If it's a truly artistic expression then it matters not if the audience as been exposed to the secret.
They will be willing to suspend their disbelief for the duration of the performance.
I just saw Max Howard perform his exceptional Gus Rich show last week at the PCAM convention here in Seattle. An hour performance in which he presented 5 basic effects. Everyone in the room new exactly how each effect worked but by the conclusion of the performance there was not a dry eye in the house. Needless to say his performance earned him a standing ovation.

It is only those who simply do tricks for tricks sake that kling to thier empty box of secrets.

I feel you're missing the point here...

I don't deny there is exposure. What has been exposed has been exposed. We keep on keeping on of course. We love Magic. I love Magic.

I value a great presentation as much as any artist. We entertain, amaze, inspire etc...

That's a given for anyone aspiring to be a good performer.

But the method's are the intellectual property of it's creator. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't sell or share. Please do. That's how most of us became Magicians I believe...

But sell to those who wish to buy. Share with those who want to share. That's why I have no problems with Magic Shops, books, tapes, VCDs, clubs, Internet forums etc..

The exposures we've been experiencing are unsolicited. That's the problem.

But what do I know...

My very point, Pakar.

It's not what exposure does to others that is the important thing; it's what exposure says about the person doing the exposing that matters.

And what is says, jest ain't good!

Thanks Peter...

But I suspect that this is a lost cause, at least on this thread...

And, I've said my peace.

Yep, Pakar, 'fraid your right.

My point was the stuff that Mac exposed was just a silly trick with no presentation and that is a fact.
If they were wrapped in a good presentation his exposure would mean nothing a good performer could still make them look like magic.
The method is not the magic the presentation is. Duh!

As for Gene Poinc
I feel most of Gene Poinc,s ramblings are just that and I would guess hardly any have ever been performed. This is true for most bizarre text and books out there they don’t go out and hone these things in performance there just written about.
On saying that they do make a good read.

Obviously there are exceptions to this rule amongst my bizarre collection (don’t get me wrong I am a fan of bizarre) is Black Harts Black Book these effects are great tried and tested great presentation with easy methods.

So Peter, instead of being coy would you please just tell us what centerpiece of someone's act Mr. King did expose?

I for one dislike exposure as it generally has no good artistic motive... at least not a successful one. Teller's pseudo-exposure bit where Penn describes all the "moves" Teller does while lighting a cigarette is artistically satisfying and entertaining as well. But it's not a "real" exposure.

That said, I have to side with Payne though it pains me to do so...
[Thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.]

If exposure seriously hurts your act perhaps your act needs work. I know how Jon Pendragon's Sub Trunk works but I'd pay cash money to see him do it.

I just spent four days with some of the best brains in magic at PCAM. I think I was fooled about three times. But I was entertained a whole heck of a lot and the fact that I wasn't fooled didn't matter at all.

The most magical moment was when Simon Lovell made a rose out a bar napkin and the eldery woman to whom he gave it "magically" produced a kiss on his cheek. There were actual tears in the audiences eyes. I simply told a lady friend about it today and she choked back a tear.

Didn't fool ANYONE.
Didn't matter.

Okay, one last time:

Personally, I don't care if everything is magic is exposed to the lay public, whether they want to know the secret or not.

But some do.

And so, I'm speaking on their behalf, because many won't post (for a variety of reasons).

As for my being "coy", I'm not. I'm just not sure that I remember correctly which trick it was; I believe it was the cut and restored handkerchief -- and BTW, it's not MY act and I'm not the magician in question who was compaining about King damaging his act.

If the majority is against exposure (and they appear to be), then the majority rules.

As for Max Howard's performance at the PCAM convention, EVERYONE in the room at ANY magicians' convention SHOULD know how every trick is done -- so what's your point?

wsduncan writes that he knows how the sub trunk is done but would still pay to see the Pendragons do it. So all those magicians protesting the exposure of the sub trunk at Appleton, Wisconsin, were misguided! As were the WAM, Zaney Blaney, and the other heavyweights who weighed in against exposure. (BTW, I was on the OTHER side!)

As for no one doing Gene Poinc's stuff, I suppose a couple of years of my doing that doesn't count!

Probably because it's an "opinion" of mine. (Funny, but I thought it was a "fact".)

