On 2013-03-10 12:51, ©NathanaelBergenMagic wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-03-10 12:00, gdw wrote:
My wife's grandmother recently died . . . of old age. Next time anyone mentioned age, I'm loosing it!

You've clearly missed the point, let me clear things up for you: I don't think you have any reason to 'loose' it if someone mentions old age - but if someone wishes another member to die from it while discussing a magician's career, even to prove an extreme point, I think then you might have grounds for offense.

On 2013-03-12 09:22, Raymond Singson wrote:
In response to the original argument, my two cents.

The "dilemma" of exposing magic to the masses honestly doesn't bother me much, because in my opinion, it primarily only deals with magic's more trivial secrets. If you're concerned about an audience knowing how your magic works, I would argue there are much more significant issues with your performance that you should be concerned about. In my opinion, I feel that this attitude fosters the notion that magic is nothing more than a juvenile power trip where one person offers an exhibition of knowledge that others aren't allowed to know. I actually think that's foolish and more harmful to magic than blatant exposure. Think about it: exposure has been a part of magic's culture since its beginnings. Spectators don't care for such secrets as much as magicians do. At the end of the day, I don't believe spectators care for the methods behind magic as much as they care for the experience of magic.

On 2013-03-12 09:22, Raymond Singson wrote:
We often complain about why magic isn't widely accepted as a mainstream craft or form of entertainment. Often, magicians are compared to clowns and jugglers or reduced to pretentious geeks while even the most talentless B-rate actors are considered mainstream celebrities. We go to the movies KNOWING that they're comprised of actors, special effects, staged sets and written scripts. And yet, when the lights dim and the screen ignites, audiences can still be brought to tears or scream in shock or laugh in joy for the protagonists and plot of the film. Audiences don't care for the secrets of film; they care for the experience of film. The same can be said for other genres like music, theater, dance, etc. In my opinion, magicians put too much emphasis on the trivial aspects of the craft instead of what actually makes it unique.

On 2013-03-12 09:22, Raymond Singson wrote:
David Blaine performed the Balducci Levitation dozens of times during the filming of his first television special, Street Magic. By 1997, the Balducci Levitation was already widely revealed in magazines, children's television shows, and yes-- even the beginnings of the internet. But Blaine brought so much more to the effect; he shrouded it in mystery through his unorthodox character and built up to it using a series of high impact material. He afforded people more than just a trick-- but an entirely unique experience that allowed people to get caught up in the moment and believe that anything's possible. Once you connect with an audience at that level, the secrets are irrelevant.

On 2013-03-12 09:22, Raymond Singson wrote:
I admit, that's very hard to do. And it's even harder to do originally.

On 2013-03-12 09:22, Raymond Singson wrote:
But I think magicians should focus more on that intangible connection with an audience instead of stressing about the hoarding of trivial information like invisible thread, thumb tips, or double turnovers. When I perform magic, I try to exhibit the message that anything is possible with a little creativity and work ethic. I think that's a message worth sharing. But unfortunately, the more common trend of doing magic is very superficial and hinges upon the fact that an entire experience is broken or tarnished if someone knows a secret they're not supposed to. If that's the single point of failure for a performance, I think there's something more inherently wrong than the fact exposure negatively affected it.

On 2013-03-12 09:22, Raymond Singson wrote:

By no means am I saying that I support blatant exposure. I understand that creators' livelihoods are threatened when someone steals their hard work and gives it away. I get that it can be frustrating. But I don't see it as a valid threat to magic as a whole. I believe that magic has gone through a series of radical changes, often for the better, over the past 20 years. And I think exposure has arguably been instrumental in that positive progression.

On 2013-03-12 09:22, Raymond Singson wrote:

Brian Brushwood is a character. He reminds me of that random 30-year-old fraternity brother who doesn't even go to school anymore but built a reputation by outdrinking his entire brotherhood. Yes, he's obnoxious. Yes, he's outspoken. Yes, he's giving away "closely guarded" secrets. But zoom out and see what he's actually accomplishing: he's having fun interacting with people. He has diverse audiences coming together to see him perform. He's ultimately making a living with magic. He's also affording those legitimately interested in magic to pursue worthwhile sources with solid material while giving layaudiences an innocent peek behind the curtain. He's memorable. He has a handful of threads here on the Café and several subscribers on YouTube. From what I understand, he also does live shows and tours when not publicizing himself or other high profile sponsors online. I honestly think that is a much more successful career that does much more for the sustainment of magic than many people can say here, myself included.

