(Close Window)
Topic: Brian Brushwood
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 6, 2013 02:39PM)
Can anyone give me some details as to what all the comments are referring when they say things like "Brushwood scandal" ??? I'm missing something here! :)
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Mar 6, 2013 02:41PM)
I think he's the guy who revealed the Invisible Deck. There's a thread in the "Secret Sessions" topic on it.
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 6, 2013 02:45PM)
WHAT?! I didn't hear this!!

...that said, I guess it's not THAT bad if I didn't hear about it. But still...I really hate exposure. :P
Message: Posted by: JackMagic (Mar 6, 2013 03:10PM)
This low life has exposed the R & S to public on YouTube
Message: Posted by: Jamie Ferguson (Mar 6, 2013 03:16PM)
Teller (of Penn and Teller) said "Brian Brushwood just kills me. He's funny, dangerous, and brilliantly original. He's going to be really famous, very soon."
Message: Posted by: JackMagic (Mar 6, 2013 03:19PM)
Oh dear

Must be past your bedtime by now Jamie?
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 6, 2013 03:29PM)
You know, a lot of the "top guys" have exposed magic. It's pretty frustrating, but I suppose it won't kill us in the long run. But it certainly irks me. :P I just feel it's a lack of respect for the art and for your peers. You try to become famous by selling out and it just effects everything you do. It really is a shame.
Message: Posted by: Jamie Ferguson (Mar 6, 2013 03:34PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-06 16:19, JackMagic wrote:
Oh dear

Must be past your bedtime by now Jamie?
[/quote]
I can't sleep because I'm still excited about how brilliant this year's Blackpool Magic Convention was. A world record breaking attendance (3,400) with the most FISM winners to appear at a convention ever. All the reviews are very positive. No other convention comes close.
Message: Posted by: Ray Haining (Mar 6, 2013 07:54PM)
What's the R&S?
Message: Posted by: trickyat86 (Mar 6, 2013 08:05PM)
Ren and Stimpy?
Message: Posted by: Paul Rathbun (Mar 6, 2013 09:03PM)
Not that I am trying to start a fight, but how is Brian running a show where he reveals puzzles and very common knowledge/public domain magic principles any different than somebody pitching and selling Invisible decks on a busy street corner or tourist magic kiosk. They are all doing it to make money, and I think most people that do magic professionally like to make money doing it. Otherwise you are really just a hobbyist. I like Brian's show, and a couple weeks ago when he exposed ID it did bother me. Then I got to thinking about it, and really it isn't that much different than the people pitching it and selling it to anybody who has the cash in hand. Really the only difference is the fact that it is a bigger audience. Brian is getting paid to do a show. He does the show to make money. The people pitching are out there to sell magic secrets with a significant markup and to make money. Not that much of a difference in my eyes. Whether it is ID, Svengali, whirling card on IT, TT, D'lites, or pen through bill, there are certain effects that get "***d out" for the public eyes to see if they have enough curiosity and cash in hand. Do I like it? Not really, but who knows, maybe these pitch artists and even Brian Brushwood will inspire some people to get a more serious interest in the art of magic.
Message: Posted by: Don Dasher (Mar 6, 2013 09:11PM)
People pitch Invisible Decks on street corners?



DD
Message: Posted by: Paul Rathbun (Mar 6, 2013 10:18PM)
DD,

Busy malls, board walks, street corners. Does it really matter? The point is people are selling magic secrets for money.
Message: Posted by: BatsMagic (Mar 6, 2013 10:35PM)
Well, the difference is making a cash outlay or getting it for free. If 50,000 people view this, 49,900 are not going to buy it and use it, but they will spoil it for me if they see me doing it. Guaranteed. If you walk into a magic shop and ask for an ID demonstration, they will show it to you. But you will not learn the secret until you spend the money for it.

Theoretically, if you pay for it you are not going to give up the secret. Now that he spilled the secret, how many of the viewers of this video are going to actually buy the stuff to make it? Not many. I wouldn't do it, and I actually use an ID pretty often. It's one of my favorite effects- it always amazes them! But, of course, I buy them already made. It's not worth the trouble for me to make it when I can buy it for $10. It's simply got to be the best $10 that I ever spent on magic. Well, the best $100 that I ever spent- I've bought quite a few of them.

This was one of the first things that I ever bought, but it took me quite a while to actually start using it. I could not get it to work correctly at first, so it went into the junk pile and I forgot about it. Once I figured out how to make it work perfectly every time, it became a staple of my repertoire. And it always will be, Brian Brushwood or not!
Message: Posted by: Justin N. Miller (Mar 6, 2013 11:09PM)
Here is when you, who do not think it is a big deal, find out it is. When you go out and perform it and they say "oh yea I know how that is done I saw it on the internet" and if you do not think that will happen you are kidding yourself. It happened with the TT and sinful, Ashes on palm, and the 21 card trick. And the TT was BEFORE internet searching.

