Umm,I said no offense cause I meant no offense (simply stating a fact- that's not a professional pic.), but thanks for the advice.

The performers you mentioned do not contradict my point, and some even prove it.

Thanks for the reply

It's safe to say any photo could be ridiculed; good, bad or indifferent.

For what its worth, most of the criticism I offer DOES come as a result of being asked - just not always by the person at whom the criticism is directed. But that's another story.

For those who say this site hurts magic, I disagree. How often does the world of magic change because of praise? Seldom, if ever. By calling attention to these photos specifically, and more importantly, the issues with them, the site may just encourage someone to rethink (or just THINK about) the image they are projecting and how that reflects on both them and magic.

Simply because a person gets hired to perform does not mean their image supports a view of magic as an art. People are comfortable with cliches. Cliches - sadly - sell.(Likewise, even tastefully done pictures may fail as marketing tools. So, go figure.)

I think most of the comments are fine. There is one suggesting the magician was arrested after it being taken. That is libel and an unfair comment. Vigorous epithet, however, is protected speech and his other comments fall under that category.

Finally, I would think satire would allow use of these images to fall under the 'fair use' clause. I hope so. This site is a mirror into which each of us should gaze.

Now, where did I put that playing card tie. The boys at the kiwanis club banquet think it makes me look 'magical.'

I find this to be the go-to statement of every "artist". It appears to be an effective way to excuse a lack of fullfilment.

Truth is, Art sells, self-indulgment doesn't.

And I have yet to hear of any "cliche" professional who became an "artist" after being criticized by an unwanted and unknown public source. On the day this occurs, I will proactively support this kind of activity.

However, if being an artist mean being a paranoid, insecure performer, afraid to see anyone not doing magic in the style he has commited himself to- and fighting against it- as a way to assure himself that what he is doing is right (rationalizing his actions as necessary for "improving the art"), I'd rather not see that day happen.

1

Not sure what you meant by that, but in case I was unclear:

Cliche does sell. Not in a superstar way, but just look at the number of hack acts (hack movies, hack tv shows) that churn out an existence.

True art, true originality that is RELEVANT and not simply novel, will often outshine and out succeed. (There are always mitigatibg factors.).

But I do believe hackneyed magic photos of acts consisting of hackneyed magic tricks will continue to get booked and will continue to satisfy their audiences - in the same way taco bell satisfies its.

So there is no bitterness on my part, only the recognition that in spite of how I may personally feels these photos are bad for the image of magic, for some, they have not negatively impacted their sales. Having said that, I still think a better photo would result in even more shows at higher fees - but more importantly, I higher degree of respect from the client.

But that is a theory yet to be tested.

I like the cape!

The thing is we ALL have had BAD Photos at one time or another.
Yes, ALL of us!

But I think the argument here is whether or not it is ethical to exploit them without consent.

Satire and critical commentary are both "fair use" exceptions to copyright. When we put something before the public, we are inviting criticism.

We may be inviting criticism by performing in public. But if we say allow/encourage it to occur within the community, than we can't really argue against magicians publically speculating on and exposing the methods we use as well, can we?
(If you do believe this to be fine I'll start a blog right now)

After all, isn't the magician's image part of the illusion?

1

... Once again I'd like to point out that - don't find the majority of the pictures in the blog to be of my liking, in the same way I think most current magic tricks make no sense.

I don;t see the logic in your statement. Every art in the world has a history of criticism both within and without its cloistered walls. Why should magic be any different?

If a magician does a crappy act, then it is reasonable for other magicians to proclaim he or she did a crappy act. If a magician appears onstage in an ill fitting costume, it is fitting for other magicians to comment on the ill fitting costume. If a magician claimed he won thousands of awards and didn't, it would be fitting for other magicians to comment on his misrepresentation. Why should promo pictures be excluded from this process?

They shouldn't. As usual truthteller is right on the money.

I don't necessarily think it should be. Yet I am pointing out the possible contradiction that occurs when magicians argue against exposure and treat it as betrayal of some sort. If there are no exceptions to magic, if any kind of criticism is fair, then in your opinion this type of complaint would also be quite illogical I would suppose.

Or are we simply deciding it's ok to attack something because we personally don't like it?

In fact, I guess I can go ahead and start "BadMagicTechnique.blogspot.com" now. I'll start by criticizing Jay Sankey's overuse of the same specific techniques in different tricks, The Akwardness of the JW grip, and the common misuse of Loops. I'll be using youtube, magicvideodepot, and clips posted on the Café as examples.

1

(I won't actually start such a weblog. As I stated in my original contribution to the thread, the motives for doing such a thing is what I personally find questionable)

The difference is the photo is on display for everyone to see. The secret isn't. You can criticize a trick without ever exposing the secret. You can criticize an act without ever exposing a secret. You can criticize a photo without ever exposing a secret.