Frankly, I'm tired of this whole thread; do or say what you want -- you will anyway!

Mac King never exposed the cut and restored hanky on any of the WGM Specials, that was Tom Mullica and some feel the flack he recieved by doing so was partially responsible for him leaving the magic arena.
There was one extremely irate magician who wrote editorials to many of the major magic mags lambasting Mac King for exposing his favorite trick the Coin in Roll. I will have to go through my back issues of Magic to find out who this was but I remember it because I thought it was silly to make such a great fuss over such a trivial effect.
Before we start condeming our fellow performers let us make sure we get our facts right.

Getting back to what I said earlier, laymen don't remember how to perform exposed tricks.
A lot of you stated P&T revealed a trick but I forget which one it is, Peter you yourself can't remember what exposures they do or who did them.

So for you pro and semi pro magicians that can't remember who exposed or what trick was exposed how do you think the lay people would remember???
This is why I buy lecture notes , 'cause I forget the trick they taught me that day .

And Peter , Exposure is the same thing Dealers and magic shops do. If a 7yr old kid walks into a magic store and asks "I want to buy the disappearing silk like the magician did on tv last night" Would you sell him a thumb tip? And teach him how it was done?
Even with his parents standing next to him (they didn't ask how the trick was done) Because you said people at shows don't ask for the exposure that's the difference.
Every magic shop I go into I see a group of kids come in just being nosey with no experience at all, and one kid out of the bunch will buy a trick, Then the person behind the counter will show him how to do the trick with all his friends standing there, that's exposure.

Just came back from KFC and what do I see on the to go box????
Mac King exposing tricks
the container is called "Mac King's Magic in a minute"

All I know is that exposure has been going on at least since the days of Cautares, who taught Reginald Scot everything Scot ever knew about magic so he could write The Discoverie of Witchcraft. It hasn't slowed magic down in the least.

Neither has the Masked Magician, Penn & Teller, or anyone else who has either blatantly or supposedly exposed magic. It's always challenged magicians to go further, deeper, and has actually contributed to the advancement of the art.

And if magic is done really, really well...it often doesn't matter if spectators are even intimately familiar with the methods in use.

This isn't to justify exposure; it's simply what we can observe over centuries of experience in dealing with it. It can be argued that with the advent of mass media, exposure has the potential to cause more harm than ever, but the case is that modern exposure has taken place ever since the advent of tricks on cereal and cigarette boxes and continues through to the current television medium of today -- and still magic moves on. There are specific magicians who can cry foul and even claim to have been hurt by exposure (which in almost every case thus far has been debatable at least to a degree)...but in general, magic is healthy and still very appreciated by much of the laity (and paradoxically in the cases of those who've seen the exposures, sometimes even more so).

I agree with dpe666.


I was just fooled by Henry Evans on his Something More Than Magic DVD Vol. 3 - didn't know how he did a couple of tricks and it was an answer as simple as perhaps a TT might be.

I guess we should have a problem with hobby stores carrying those old cup and vase tricks, coin into matchbox trick, and Dime and Penny trick because they use and thus expose to the general public the ideas behind other tricks (like Scotch and Soda that is used by a majority of high school-age and casual magicians, for example). But, these are also the way many kids got involved in magic in the first place, especially if, like me, nobody was around that did magic.

I think that Penn & Teller probably energize and bring more kids/young adults into magic and/or show biz than any of their careful exposures have harmed anybody performing any routine anywhere.

I also have P&T's special with the audience doing the hanky trick on tape (Don't Try This at Home). While the audience is doing it, at one point the camera stops on a little old lady and the TT is EXTREMELY obvious. It's not even a close call. It's not her fault. She was obviously not experienced in magic and besides, they were showing her from the side. While I do like P&T a lot, this exposure was uncalled for. While it's true that they didn't tell the secret to the TV audience, filming inexperienced people doing it is almost as bad. Besides they did expose the secret to thousands of live audience members.

As far as fake exposure (i.e. pretending to give away the secret while actually describing a bogus method), I'm not sure I like that either. Even if the audience doesn't know how it's done, if they THINK they do, there is no wonder anymore. I remember when I used to do Harry Anderson's needle thru the arm. A friend of mine was amazed, then he figured that I was using a strip of fake skin. I told him I wasn't but of course I couldn't prove him wrong without exposing the secret so he walked away smug and satisified that he had "figured it out". Even though he hadn't, there was no amazement anymore.