JM
Message: Posted by: Paul Rathbun (Mar 6, 2013 11:32PM)
As I stated, I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, just push the conversation forward a bit. I do see it as harmful, as I also see people selling IT, TTs, etc. to tourists in Vegas harmful. I guess my point was in my mind there isn't much difference between Brushwood and the pitch person. They are both selling secrets for money essentially on stuff that is not theirs to give away. I can see how some argue the pitch person isn't giving anything away but I guess I am thinking he isn't having to pay a creator for the rights to sell the ID either. ID is interesting because I don't consider it to be in the public domain yet it isn't as if someone owns the rights to it either.

I believe back a little while ago on Scam School Daniel Garcia taught a force. I am thinking it was a Hindu Force if memory serves me correctly. That I didn't like either. I don't want laymen to know I can make them choose a card. That is the kind of stuff that bothers me even more.

Pen through bill used to be a great effect. Now it is in a lot of children's magic kits. So much for that great effect. Where does it end?
Message: Posted by: FrenchDrop (Mar 6, 2013 11:37PM)
Bushwood may or may not be a "low life." I'm not sufficiently familiar with him to make that call. I think every magician has to decide for himself, on a case-by-case basis, how egregious a given instance of exposure is. It happens all the time -- more today than ever -- and sometimes it's quite innocuous and entertaining, as in a Penn & Teller show.

I also think certain very old methods need to be superseded or redressed so that it won't matter to the serious magician if a spectator is familiar with them. You'll either be using a different method, or you'll have altered your handling of an old method to such a degree that it appears you couldn't be using it; either way, the spectator who knows the old method will end up believing you couldn't have used that method. Ultimately, he's more amazed than anyone else, because he thought he knew how you did it, and you either proved him wrong or appeared to prove him wrong.

When an effect can be bought in a drug store or gift shop and accomplished by a lay person with minimal practice, I don't worry too much if it's exposed. That's not an effect I'm interested in performing anyway -- not in its original, unaltered form, at least. Maybe some of the newer, more fiddly methods that we dismiss as "magic for magicians" should be reclassified as "magic for magicians and overly knowledgeable spectators." :D

Good doctors and lawyers have to continually update their knowledge to keep up with new concepts and changing times. Should a good magician -- amateur or pro -- be any less serious about updating his skills and knowledge so he can better do his job?
Message: Posted by: bonesly (Mar 7, 2013 04:35AM)
I don't see how exposing the workings of the ID on Youtube or TV is the same as selling a magic trick on a stall. What Brian Bushwood did is blatant exposure and that is not good for magic.
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (Mar 7, 2013 05:25AM)
Lets stop posting about this idiot Brushwood & start praying he sets himself alight with his fire eating.
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 7, 2013 10:33AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 00:32, Paul Rathbun wrote:
I guess my point was in my mind there isn't much difference between Brushwood and the pitch person. They are both selling secrets for money essentially on stuff that is not theirs to give away.
[/quote]

Here's my thoughts on this. The method of selling the secret makes all the difference. The pitchman is selling to an INDIVIDUAL. However, Brushwood exposed ID not to individuals, but the masses who didn't pay for the effect. Not only did it reach more people (and create more exposure), but those people didn't have to invest anything into the effect and are thus less inclined to understand the inherent nature of the secret of magic.

Whether we like it or not, the ID is certainly in public domain as no one is able to claim rights to this effect. I'm not debating here what is and what isn't public domain right now. The point is that the secret belongs to "all" the magicians and not just one.

SO in that sense it's not respectful of our art, our fellow performers, and our audience to reveal a secret that is not solely ours to share. If someone wants to reveal a trick they created that is exclusive to them, then that's one thing. But naturally that doesn't typically happen! It's guys who have NO RIGHT to a trick who feel they can ruin it for everyone else for the sake of "challenging people to create better magic." Are you serious?! Why don't YOU create the better magic rather than to reveal secrets that other people have worked hard to create and protect? It's because these exposers are LAZY and want to take an easy way to fame (I'm thinking more masked magician than Brushwood as I have yet to see Brushwood perform anything.).

And that is my primary issue with the exposure of guys like the masked magician (and in this case, Brushwood).

Now that I've been around the block a few times, I don't really think it will hurt magic in the long run. We just have to keep adapting. I'm not saying it doesn't hurt magic though...it does. But exposure won't KILL magic. :)
Message: Posted by: Paul Rathbun (Mar 7, 2013 11:30AM)
Matt,

I agree with everything you have said above.

I guess my thinking was generally a magician is trying to entertain and get paid for it. Brian and pitchmen are in the business of getting paid to sell secrets. Obviously a pitchman is selling to an individual and Brian is being paid to show the masses. All I am saying is in my mind they are similar.

On a side, I like Brian and his books and show Scam School. I don't think he is a bad guy, I just think in this circumstance he used bad judgement and went too far.
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 7, 2013 12:30PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 12:30, Paul Rathbun wrote:
Matt,

I agree with everything you have said above.

