Even though they expose it most people wouldn't be able to do it.

JJknight-

Please use common writing skills on the forum, like paragraphs. This was unbearable to read.

IIImagic

Are you saying the definition of exposure requires the recipient to "be able to do it"? Really?? Setting the bar way up there, eh?

If it weren't for Penn & Teller I would not be performing magic. They inspired me as a child and I grew up loving magic.

Despite loving magic, The Masked Magician came out before I started practicing / performing. As a magic enthusiast in his mid to late teens I don't remember disliking it, I think I enjoyed learning a few methods that I was always curious about. However, many years later when I dove head first into learning magic as a performance art I sought out as much media as I could, including the MM specials, and I was extremely put off. Yet I'm still a huge fan of Penn & Teller. And so that brings me to what I see as the main differences.

The problem with the Masked Magician was that magic was almost literally spat on. The show took the attitude that magicians are a bunch of crooks out to make people look like idiots and feel stupid. The premise of the MM was that he was "saving" the public from this "evil scumbags" by letting everyone in on the secrets. There was no appreciation or respect for magic as an art or for magicians as artists.

P&T are on the exact diametric opposite of the spectrum in that regard. Whether you appreciate their message or share their world view, they are are artists and entertainers who have a deep respect for everything that they do and it shows. P&T have a world view that embraces skepticism and reason. That view necessitates that they acknowledge that what they are doing is illusions and tricks that have secret methods. And it's really difficult to create an experience that embraces the concept of "magic", and gain a rapport with your audience, when you openly acknowledge that you're trying to fool them. But they embrace "exposure" as another performance tool. Not as a way to say "pffft bloody magicians right ? don't you feel like an idiot!" But instead they use it almost like a musician / band that invites certain members of the audience up on stage or back stage and shows them the monitors and the mixers etc. It engages the audience and creates rapport and sets them up to create truly magical moments.

I find it odd that with the talk of P&T and exposure the two routines that have been cited are Cups and Balls and Blast Off. What about Sawing a Woman In Half!?

Their sawing routine is my favourite sawing routine, ever. Hands down. They "expose", but they use it as a sort of hook to reel the audience in and set them up for a bonified miracle. It's not done to put magic down, but to create the experience of magic while being consistent with a world view that expresses "There's no such thing as REAL magic, but magic as an art is still awesome, we love it and we're going to make you love it too!":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tah3LgoFUL8

To be precise, it was actually Mitch Pileggi's sarcasm and tone that did that. Valentino didn't have to say a word. I feel more like magic has been "shat" upon rather than "spat upon". I used to like Mitch Pileggi in X-Files. I can't stand the sight of the man today!

And don't get me going on Bruce Nash...I can get pretty heated on the subject!

Doug