If magic is the art we want it to be, I think there needs to be some paradigm shifts in how we treat it...

RS.

On 2013-03-12 09:22, Raymond Singson wrote: . . .

By no means am I saying that I support blatant exposure. I understand that creators' livelihoods are threatened when someone steals their hard work and gives it away. I get that it can be frustrating. But I don't see it as a valid threat to magic as a whole. I believe that magic has gone through a series of radical changes, often for the better, over the past 20 years. And I think exposure has arguably been instrumental in that positive progression.

On 2013-03-12 09:22, Raymond Singson wrote:
In response to the original argument, my two cents.

The "dilemma" of exposing magic to the masses honestly doesn't bother me much, because in my opinion, it primarily only deals with magic's more trivial secrets. If you're concerned about an audience knowing how your magic works, I would argue there are much more significant issues with your performance that you should be concerned about. In my opinion, I feel that this attitude fosters the notion that magic is nothing more than a juvenile power trip where one person offers an exhibition of knowledge that others aren't allowed to know. I actually think that's foolish and more harmful to magic than blatant exposure. Think about it: exposure has been a part of magic's culture since its beginnings. Spectators don't care for such secrets as much as magicians do. At the end of the day, I don't believe spectators care for the methods behind magic as much as they care for the experience of magic.

We often complain about why magic isn't widely accepted as a mainstream craft or form of entertainment. Often, magicians are compared to clowns and jugglers or reduced to pretentious geeks while even the most talentless B-rate actors are considered mainstream celebrities. We go to the movies KNOWING that they're comprised of actors, special effects, staged sets and written scripts. And yet, when the lights dim and the screen ignites, audiences can still be brought to tears or scream in shock or laugh in joy for the protagonists and plot of the film. Audiences don't care for the secrets of film; they care for the experience of film. The same can be said for other genres like music, theater, dance, etc. In my opinion, magicians put too much emphasis on the trivial aspects of the craft instead of what actually makes it unique.

David Blaine performed the Balducci Levitation dozens of times during the filming of his first television special, Street Magic. By 1997, the Balducci Levitation was already widely revealed in magazines, children's television shows, and yes-- even the beginnings of the internet. But Blaine brought so much more to the effect; he shrouded it in mystery through his unorthodox character and built up to it using a series of high impact material. He afforded people more than just a trick-- but an entirely unique experience that allowed people to get caught up in the moment and believe that anything's possible. Once you connect with an audience at that level, the secrets are irrelevant.

I admit, that's very hard to do. And it's even harder to do originally. But I think magicians should focus more on that intangible connection with an audience instead of stressing about the hoarding of trivial information like invisible thread, thumb tips, or double turnovers. When I perform magic, I try to exhibit the message that anything is possible with a little creativity and work ethic. I think that's a message worth sharing. But unfortunately, the more common trend of doing magic is very superficial and hinges upon the fact that an entire experience is broken or tarnished if someone knows a secret they're not supposed to. If that's the single point of failure for a performance, I think there's something more inherently wrong than the fact exposure negatively affected it.

By no means am I saying that I support blatant exposure. I understand that creators' livelihoods are threatened when someone steals their hard work and gives it away. I get that it can be frustrating. But I don't see it as a valid threat to magic as a whole. I believe that magic has gone through a series of radical changes, often for the better, over the past 20 years. And I think exposure has arguably been instrumental in that positive progression.

Brian Brushwood is a character. He reminds me of that random 30-year-old fraternity brother who doesn't even go to school anymore but built a reputation by outdrinking his entire brotherhood. Yes, he's obnoxious. Yes, he's outspoken. Yes, he's giving away "closely guarded" secrets. But zoom out and see what he's actually accomplishing: he's having fun interacting with people. He has diverse audiences coming together to see him perform. He's ultimately making a living with magic. He's also affording those legitimately interested in magic to pursue worthwhile sources with solid material while giving layaudiences an innocent peek behind the curtain. He's memorable. He has a handful of threads here on the Café and several subscribers on YouTube. From what I understand, he also does live shows and tours when not publicizing himself or other high profile sponsors online. I honestly think that is a much more successful career that does much more for the sustainment of magic than many people can say here, myself included.

