand to loose with exposure; the magic feeling of "Wow that's impossible!" There is a difference between magicians and lay people though: We have a much 'broader' interest when watching another magician. We may have a genuine interest in finding out the secret but we also tend to notice all the other things that goes into a routine: Timing, patter, misdirection etc etc etc. It's very hard to get that bewildering feeling of pure wonder because we simply know too much. Even without knowing the 'secret' we will to some extent over analyze everything. We know that the secret don't make the trick. And that's probably the best kept secret of all times. Laypeople believe a secret is the key to any trick. And since Penn and Teller is a common example: Their wonderful act "P&T explain slight of hand" is a perfect example. They show all basic principles, still it's difficult to follow. Even when Teller does it all in exposed view it's still appearing magical. Do any one in their audience get up and leave or suddenly get bored stiff by the rest of the show? No. Even if they know the secret to 98% of all magic tricks they are completely unable to see when the secret is applied. And the 'secret' of palming is not really a secret at all. How many times during school don't a kid hide something, like a secret note, in his hand? Or how many times during an ordinary life don't a person steal and ditch something to hide it from someone else? It's not enough to know a secret, you have to know when the secret is in action. And seeing one single effect does not enable anyone to see through every other effect using the exposed method. Most likely they would not even be able to spot the exactly same effect done by a different magician... |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Blatant exposure by Paul Nathan - Tradeshow magician » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: May 12, 2008 04:57 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 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 < 
|