I guess my thinking was generally a magician is trying to entertain and get paid for it. Brian and pitchmen are in the business of getting paid to sell secrets. Obviously a pitchman is selling to an individual and Brian is being paid to show the masses. All I am saying is in my mind they are similar.

On a side, I like Brian and his books and show Scam School. I don't think he is a bad guy, I just think in this circumstance he used bad judgement and went too far.
[/quote]

Yeah, they are related. However, I see a pitchman more as "getting someone started in magic." We all start somewhere and BUYING magic is the correct way to go. A pitchman is selling them a secret AND the means to do the trick. Brian just gave away a secret and NO MEANS to do the trick. So it's just exposure for exposure's sake. He may have benefited from it monetarily, but again, it wasn't HIS idea to share. He's basically stolen something from the magic community and profited by it.

It would have been slightly different in my mind if the network had funded 50,000 ID purchases and given them out to 50,000 viewers so that they could then do the trick. Yep...it's still grossly overused and would essentially kill the trick, BUT at least they'd be learning that magic isn't just knowing the secret...but in going out and being able to share it with others. That could HELP magic, I'd think. It'd kill the ID since 50K people would be doing it...but it could whet the appetite of some new young performers who'd go out and USE the deck they were given from the network.

But obviously this is pie in the sky as the network is only concerned with ratings and others are only concerned with profiting at the expense of our community.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Mar 7, 2013 01:56PM)
Personally I find the guy to be one of the most obnoxious things on the Internet. I don't care what he's rambling on about - I watched about 30 seconds of a video and shut the thing off, not because of the material but because of the fool presenting it.
Message: Posted by: Jason Simonds (Mar 7, 2013 02:31PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 00:32, Paul Rathbun wrote:
I do see it as harmful, as I also see people selling IT, TTs, etc. to tourists in Vegas harmful.[/quote]

Meh. It was one of these guys in New Orleans that re-kindled my love for magic.
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 7, 2013 02:37PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 15:31, Jason Simonds wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 00:32, Paul Rathbun wrote:
I do see it as harmful, as I also see people selling IT, TTs, etc. to tourists in Vegas harmful.[/quote]

Meh. It was one of these guys in New Orleans that re-kindled my love for magic.
[/quote]

Exactly. I don't think it's harmful to sell those tricks either. People have to start somewhere and all these sorts of tricks are "common" material for magicians. There's a big difference between all the types of magic out there - regarding exclusivity.
Message: Posted by: Paul Rathbun (Mar 7, 2013 03:53PM)
Imagine you just finished performing the Floating Rose by Kevin James. Maybe it is the finale in your show. A real showpiece if you will. After the show a person from the audience approaches you and starts blabbing on about how he was in vegas last month and picked up the whirling card. "Yeah, all it uses is IT just like your trick." He says this loud enough so lots of other people overhear.

You are table hopping and decide to use the ID because it is so strong. Or maybe you use it as an emergency out like I have heard of people doing. You are mid-way through the ID when someone says oh yeah that is the ID. It is just double sided with ro**hing spray on it. There is an awkward moment as everyone looks to see how you are going to react.

Harmless, I think not. Anyone of us would be annoyed at that situation.

But hey, apparently I am not going to convince you.
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 7, 2013 04:34PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 16:53, Paul Rathbun wrote:
Imagine you just finished performing the Floating Rose by Kevin James. Maybe it is the finale in your show. A real showpiece if you will. After the show a person from the audience approaches you and starts blabbing on about how he was in vegas last month and picked up the whirling card. "Yeah, all it uses is IT just like your trick." He says this loud enough so lots of other people overhear.

You are table hopping and decide to use the ID because it is so strong. Or maybe you use it as an emergency out like I have heard of people doing. You are mid-way through the ID when someone says oh yeah that is the ID. It is just double sided with ro**hing spray on it. There is an awkward moment as everyone looks to see how you are going to react.

Harmless, I think not. Anyone of us would be annoyed at that situation.

But hey, apparently I am not going to convince you.
[/quote]

This happens to you? Honestly I don't have this happen hardly EVER and I perform for really big crowds. Maybe people are more polite around my area, I dunno. Occasionally I might have a child start to say something like that and I just remark kindly, "Ooooh, don't tell any secrets! I won't sell ANYthing to people who can't keep a good secret. That's the fun part of magic, after all!"

It works 99% of the time (I'd say 100...but there's likely SOMEONE out there that will be malicious just as soon as I claim 100...lol).

I honestly think it's about your presentation. If you present magic as a puzzle, then people want to figure out the puzzle. It's part of our nature. But if you GIVE them an out (regardless of what that out may be), then they aren't so concerned with spouting off everything they know.