If magic is the art we want it to be, I think there needs to be some paradigm shifts in how we treat it...

RS.

On 2013-03-12 09:22, Raymond Singson wrote:
In response to the original argument, my two cents.

The "dilemma" of exposing magic to the masses honestly doesn't bother me much, because in my opinion, it primarily only deals with magic's more trivial secrets. If you're concerned about an audience knowing how your magic works, I would argue there are much more significant issues with your performance that you should be concerned about. In my opinion, I feel that this attitude fosters the notion that magic is nothing more than a juvenile power trip where one person offers an exhibition of knowledge that others aren't allowed to know. I actually think that's foolish and more harmful to magic than blatant exposure. Think about it: exposure has been a part of magic's culture since its beginnings. Spectators don't care for such secrets as much as magicians do. At the end of the day, I don't believe spectators care for the methods behind magic as much as they care for the experience of magic.

We often complain about why magic isn't widely accepted as a mainstream craft or form of entertainment. Often, magicians are compared to clowns and jugglers or reduced to pretentious geeks while even the most talentless B-rate actors are considered mainstream celebrities. We go to the movies KNOWING that they're comprised of actors, special effects, staged sets and written scripts. And yet, when the lights dim and the screen ignites, audiences can still be brought to tears or scream in shock or laugh in joy for the protagonists and plot of the film. Audiences don't care for the secrets of film; they care for the experience of film. The same can be said for other genres like music, theater, dance, etc. In my opinion, magicians put too much emphasis on the trivial aspects of the craft instead of what actually makes it unique.

David Blaine performed the Balducci Levitation dozens of times during the filming of his first television special, Street Magic. By 1997, the Balducci Levitation was already widely revealed in magazines, children's television shows, and yes-- even the beginnings of the internet. But Blaine brought so much more to the effect; he shrouded it in mystery through his unorthodox character and built up to it using a series of high impact material. He afforded people more than just a trick-- but an entirely unique experience that allowed people to get caught up in the moment and believe that anything's possible. Once you connect with an audience at that level, the secrets are irrelevant.

I admit, that's very hard to do. And it's even harder to do originally. But I think magicians should focus more on that intangible connection with an audience instead of stressing about the hoarding of trivial information like invisible thread, thumb tips, or double turnovers. When I perform magic, I try to exhibit the message that anything is possible with a little creativity and work ethic. I think that's a message worth sharing. But unfortunately, the more common trend of doing magic is very superficial and hinges upon the fact that an entire experience is broken or tarnished if someone knows a secret they're not supposed to. If that's the single point of failure for a performance, I think there's something more inherently wrong than the fact exposure negatively affected it.

By no means am I saying that I support blatant exposure. I understand that creators' livelihoods are threatened when someone steals their hard work and gives it away. I get that it can be frustrating. But I don't see it as a valid threat to magic as a whole. I believe that magic has gone through a series of radical changes, often for the better, over the past 20 years. And I think exposure has arguably been instrumental in that positive progression.

Brian Brushwood is a character. He reminds me of that random 30-year-old fraternity brother who doesn't even go to school anymore but built a reputation by outdrinking his entire brotherhood. Yes, he's obnoxious. Yes, he's outspoken. Yes, he's giving away "closely guarded" secrets. But zoom out and see what he's actually accomplishing: he's having fun interacting with people. He has diverse audiences coming together to see him perform. He's ultimately making a living with magic. He's also affording those legitimately interested in magic to pursue worthwhile sources with solid material while giving layaudiences an innocent peek behind the curtain. He's memorable. He has a handful of threads here on the Café and several subscribers on YouTube. From what I understand, he also does live shows and tours when not publicizing himself or other high profile sponsors online. I honestly think that is a much more successful career that does much more for the sustainment of magic than many people can say here, myself included.

If magic is the art we want it to be, I think there needs to be some paradigm shifts in how we treat it...

RS.

On 2013-03-12 11:05, davidpaul$ wrote:
. . .

The performance of magic is a different animal. You mention movies. People know it's just a movie with actors, scripts, special effects and staged sets. Yes we jump out of our seats with shock,laughter and even get emotional. You also mention dancers and musicians. These art forms DO NOT rely at their "core" on hidden secrets as their Modus Operandi.