Commenting that a picture of a fat person is a picture of a fat person seems quite different to me from telling people how a trick is done.

As to your blog idea - if it were accessible only to magicians, I think it would be a great idea. Nothing wrong with criticizing secret techniques as long as that criticism stays in the circle. (I do not consider public forums like this a closed circle, just fyi).

The difference is, we aren't talking about something magicians are trying to keep hidden. We are talking about something specifically designed and intended to be put into the audiences face - a promo pic.

These aren't private photos intended to be shared among friends and collegues, these are intentional imagery designed to represent the magician and the art.

These aren't secrets - they are the exact opposite.

They are fair game.

I cannot see a connection between the two.

I´m sorry but I do believe this to be the definition of rationalization. You are now deciding that you can choose which part of your presentation can be criticized and which can´t. I fail to see a clear reasoning behind it other than "that would hurt MY performance"

It's as if one of the magicians featured on the site said "This picture was meant for audiences who have no idea that I am doing a cliche performance, if you know it is, criticize it within the circle of people who also know"

Again, I have no real stance in this debate so I don't wanna keep the argument going. If there's anything I wanted to point out was that, while many felt there to be a righteous cause behind the blog and it's comments, I simply didn´t. I couldn´t.

Thanks for the reply.
1

I do not understand what you are saying.

you can criticize any part of any person's performance - and you can do that without exposing a secret.

are you suggesting that the fact some of these performers are hack is a secret and that revealing that to the marketplace would be wrong?

all a buyer need do is watch more than one magician to know who is hack.

The difference is we are criticizing the seen, while you are suggesting we criticize the unseen. You can watch 15 performers all present Kevin James's Bowling Ball production and know that it is hack without ever once figuring out the secret. You can hear 15 magicians all use the same script and know that it is hack, without ever knowing how the trick it accompanies is done.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing someone's technique, effect construction, or any other secret thing and that criticism can be read by anyone - you just don't have to explain secrets to do it.
i.e. Criss Angel's illusions in believe fail to be deceptive because the amount of smoke employed effectively allows for any sort of happening to occur under cover of the clouds. See - I just criticized his secret yet the secret lives!

Check out the e mail I just got in my inbox!

LOL what a total idiot:


GOOD DAY MR LECLERC AKA Elton Shufter:

Did you really think you could remain anonymous?

Let me be brief. You mocked my client on your blog. Bad idea. My client does not like being jerked around.

Personally, I find this whole magic stuff utterly ridiculous but it appears it is important to my client and he pays well...

What is it that I do you ask? Let's just say that I am a cyber investigator and I am very good at it... For example, after he hired me, it took me less than a couple of hours to find out that you are behind Elton Shufter.

It took me less than five days to "investigate" your home computer. Downloaded pictures, messages sent to others, that sort of things. How can I do that you ask? Just like magicians, I have secrets. People are morons when it comes to computers. they think firewalls are effective. They store everything on them, including stuff like "personal" videos if you get my drift... As I say, real morons...

I do this often enough to know that you must think this is a joke or a bluff or something like that. Most of my targets do at first. Big mistake.

My client paid me to do two things : Discover who is behind the blog and expose them. Fortunately for you, he did not specify how nasty I should be.

At this point, you have two choices:

1) You reveal yourself in the blog, apologize and take down all the pictures. This is by far your preferred option. You don't believe me? I don't care. I get paid either way but that option saves me some work. If you choose this one, you won't even know that I ever existed.

2) Do nothing and let me do the exposure on my terms. 90% of the time, my targets choose this option putting their pride ahead of their rationality thinking they can handle whatever I throw at them. 100% of them regret their choice as they frantically try to protect their files.

Valj Klokt!

P.S. My client has a message for you : Welcome to the real world!

Joke

Lol, sounds like a real "pro". I bet it's someone whose picture is up there pretending to be a "cyber investigator". Lol the whole thing sounds fake.
AHAHAh gold. I got similar e-mails from a few people.

What a sad, dysfunctional little group we are. Someone has no problem foisting pictures of himself looking like an *** upon the paying public, but as soon as someone expresses their opinion on said *** photo, they turn into giant, crying babies.

To those freaking out about this: You're in a job that screams 'look at me.' How can you be upset when people do what you are begging them to do? Do you really expect everyone who sees you or your work to like it? Are you really that arrogant, deluded, or just naïve?

A friend of mine said, 'one's success in magic is in direct proportion to their ability to overcome that which led them to want to get into magic in the first place.'

The reactions to this blog prove that clearly.

Cry babies.

You willingly put yourself in the public eye. Sack up and deal with it.