That depends on the context, the sucker silk to egg shows a method that could be used but fools them at the end. This is the basic premise for a number of magic routines. Sucker trick need good presentation so as not to make the audience look foolish.
I have been asked many a time, how the final load gets in the cup by lay people.
I always tell the truth and tell them I put it there when they were not looking. I believe as far as the cups and balls goes everybody knows it’s not magic but the routine is very entertaining. In fact The Professor exposes some vanish methods in his routine and its regarded by many as the best.

There was a pretty good show on British TV that used sucker tricks as one of the ingredients. The format was as follows:

1. A magician performs a trick and three possible solutions are offered. The contestants try to guess the actual method.
2. The "correct" method is revealed and the winner, if any, gets the points.
3.Now the magician performs the same effect again but in such a way that all the suggested solutions are clearly ruled out.

It was basically a combination of sucker tricks and celebrity game show. Notice that the sucker explanations were invented for this show. The solutions were all very colorful and often completely outragous. The final effect, which wasn't explained, was typically very strong and unexpected. I believe the show was produced by the some production company who did the Derren Brown TV specials. In my opinion it was considerably better than your typical magic TV special.

I was completely shocked when I read that this show was considered to expose magic by some people. In my view, it was an intelligent and entertaining magic show and there were several effects that I couldn't figure out even though I've been involved in magic for more than 30 years. Can someone explain to me how that could be exposure?

I think that the whole issue of exposure is just a load of crap.

NO MAGICIAN is hurt by exposure to laymen. I'm not talking about the EXTREMELY RARE street magician being heckled by having someone shout out the secret. I mean regular exposure as in online forums or tv shows.

The only time that exposure does any kind of damage is when a marketed item is exposed to MAGICIANS and some of them either make their own (if a gimmick is needed) or use the routine.

If a layman learns some magic without paying that's all there is to it - learning for free. While some of you might have a problem with that, I don't. No, I don't think it's productive behaviour but too much of my energy is going into hating murderers and rapists, to leave any for hating some loser who's too lazy to get of his behind. So some people are workers and some slackers? Big deal! Life's too short to get annoyed over it.

The vast majority of people who search the net for info on how tricks are done are those who want to do magic but either can't afford or don't want to pay for it. My opinion, let them have it. It won't hurt me in the least

Although I disagree entirely with your position regarding exposure, you are indeed correct in that it was Tom Mullica who exposed the cut and restored hanky.

It's interesting how Penn & Teller having an audience of people do the TT and Hanky trick is considered by many to be exposure.

Would they also consider Luis DeMatos teaching 52000 people in an arena exposure as well?

I guess the problem is that, as an industry, magic has no firm definitions.


What constitutes 'teaching' as opposed to 'exposing'? Is it only teaching when requested by students as opposed to exposing when inflicted on everyone watching a TV or stage show? How about the 52000 in the arena? What if some of them didn't want to know or be part of the trick?

Does a bad performance constitute exposing? Or is it simply poor "magicianship"?

Most of these sort of arguments within the magic community stem from unclear definitions.


Is the revealing of secrets through exposure or teaching bad for magic?

My opinion: Teaching it is good, but how much do you teach? For the curious... only a couple of basic tricks they'll actually use and succeed with. They won't all spend the prerequisite time to rehearse, so they need to be really easy but effective tricks. Bar bets are just as effective and most non-magicians will have more fun with bar-bets than a jumping rubber band effect.

Exposure is unnecessary and it can hurt magic in the short term. People do forget about the methods that were revealed quite quickly, but the message that lingers with them is: "They were only tricks with simple explanations. Anyone can do them." I believe that message being broadcast to the general public is the thing that will do the most harm to magic.

Now, having an entire audience do a trick together and still not reveal the secret is possible - but you are delivering that dangerous method and eroding the centuries of lies we've spread to the public about how clever we are.

If they look behind "the curtain" and see how we do it, they realise we are not really that clever at all... but in an ideal world, they shouldn't even realise there's a curtain there.


TIM ELLIS

When that "it" is property of yours, your opinion will be recalled and taken into consideration.

Till then, feel free to give away as much of YOUR property as you want, or as you state above, invite others to take it.