My "out" is several things that I say at the beginning of the show. One of the strongest, I believe, is something like this:

"Some people present magic as a puzzle - something to figure out. When people can't figure out the puzzle that makes them feel dumb. Well, I think that's just silly because magic is supposed to be enjoyed! It's only fun if it's a secret. Just because you don't understand a trick doesn't mean you are dumb! I get to perform for brilliant people every single day and I get to fool them every day too! I know they are much smarter than I am, but I'm so grateful that they are kind enough to allow me to fool them because it let's me keep my job. So if I'm able to fool you tonight...THANK YOU!"

There's so much good psychology in this statement - from letting them know it's ok to be fooled, to giving them good feelings IF they are fooled, to showing them they are likely smarter than I am, to making them feel special for keeping me employed. Just a lot of good statements for people to grab onto and I never get hecklers or people saying things like "Oooh...I know how you did that."

I really don't think people TRY to be jerks about it. They just feel really bad about being fooled and they just HAVE to guess (whether they are right or not) about how you do stuff. And if your routine is REALLY good, then even if they know the secret they likely won't say anything.

That makes me reconsider though...I rarely do "mainstream" magic like ID's. If I was doing an ID, I would paint the routine to be something else entirely. You gotta remember, these people that see exposure (or own a deck) are only considering their ONE routine that they know. If you change the routine, you can completely fool them with the same sort of deck they own.
Message: Posted by: Paul Rathbun (Mar 7, 2013 05:17PM)
Actually no, I have never had either situation happen. Just making up a possible scenario of how pitch magic could be harmful. I am starting to see the light that it possibly does more good (inspiring newbies) than harm.

I like your opening statements by the way. Very well thought out.
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 7, 2013 05:34PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 18:17, Paul Rathbun wrote:
Actually no, I have never had either situation happen. Just making up a possible scenario of how pitch magic could be harmful. I am starting to see the light that it possibly does more good (inspiring newbies) than harm.

I like your opening statements by the way. Very well thought out.
[/quote]

Thanks bro!

Anytime you reveal a secret, you've created a confidant. However, 50,000 confidants is not a good idea. :) I think the point is that we ALL had to learn somehow...so SOMEBODY revealed a secret to us. Who was it? Magic shop? Are they exposers? Nah. Pitchmen? Nah. Masked Magician? YES! lol.

Again, my main litmus test on exposure is this:

If they are revealing a trick without it costing the viewer something in return and without the likelihood that the viewer will ever go out and perform the trick, then it's wrongful exposure.

In Brushwood's case, he's showing magic without it costing the viewers anything. Furthermore, it's unlikely that the viewers will ever go out and perform the trick. It's just wrong...and MORESO since he didn't invent the trick! :P

But hey, some of the top guys (e.g. Penn/Teller) have revealed magic for "entertainment." I personally just have a lot more respect for guys who do it right and keep secrets. Heck, it's what we are all about anyway.

I teach a magic class. My students PAY for the class, but I won't teach them things that they will never use. For instance, my current class (Of just 2 people...lol. Smallest class ever!) are only interested in closeup magic. Therefore there is no point for me to teach them a sawing in half stage effect when they will never use it. I strongly believe in "need to know" and they have ZERO need to know. Even if they are paying me, it's just wrongful exposure in my mind. HOWEVER, if they decided they wanted to branch out and start doing stage magic, we could certainly work up to that sort of thing because then they'd be paying AND have the ability to perform the effect.

I don't know that this "rule" is defined anywhere, but I think it makes the most sense. So again
1) It should cost the "learner" something
2) They need to have the means to go perform the effect once they learn its secret

Otherwise there's just no need to expose the effect.
Message: Posted by: Stucky (Mar 7, 2013 05:51PM)
Before I comment I want to catch up a bit.

[quote]
Theoretically, if you pay for it you are not going to give up the secret. [/quote]

You obviously don't know any drunk fratboy impulse buyers.

[quote]
Lets stop posting about this idiot Brushwood & start praying he sets himself alight with his fire eating.
[/quote]

And I hope you get cancer... AND DIE! (That doesn't feel good does it? Think before you drink.)

[quote]
Personally I find the guy to be one of the most obnoxious things on the Internet.
[/quote]

You don't hang out on the internet much do you?

I know this may sound like a crazy idea but hey why not try doing ID in some kind of fashion that ISN'T stock ID presentation? They only know what they see. Change the wrapping they won't know the contents. Steve Bedwell has a brilliant version. Remove the "invisible" part everyone knows and does and make it something more interesting. This way when you encounter the one person who might have seen this and committed it to memory they will be fooled!

Don't believe me? How many of you have ever heard this: "I know how you make that piece of cloth vanish but where does that lit cigarette go?"
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 7, 2013 05:56PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 18:51, Stucky wrote:
Before I comment I want to catch up a bit.

[quote]
Theoretically, if you pay for it you are not going to give up the secret. [/quote]

You obviously don't know any drunk fratboy impulse buyers.

[quote]
Lets stop posting about this idiot Brushwood & start praying he sets himself alight with his fire eating.
[/quote]

And I hope you get cancer... AND DIE! (That doesn't feel good does it? Think before you drink.)

