So wait, now Mac is being called an exposer? Tony claimed that was not his intent. I am confused.

While we are at it why don't we openly condemn those who sell tricks and books after the show? Obviously this is bad behavior right, or is it that they pay for it that makes it "ethical"? What nonsense. The only reason anyone sells stuff like that after the show is to "make more cash". Heck most of those systems use that AS A SALES PITCH! Is THAT ethical?

Mac is one of the best things to happen to magic in a long time, and people want to condemn him? How about the ADVERTISERS paid for him to show people the secrets? Now someone was paid for that secret and that "ethical" obligation was out of the way?

Everyone wants to sit so high and mighty but if you boiled it all down to gravey, there wouldn't be enough to cover a chicken fried steak.

Danny, I think the general consensus was that neither Mac nor Gary should have been censured for the teach a trick segment, but that if censures WERE to be handed out, it's hypocritical to nail the producer, then turn around and hire the magician who did the acutal exposing.

It's like arresting the pimp, but not the working girl; THEN, hiring the working girl to............work.

I used to be very sensitive to Exposure. Not so much these days. But back then watching Mac Kings teach in section didn't bother me one bit.

Thanks for all the feedback guys. We'll be recording tonight with Tom Cutts & Michael Ammar and this will obviously be one of the topics under discussion. If you have any last minute questions or comments, post them here or email me at MagicNewswire.com

We wrap up the discussion on exposure by talking to Tom Cutts and Michael Ammar. The interview went online yesterday. Enjoy!

I am not sure where I stand on this because as of yet it has not affected my performance. Sure I've had people say "I know how you do that" But they usually don't say "how" after or if they do they come up with some explanation that is so far off base it actually helps.
Think of this. So many people seem to know what a French drop is yet are stilled fooled by it if executed well enough. Many people as kids may have had an interest in magic from TV and bought their first magic book in a school book sale, or the Cub Scout magic book. (Like I did)
And yet, are STILL fooled by some of those basic tricks. One of the very first tricks I learned from a kids magic book was Ashes on Arm, and since then I have been reluctant to employ it as I felt it was too "simple" and yet, Docc Hilford uses that method in many of his effects and to a great success.
That all being said, I didn't approve of the masked magician's exposure (and even more the "snide" narrator who made you feel like he was a superior person for exposing this "fraud" like we were claiming true abilities and bilking people. They were treating us like psychic con men or faith healers taking people for millions not as entertainers giving joy and fun for people.
I think the strength of a strong TV magic show should be enough to spark an interest in magic for a budding performer without showing a whole TV audience how to do a trick. But am I exposing magic if after several heart felt pleas I teach a few children a simple card force and presentation to boost their interest then start telling them what sources are good to research if they are interested?
I remember when even entering a magic shop was all but verboten unless you were invited or showed a true interest. Now anyone can enter a shop (or shop online) for secrets. And yet magic shops across the country falter with lack of clientele.
People are not that interested it seems, or magic alone isn't enough to sustain a shop in the real world. Which baffles me, as I'd rather watch a new product demonstrated in front of me and be able to ask questions rather then see a video which may or may not show it in it's best light. Not to mention why spend $20 plus %7 P&H and wait a few days when I can spend $20 and get it right away.

The actual definition of hypocrisy is a feigning to be what one is not or feigning a belief in something which one does not actually believe in.
Sooooo if the SAM in it's bylaws is against PUBLIC exposure; how is expelling a producer who produces a show that includes PUBLIC exposure of magic techniques hypocrisy?
I'll tell you how: It's not.
Irony, hypocrisy and their derivatives seem to be the most frequently, incorrectly used words.
The SAM can still firmly believe that public exposure of magic is wrong and violates the tenets of the organization yet still recognize and/or acknowledge the talent,magic skill or positive contributions of someone who has engaged in exposure without being hypocritical. Recognizing positive acts while condemning negative acts by the same person is not hypocrisy.

Yes Carlo, yet folks still get upset when a certain Austrian orator and best selling author who acquired a position of power in early twentieth century Germany is admired for his speaking and leadership skills.

People do all sorts of things for what they (at least say they) believe are good reasons that none-the-less have far reaching negative effects on others - yet are held blameless by most others and history for their good intentions. The road to he** and all that...

Have you looked at the definition of the word "apology" lately?

Okay now give me ten bucks or we'll have to worry that this was exposure.

The thing that I always think of when people discuss exposure is books. In my opinion, published materials are exposure. The fun thing about this is that the court systems seem to agree.

Many people have tried to sue the Masked Magician for exposing effects and harming magicians, but the courts rule time and time again that because magicians don't do anything to protect their secrets, and the fact that anyone with a twenty spot can buy a magic book, that magic tricks are not protected by copyright or intellectual property laws.

King county library has over 250 magic books to lend is that exposure ? now that it seems all magicians sell there dvd's for $30. What's left to hide ??

Guarding an empty safe.

Let's start with a reminder that the IBM and SAM are fine social clubs for magic fans and often supportive of creative folks as they learn the basics.



Not at all - that's why so much of the good stuff these days is only leaked into print by third parties and without permission. It's almost funny that those who would publish works taken without permission then turn around and cry about the file sharing problem. In the mean time those who "get it" about secrets in magic are busy developing what works for them and sharing their own ideas with those they choose as they see fit.

There are plenty of secrets in magic - and they are likely to stay that way.