On 2013-03-12 11:05, davidpaul$ wrote:
How many times have we purchased a magic effect because we were so intrigued only to put it in the junk drawer because we said "Oh! that's how it's done." Magic at it's CORE is performing the impossible, the mysterious, making things happen that defy logic.

On 2013-03-12 11:05, davidpaul$ wrote:
Should we strive to present our magic that provides a deep connection and experience at all emotional levels? Of course.

I remember going to see Paul Gertner perform his theatre show "Ten Fingers" three times. I took different family members and friends with me.
I knew the methodology behind every effect but just enjoyed the show. My motivation to going that many times was first to let others experience the show as well as (me)learning from Paul's stage presence, choreography, technique and connection with his audience. My motivation was a little different.

If the people I took (those that didn't have a love, respect and emotional/invested connection to the art) were given the secrets, do you think the mystery would have been dampened? Do you think the "WONDER" would have been knocked down a few pegs? I'll answer........YES

What about the D Lites? When they first came out WOW!! Look at that light jumping around. It's going through his head, he pulling the light from inside his mouth. How is he doing that? Then it became available in almost any toy store everywhere. ( Mystery G-O-N-E )

On 2013-03-12 11:05, davidpaul$ wrote:
Anyway...Who cares if I disagree or not. Money Talks....... Blatant/ free exposure hurts....and as I said before...we are training the lay public to focus on method as opposed to enjoying the "WONDER" magic provides.

On 2013-03-12 11:46, bonesly wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-03-12 09:22, Raymond Singson wrote:
In response to the original argument, my two cents.

The "dilemma" of exposing magic to the masses honestly doesn't bother me much, because in my opinion, it primarily only deals with magic's more trivial secrets. If you're concerned about an audience knowing how your magic works, I would argue there are much more significant issues with your performance that you should be concerned about. In my opinion, I feel that this attitude fosters the notion that magic is nothing more than a juvenile power trip where one person offers an exhibition of knowledge that others aren't allowed to know. I actually think that's foolish and more harmful to magic than blatant exposure. Think about it: exposure has been a part of magic's culture since its beginnings. Spectators don't care for such secrets as much as magicians do. At the end of the day, I don't believe spectators care for the methods behind magic as much as they care for the experience of magic.

We often complain about why magic isn't widely accepted as a mainstream craft or form of entertainment. Often, magicians are compared to clowns and jugglers or reduced to pretentious geeks while even the most talentless B-rate actors are considered mainstream celebrities. We go to the movies KNOWING that they're comprised of actors, special effects, staged sets and written scripts. And yet, when the lights dim and the screen ignites, audiences can still be brought to tears or scream in shock or laugh in joy for the protagonists and plot of the film. Audiences don't care for the secrets of film; they care for the experience of film. The same can be said for other genres like music, theater, dance, etc. In my opinion, magicians put too much emphasis on the trivial aspects of the craft instead of what actually makes it unique.

David Blaine performed the Balducci Levitation dozens of times during the filming of his first television special, Street Magic. By 1997, the Balducci Levitation was already widely revealed in magazines, children's television shows, and yes-- even the beginnings of the internet. But Blaine brought so much more to the effect; he shrouded it in mystery through his unorthodox character and built up to it using a series of high impact material. He afforded people more than just a trick-- but an entirely unique experience that allowed people to get caught up in the moment and believe that anything's possible. Once you connect with an audience at that level, the secrets are irrelevant.

I admit, that's very hard to do. And it's even harder to do originally. But I think magicians should focus more on that intangible connection with an audience instead of stressing about the hoarding of trivial information like invisible thread, thumb tips, or double turnovers. When I perform magic, I try to exhibit the message that anything is possible with a little creativity and work ethic. I think that's a message worth sharing. But unfortunately, the more common trend of doing magic is very superficial and hinges upon the fact that an entire experience is broken or tarnished if someone knows a secret they're not supposed to. If that's the single point of failure for a performance, I think there's something more inherently wrong than the fact exposure negatively affected it.

By no means am I saying that I support blatant exposure. I understand that creators' livelihoods are threatened when someone steals their hard work and gives it away. I get that it can be frustrating. But I don't see it as a valid threat to magic as a whole. I believe that magic has gone through a series of radical changes, often for the better, over the past 20 years. And I think exposure has arguably been instrumental in that positive progression.