[quote]
Personally I find the guy to be one of the most obnoxious things on the Internet.
[/quote]

You don't hang out on the internet much do you?

I know this may sound like a crazy idea but hey why not try doing ID in some kind of fashion that ISN'T stock ID presentation? They only know what they see. Change the wrapping they won't know the contents. Steve Bedwell has a brilliant version. Remove the "invisible" part everyone knows and does and make it something more interesting. This way when you encounter the one person who might have seen this and committed it to memory they will be fooled!

Don't believe me? How many of you have ever heard this: "I know how you make that piece of cloth vanish but where does that lit cigarette go?"
[/quote]

We are definitely in agreement there. You just happen to be funnier than I at giving your opinion. :)
Message: Posted by: saysold1 (Mar 7, 2013 06:18PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 18:51, Stucky wrote:
Before I comment I want to catch up a bit.

[quote]
Theoretically, if you pay for it you are not going to give up the secret. [/quote]

You obviously don't know any drunk fratboy impulse buyers.

[quote]
Lets stop posting about this idiot Brushwood & start praying he sets himself alight with his fire eating.
[/quote]

And I hope you get cancer... AND DIE! (That doesn't feel good does it? Think before you drink.)

[quote]
Personally I find the guy to be one of the most obnoxious things on the Internet.
[/quote]

You don't hang out on the internet much do you?

I know this may sound like a crazy idea but hey why not try doing ID in some kind of fashion that ISN'T stock ID presentation? They only know what they see. Change the wrapping they won't know the contents. Steve Bedwell has a brilliant version. Remove the "invisible" part everyone knows and does and make it something more interesting. This way when you encounter the one person who might have seen this and committed it to memory they will be fooled!

Don't believe me? How many of you have ever heard this: "I know how you make that piece of cloth vanish but where does that lit cigarette go?"
[/quote]

Stucky makes some excellent points here - especially about changing up the presentations.

ID has many (many) possibiliies - you can use it with a MD too for a double fry.

But I'm still no fan of BB - even though he and I share the same initials!
Message: Posted by: writeall (Mar 7, 2013 06:19PM)
Brushwood has an effect out he's selling, a book test. Any idea when it will be exposed on Youtube?

Sweet, sweet irony.
Message: Posted by: saysold1 (Mar 7, 2013 06:41PM)
Ya I already said the same on the other thread.

I suggested that copycat James L Clark should do the honors - with proper crediting.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Mar 7, 2013 06:43PM)
I'm gonna stick by my original post. One of the most obnoxious things on the Internet.
Message: Posted by: BatsMagic (Mar 7, 2013 07:00PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 18:51, Stucky wrote:

[quote]
Theoretically, if you pay for it you are not going to give up the secret. [/quote]

You obviously don't know any drunk fratboy impulse buyers.

[/quote]

Well, that's why I said "theoretically".

And no, I don't know any drunk frat boys. I'm way too old for that!
Message: Posted by: gaffed (Mar 7, 2013 07:14PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-06 20:54, Ray Haining wrote:
What's the R&S?
[/quote]

[quote]
On 2013-03-06 21:05, trickyat86 wrote:
[i][b]Ren and Stimpy?[/b][/i]
[/quote]

LOL

[quote]
On 2013-03-07 14:56, Andrew Zuber wrote:
Personally I find the guy to be one of the most obnoxious things on the Internet. I don't care what he's rambling on about - I watched about 30 seconds of a video and shut the thing off, not because of the material but because of the fool presenting it.
[/quote]

I fully agree with you on that as he is a totally obnoxious and quite laughable character/idiot.
However, I find this undo concern over his exposing ID on YouTube also laughable. We, as magicians, are obviously very cognizant and wary, as it were, of any type of exposure. But, when all is said and done, it’s really a non-issue. After all, just how many people are going to take the due diligence and time to hunt out a magic trick on YouTube? Also, can you imagine someone sitting down with a mess of cards spread out on a table and haphazardly spraying will-nilly at them as he did!

Yes, I also hate exposure, but I’ve come to the conclusion that this is all much ado about nothing in the whole grand scheme of things. Will I ever be hesitant in any way of performing ID (?)... NO WAY. Hey, it's not exposure that harms magic, and or possibly gives it a bad name. It's 'magicians' performing magic POORLY!

Relax... ;)
Message: Posted by: BatsMagic (Mar 7, 2013 07:48PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 18:51, Stucky wrote:

I know this may sound like a crazy idea but hey why not try doing ID in some kind of fashion that ISN'T stock ID presentation? They only know what they see. Change the wrapping they won't know the contents. Steve Bedwell has a brilliant version. Remove the "invisible" part everyone knows and does and make it something more interesting. This way when you encounter the one person who might have seen this and committed it to memory they will be fooled!

[/quote]

Well, I never used to use the "invisible" part of the presentation until I spent $65 on the Wonder Box 3x. That allowed me to adapt that way of using it because it fit so well. I love my Wonder Box and will continue to use it and the 'invisible" part. When I do not have the Wonder Box (which is most of the time), I will not do it that way.

I am not afraid to use an ID just because of Brushwood, and I don't think anyone else should be either. But I still don't like what he did.
Message: Posted by: Ray Haining (Mar 7, 2013 09:23PM)
Rough and smooth, it came to me.
Message: Posted by: FrenchDrop (Mar 7, 2013 09:37PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 22:23, Ray Haining wrote:
Rough and smooth, it came to me.
[/quote]
Okay, now what does L&S stand for? :D
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (Mar 8, 2013 03:30AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 18:51, Stucky wrote:

[quote]
Lets stop posting about this idiot Brushwood & start praying he sets himself alight with his fire eating.
[/quote]

And I hope you get cancer... AND DIE! (That doesn't feel good does it? Think before you drink.)

Lol. At least I don't already look dead. Now run along little freak boy.
Message: Posted by: Stucky (Mar 8, 2013 06:01AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 04:30, Russell Davidson wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 18:51, Stucky wrote:

[quote]
Lets stop posting about this idiot Brushwood & start praying he sets himself alight with his fire eating.
[/quote]

And I hope you get cancer... AND DIE! (That doesn't feel good does it? Think before you drink.)

Lol. At least I don't already look dead. Now run along little freak boy.
[/quote]

These colors don't run. It's too dark I'd bump into something. :)
Message: Posted by: Corriveau (Mar 8, 2013 07:28AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 14:56, Andrew Zuber wrote:
Personally I find the guy to be one of the most obnoxious things on the Internet. I don't care what he's rambling on about - I watched about 30 seconds of a video and shut the thing off, not because of the material but because of the fool presenting it.
[/quote

He's even more obnoxious on stage. Clearly someone with an overblown ego.
Message: Posted by: FrenchDrop (Mar 8, 2013 10:31AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 07:01, Stucky wrote:
These colors don't run. It's too dark I'd bump into something. :)
[/quote]
Plus, you might be eaten by a grue.
Message: Posted by: Ray Haining (Mar 8, 2013 11:40AM)
I have no idea what L&S stands for.
Message: Posted by: Zombie Magic (Mar 8, 2013 11:52AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 04:30, Russell Davidson wrote:


And I hope you get cancer... AND DIE!
[/quote]

Actually......that works in reverse.

You have to be careful with incantations. They tend to backfire if not worded properly.
Message: Posted by: Tom G (Mar 8, 2013 01:04PM)
Probably Brushwood couldn't get a real career going and this is all he has...
Message: Posted by: writeall (Mar 8, 2013 01:16PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 12:40, Ray Haining wrote:
I have no idea what L&S stands for.
[/quote]

It's something about male genitalia.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 8, 2013 01:55PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 11:33, Matt Adams wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 00:32, Paul Rathbun wrote:
I guess my point was in my mind there isn't much difference between Brushwood and the pitch person. They are both selling secrets for money essentially on stuff that is not theirs to give away.
[/quote]

Here's my thoughts on this. The method of selling the secret makes all the difference. The pitchman is selling to an INDIVIDUAL. However, Brushwood exposed ID not to individuals, but the masses who didn't pay for the effect. Not only did it reach more people (and create more exposure), but those people didn't have to invest anything into the effect and are thus less inclined to understand the inherent nature of the secret of magic.

Whether we like it or not, the ID is certainly in public domain as no one is able to claim rights to this effect. I'm not debating here what is and what isn't public domain right now. The point is that the secret belongs to "all" the magicians and not just one.

SO in that sense it's not respectful of our art, our fellow performers, and our audience to reveal a secret that is not solely ours to share. If someone wants to reveal a trick they created that is exclusive to them, then that's one thing. But naturally that doesn't typically happen! It's guys who have NO RIGHT to a trick who feel they can ruin it for everyone else for the sake of "challenging people to create better magic." Are you serious?! Why don't YOU create the better magic rather than to reveal secrets that other people have worked hard to create and protect? It's because these exposers are LAZY and want to take an easy way to fame (I'm thinking more masked magician than Brushwood as I have yet to see Brushwood perform anything.).

And that is my primary issue with the exposure of guys like the masked magician (and in this case, Brushwood).

Now that I've been around the block a few times, I don't really think it will hurt magic in the long run. We just have to keep adapting. I'm not saying it doesn't hurt magic though...it does. But exposure won't KILL magic. :)
[/quote]

I COMPLETELY disagree with your initial premise. The pitchman is trying to sell it to as MANY people as POSSIBLE. He just has a rather inefficient business model.
Information is continually become more easily available, in ALL fields, and yes, that means people who want to learn something do not have to put in as much effort into finding the information. They still have to put in SOME effort, just actually LOOKING in the first place, along with the (even little) time it takes to watch.

So, in the end, Brushwood simply has a much better, more efficient, business model.