Brian Brushwood is a character. He reminds me of that random 30-year-old fraternity brother who doesn't even go to school anymore but built a reputation by outdrinking his entire brotherhood. Yes, he's obnoxious. Yes, he's outspoken. Yes, he's giving away "closely guarded" secrets. But zoom out and see what he's actually accomplishing: he's having fun interacting with people. He has diverse audiences coming together to see him perform. He's ultimately making a living with magic. He's also affording those legitimately interested in magic to pursue worthwhile sources with solid material while giving layaudiences an innocent peek behind the curtain. He's memorable. He has a handful of threads here on the Café and several subscribers on YouTube. From what I understand, he also does live shows and tours when not publicizing himself or other high profile sponsors online. I honestly think that is a much more successful career that does much more for the sustainment of magic than many people can say here, myself included.

If magic is the art we want it to be, I think there needs to be some paradigm shifts in how we treat it...

RS.

Interesting points and maybe good in theory but I don't great in practice.

Unfortunately, once someone knows the secret to your effect then the experience is not the same. We may get a level of appreciation, i.e 'He is so skilful', 'He must have practised hard' etc, just like Penn & Teller do with the cups and balls.

But we will never get that initial experience of wonder, that sense of mystery which is what the art of magic really thrives on.

As magicians we have the greatest amount of exposure to secrets and can probably relate the most to the problem with exposure. Try performing your favourite ACR routine for a room full of magicians and see if you can hold anyones attention.

On 2013-03-12 11:46, bonesly wrote:
I'm sure as magicians we will always appreciate talent and innovation within our fields, but our experience will never be the same as the layman because we know the secrets.

On 2013-03-12 11:46, bonesly wrote:
Sometimes I wish I could be a layman again. I remember when I first saw David Blaine vanish the coin on that kids hand. WOW! Now that was an experience, one of those WTF moments, I miss those days.

On 2013-03-12 11:46, bonesly wrote:
I guess as a professional magician you learn how to deal with exposure, mainly because you get to perform to so many different people. So I guess its not that much of a big deal when your playing the numbers game.

As a hobbyist or a local magician you may not be that fortunate though.

Maybe it will help us strive to be better magicians and be more original with our effects and presentations. Maybe not (some people quit).

I guess its hard to quantify the damage exposure really has until to it knocks on your own door.

So I hope that someone doesn't breakdown the secrets to your entire act, which you have been honing down for the past 5 years and posts it on Youtube or mainstream television.

On 2013-03-12 11:46, bonesly wrote:
I hope that you don't have a loss of income because of all the people that don't have an interest in your act anymore.

I hope that when you use a QB2 to bend a coin, no one turns round to you and says 'Thats just one of those fake pens', ($500 down the drain).

I hope that all your loyal fans and supporters, who still appreciate the hard work and dedication that goes into developing an act, can still have that sense of mystery and experience the same wonder now they know your secrets.

I hope you still continue to share moments of astonishment.

If not maybe then you realise that exposure only really benefits the exposers, i.e. P&T, Val, Brian Bushwood and many more.

On 2013-03-12 12:18, Glenn Morphew wrote:
The original premise of Scam School was about learning cool bar bets and how to use them to win free drinks at bars. Apparently, Brian has run out of decent material, so the show is transitioning into Magic School.

On 2013-03-12 12:25, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-03-12 11:46, bonesly wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-03-12 09:22, Raymond Singson wrote:
In response to the original argument, my two cents.

The "dilemma" of exposing magic to the masses honestly doesn't bother me much, because in my opinion, it primarily only deals with magic's more trivial secrets. If you're concerned about an audience knowing how your magic works, I would argue there are much more significant issues with your performance that you should be concerned about. In my opinion, I feel that this attitude fosters the notion that magic is nothing more than a juvenile power trip where one person offers an exhibition of knowledge that others aren't allowed to know. I actually think that's foolish and more harmful to magic than blatant exposure. Think about it: exposure has been a part of magic's culture since its beginnings. Spectators don't care for such secrets as much as magicians do. At the end of the day, I don't believe spectators care for the methods behind magic as much as they care for the experience of magic.