As for what "secrets" they have a "right" to share, if you (legitimately) possess information, then that information is yours to do with what you wish.
If I tell you something, I have given you that information, and it is now yours to do with as you wish.

I'm not saying it's "respectful" for you to do whatever you like, just that you CAN, and that I made the information available in the first place.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Mar 8, 2013 01:56PM)
Yeah the whole " I hope you get cancer and did comment is kinda insulting to those who have been through it and battled it !
Message: Posted by: Jamie Ferguson (Mar 8, 2013 02:05PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 14:16, writeall wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 12:40, Ray Haining wrote:
I have no idea what L&S stands for.
[/quote]

It's something about male genitalia.
[/quote]
That's about the long and short of it.
Message: Posted by: Don Dasher (Mar 8, 2013 02:14PM)
I'm a big magic fan. And honestly, I have no idea who Brian Brushwood is.

He's not on tv as far as I know. He uploads exposure stuff to youtube? And now he is trying to sell a trick?

Sounds pretty typical. Every so often some cracked-out kid comes spinning through magic making a lot of noise like he's an expert on something. They either spike up their hair, have obnoxious tattoos or are somehow associated with the "underground" or the "real work". But they're just low-grade con men who see the magicians as their mark. Several are probably coming to mind as you read this.

He's just another one.

DD

PS. This is the future of magic.
Message: Posted by: Ray Haining (Mar 8, 2013 02:17PM)
Cancer is nothing to joke about. Having witnessed it firsthand, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I do think this Brushwood character is despicable, though.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Mar 8, 2013 03:02PM)
Very true ray. And wether I like him or not. What happened to the no flaming rule?
Message: Posted by: Don Dasher (Mar 8, 2013 03:05PM)
Although I didn't make the comment, it should be pointed out that the cancer comment was to make a point about a previous tasteless comment relating to Brian being burned alive.

I guess I'm the only one who noticed that.

The original comment about being burned was in poor taste. And I'm no prude.

I happen to know someone who was burned alive. How does that relate? Just the facts please.


DD
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 8, 2013 03:19PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 14:55, gdw wrote:
I COMPLETELY disagree with your initial premise. The pitchman is trying to sell it to as MANY people as POSSIBLE. He just has a rather inefficient business model.
...
So, in the end, Brushwood simply has a much better, more efficient, business model.
[/quote]

Meh...the point is that Brushwood is selling to a network knowing they will share the information with the "public" versus a pitchman who sells to individuals IN the public. Obviously a pitchman would LOVE to sell a deck to every person in the room...but even so in that way it would cost EVERY person something (more than time). This is different than watching on TV or the internet...would you not agree?

[quote]
On 2013-03-08 14:55, gdw wrote:
As for what "secrets" they have a "right" to share, if you (legitimately) possess information, then that information is yours to do with what you wish. If I tell you something, I have given you that information, and it is now yours to do with as you wish. I'm not saying it's "respectful" for you to do whatever you like, just that you CAN, and that I made the information available in the first place.
[/quote]

Try that in all cases of information you possess...you'll end up in prison. lol. You have restrictions placed on you by governmental laws, social pressures, internal conscience, religious beliefs, etc. I agree you CAN do whatever you want, but you and I both agree there will certainly be consequences for doing "anything" you like with the information at your disposal!

In this case, Brian is certainly earning the spite of many working magicians who use an ID in their work. He's hurting the pitchman (who is selling secrets and not just trick decks - once the secret is out, why buy the deck?), and also the public (who don't REALLY want to know how something is done - regardless of how much they beg and plead).

All around bad mojo IMO
Message: Posted by: BrianMillerMagic (Mar 8, 2013 03:29PM)
Guys, I don't agree with Brushwood exposing the ID on a mass video. However, do you really, honestly believe it's going to affect the lives and acts of regular working magicians? I've done the ID probably 20 times on stage since he exposed it. No one, other than magicians, have said the words "Brian Brushwood", "Scam School", or "Invisible Deck" to me.

But keep talking about it on a publicly accessible forum (Magic Café) and just maybe Google will pick up on it. Then it'll get even more attention!
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 8, 2013 03:33PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 16:29, BrianMillerMagic wrote:
Guys, I don't agree with Brushwood exposing the ID on a mass video. However, do you really, honestly believe it's going to affect the lives and acts of regular working magicians? I've done the ID probably 20 times on stage since he exposed it. No one, other than magicians, have said the words "Brian Brushwood", "Scam School", or "Invisible Deck" to me.

But keep talking about it on a publicly accessible forum (Magic Café) and just maybe Google will pick up on it. Then it'll get even more attention!
[/quote]

I agree with this guy ^^^

I dunno how "mad" everyone is about it (some VERY mad, apparently). I think it was wrong, we'll have others who try to get famous by doing the same things, and life (and magic) will go on.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 8, 2013 03:34PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 16:19, Matt Adams wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 14:55, gdw wrote:
I COMPLETELY disagree with your initial premise. The pitchman is trying to sell it to as MANY people as POSSIBLE. He just has a rather inefficient business model.
...
So, in the end, Brushwood simply has a much better, more efficient, business model.
[/quote]

Meh...the point is that Brushwood is selling to a network knowing they will share the information with the "public" versus a pitchman who sells to individuals IN the public. Obviously a pitchman would LOVE to sell a deck to every person in the room...but even so in that way it would cost EVERY person something (more than time). This is different than watching on TV or the internet...would you not agree?