We often complain about why magic isn't widely accepted as a mainstream craft or form of entertainment. Often, magicians are compared to clowns and jugglers or reduced to pretentious geeks while even the most talentless B-rate actors are considered mainstream celebrities. We go to the movies KNOWING that they're comprised of actors, special effects, staged sets and written scripts. And yet, when the lights dim and the screen ignites, audiences can still be brought to tears or scream in shock or laugh in joy for the protagonists and plot of the film. Audiences don't care for the secrets of film; they care for the experience of film. The same can be said for other genres like music, theater, dance, etc. In my opinion, magicians put too much emphasis on the trivial aspects of the craft instead of what actually makes it unique.

David Blaine performed the Balducci Levitation dozens of times during the filming of his first television special, Street Magic. By 1997, the Balducci Levitation was already widely revealed in magazines, children's television shows, and yes-- even the beginnings of the internet. But Blaine brought so much more to the effect; he shrouded it in mystery through his unorthodox character and built up to it using a series of high impact material. He afforded people more than just a trick-- but an entirely unique experience that allowed people to get caught up in the moment and believe that anything's possible. Once you connect with an audience at that level, the secrets are irrelevant.

I admit, that's very hard to do. And it's even harder to do originally. But I think magicians should focus more on that intangible connection with an audience instead of stressing about the hoarding of trivial information like invisible thread, thumb tips, or double turnovers. When I perform magic, I try to exhibit the message that anything is possible with a little creativity and work ethic. I think that's a message worth sharing. But unfortunately, the more common trend of doing magic is very superficial and hinges upon the fact that an entire experience is broken or tarnished if someone knows a secret they're not supposed to. If that's the single point of failure for a performance, I think there's something more inherently wrong than the fact exposure negatively affected it.

By no means am I saying that I support blatant exposure. I understand that creators' livelihoods are threatened when someone steals their hard work and gives it away. I get that it can be frustrating. But I don't see it as a valid threat to magic as a whole. I believe that magic has gone through a series of radical changes, often for the better, over the past 20 years. And I think exposure has arguably been instrumental in that positive progression.

Brian Brushwood is a character. He reminds me of that random 30-year-old fraternity brother who doesn't even go to school anymore but built a reputation by outdrinking his entire brotherhood. Yes, he's obnoxious. Yes, he's outspoken. Yes, he's giving away "closely guarded" secrets. But zoom out and see what he's actually accomplishing: he's having fun interacting with people. He has diverse audiences coming together to see him perform. He's ultimately making a living with magic. He's also affording those legitimately interested in magic to pursue worthwhile sources with solid material while giving layaudiences an innocent peek behind the curtain. He's memorable. He has a handful of threads here on the Café and several subscribers on YouTube. From what I understand, he also does live shows and tours when not publicizing himself or other high profile sponsors online. I honestly think that is a much more successful career that does much more for the sustainment of magic than many people can say here, myself included.

If magic is the art we want it to be, I think there needs to be some paradigm shifts in how we treat it...

RS.

Interesting points and maybe good in theory but I don't great in practice.

Unfortunately, once someone knows the secret to your effect then the experience is not the same. We may get a level of appreciation, i.e 'He is so skilful', 'He must have practised hard' etc, just like Penn & Teller do with the cups and balls.

But we will never get that initial experience of wonder, that sense of mystery which is what the art of magic really thrives on.

As magicians we have the greatest amount of exposure to secrets and can probably relate the most to the problem with exposure. Try performing your favourite ACR routine for a room full of magicians and see if you can hold anyones attention.

I do this all the time. It's become one of my go to routines, along with my cups and balls.

Also, try telling that to a room full of magicians who have just spent hours watching Juan Tamariz. They know oil and water, and they know Mnemonica, and yet he will do nothing BUT restore your sense of wonder.

Quote:

On 2013-03-12 11:46, bonesly wrote:
I'm sure as magicians we will always appreciate talent and innovation within our fields, but our experience will never be the same as the layman because we know the secrets.

Again, see Tamariz.

Quote:

On 2013-03-12 11:46, bonesly wrote:
Sometimes I wish I could be a layman again. I remember when I first saw David Blaine vanish the coin on that kids hand. WOW! Now that was an experience, one of those WTF moments, I miss those days.

Tamariz.

Quote:

On 2013-03-12 11:46, bonesly wrote:
I guess as a professional magician you learn how to deal with exposure, mainly because you get to perform to so many different people. So I guess its not that much of a big deal when your playing the numbers game.

As a hobbyist or a local magician you may not be that fortunate though.

Maybe it will help us strive to be better magicians and be more original with our effects and presentations. Maybe not (some people quit).

I guess its hard to quantify the damage exposure really has until to it knocks on your own door.

So I hope that someone doesn't breakdown the secrets to your entire act, which you have been honing down for the past 5 years and posts it on Youtube or mainstream television.

Penn and Teller seem to be still doing pretty well, despite a good portion of their show being "exposed." Not just financially; they continue to create wonder in their audiences, and to fool both laymen, and magicians.
They are also some of the few who really do take their magic to the level of art.

Quote:

On 2013-03-12 11:46, bonesly wrote:
I hope that you don't have a loss of income because of all the people that don't have an interest in your act anymore.

I hope that when you use a QB2 to bend a coin, no one turns round to you and says 'Thats just one of those fake pens', ($500 down the drain).

I hope that all your loyal fans and supporters, who still appreciate the hard work and dedication that goes into developing an act, can still have that sense of mystery and experience the same wonder now they know your secrets.

I hope you still continue to share moments of astonishment.

If not maybe then you realise that exposure only really benefits the exposers, i.e. P&T, Val, Brian Bushwood and many more.

History has shown a very different outcome.

You know, it's interesting, I'm also a video editor and effects/motion graphics artist, and I've never had anyone "dismiss" anything I've done in those fields when they've been "exposed" to the behind the scenes. If anything, it usually makes them more impressed with the level of actual work.
I usually notice people seem to UNDER-appreciate the work that goes into video and film.

With magic secrets, it seems to be the opposite. The secrets make it seem all "simple" and easily "dismiss-able." "Oh, that's JUST a special pen."
I'm guess that magicians "offended" by "exposure" don't want people to view what they do as "simple," ignoring the effort that actually goes into perfecting such an "art."

The problem, as I see it, is that you are putting all the focus on the "secrets" yourselves by focusing on the "exposure." Exactly as Raymond said:
"If you're concerned about an audience knowing how your magic works[magic's more trivial secrets,] . . . this attitude fosters the notion that magic is nothing more than a juvenile power trip where one person offers an exhibition of knowledge that others aren't allowed to know."

You are "training the lay public to focus on method," essentially belittling your own efforts by focusing on exposure. If your focus is so much on "magic's more trivial secrets," then your magic will never rise above being "trivial."

On 2013-03-12 12:54, Raymond Singson wrote:
Gdw, I'm glad my thoughts resonated so strongly with you because frankly-- I'm entirely too lazy to carry on the worthwhile debate. And you seem to be doing so quite well for me. So thanks. Ha.

RS.

On 2013-03-12 13:04, bonesly wrote:
. . .

My point is these are two different experiences.

1)One is an experience of awe as you sit and admire/appreciate the level of skill, coupled with the hard work and dedication involved when perfecting an act. (Tamariz)

On 2013-03-12 13:04, bonesly wrote:

2)The other experience is the sense of mystery/wonder that you get when you witness something you believe to be a true miracle.

These experience can be similar but they are not the same. In magic the second experience is more important than the first one.

On 2013-03-12 13:04, bonesly wrote:

As magicians we challenge peoples perceptions of reality and hopefully make them believe anything is possible.

On 2013-03-12 13:04, bonesly wrote:
With regards to P&T, like the MM they became famous by branded themselves as the magicians who expose the secrets.That was controversial and controversy sells, they are what we call sellouts. They didn't do it the hard/proper way like Copperfield or Blaine and countless over magicians, who relied mainly on there ability to market there ACT.

On 2013-03-12 13:04, bonesly wrote:
But it worked for them and they benefited from it greatly. They made loads of money exposing magic on TV, whilst indirectly taking the potential earnings of many other magicians.

Like I said magicians have been forced to adapt and deal with exposure, but the exposure didn't help them it only helped the exposers.

On 2013-03-12 13:22, bonesly wrote:
Oh by the way:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/cultu......ick.html

Like I said exposers will never really understand the damage until it knocks on their own door.