[quote]
On 2013-03-08 14:55, gdw wrote:
As for what "secrets" they have a "right" to share, if you (legitimately) possess information, then that information is yours to do with what you wish. If I tell you something, I have given you that information, and it is now yours to do with as you wish. I'm not saying it's "respectful" for you to do whatever you like, just that you CAN, and that I made the information available in the first place.
[/quote]

Try that in all cases of information you possess...you'll end up in prison. lol. You have restrictions placed on you by governmental laws, social pressures, internal conscience, religious beliefs, etc. I agree you CAN do whatever you want, but you and I both agree there will certainly be consequences for doing "anything" you like with the information at your disposal!

In this case, Brian is certainly earning the spite of many working magicians who use an ID in their work. He's hurting the pitchman (who is selling secrets and not just trick decks - once the secret is out, why buy the deck?), and also the public (who don't REALLY want to know how something is done - regardless of how much they beg and plead).

All around bad mojo IMO
[/quote]

First, I would argue there is a difference, and it's actually that the pitchman is almost exclusively targeting laymen, where as Scam School is being watched by people who, by the very act it watching, have shown an interest in the subject material, and learning it.
Not saying the pitchman's audience isn't showing interest, but he isn't targeting "magicians," where as Brushwood's show is geared towards people interested on performing what he teaches.

Also, it's up to the supplier to chooser their price, and those providing the demand to decide of if they want uk accept that price. In other words, why do you get to choose what price is acceptable?

As for information, the law is irrelevant. The question is whether or not you have a right to use that which you possess. "Illegal" and "immoral" are two VERY different things. Sadly, the law usually has little to nothing to do with what is right or wrong.
Message: Posted by: BrianMillerMagic (Mar 8, 2013 03:38PM)
There are 54,000 registered members of The Magic Café, and already 1500 views in this thread that isn't even two pages. All of you who are worried about exposure? This is a PUBLIC forum with the same potential numbers as Brushwood has on YouTube, via Google searching. You're doing the exact same thing that he did: drawing attention to a major secret in a public forum. And yet... only magicians care.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 8, 2013 03:41PM)
Lastly, with regard to "hurting" the pitchman, it's called competition. The pitchman is also "hurt" by anyone who provides the same products for less than him. He's also "hurt" by people who are better at selling.

You can't "steal" sales from someone by providing an alternative. Burger King isn't "stealing" from McDonald's, nor is a charity "stealing" from them when they are giving away food for free.
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 8, 2013 04:07PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 16:34, gdw wrote:
First, I would argue there is a difference, and it's actually that the pitchman is almost exclusively targeting laymen, where as Scam School is being watched by people who, by the very act it watching, have shown an interest in the subject material, and learning it.
Not saying the pitchman's audience isn't showing interest, but he isn't targeting "magicians," where as Brushwood's show is geared towards people interested on performing what he teaches.
[/quote]

Now that's a good point there...didn't think about Brian's "target" audience. It's actually not the public at large (such as the Masked Moron).
(Obviously still rather him not expose...but you got a point there.)
Message: Posted by: Stucky (Mar 8, 2013 06:23PM)
Don is correct. I was making a point about another comment that was equally as harmful and ridiculous. Wishing permanent harm on someone over something like exposure of a card trick is a bit over the top and if he saw that would likely not appreciate it.

[img]http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/The_More_You_Know.jpg[/img]

[quote]
On 2013-03-08 16:05, Don Dasher wrote:
Although I didn't make the comment, it should be pointed out that the cancer comment was to make a point about a previous tasteless comment relating to Brian being burned alive.

I guess I'm the only one who noticed that.

The original comment about being burned was in poor taste. And I'm no prude.

I happen to know someone who was burned alive. How does that relate? Just the facts please.


DD
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Ray Haining (Mar 8, 2013 06:51PM)
BrianMillerMagic makes a good point. I, for one, am going to stop posting on anything that mentions his name, unless, of course, it is to join others in lamenting the fact that he has been elected president of the American Society of Magicians. If you think it couldn't happen, look at the career of Penn and Teller, the king and originators of this exposure stuff, who are now respectable and honored members of the magical community.
Message: Posted by: Don Dasher (Mar 8, 2013 07:02PM)
I wouldn't compare Brushwood to Penn and Teller as much as I would compare him to someone else nobody liked for a long time...

Hitler. I would compare Brian Brushwood to Adolf Hitler.


DD
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Mar 8, 2013 07:13PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 20:02, Don Dasher wrote:
I wouldn't compare Brushwood to Penn and Teller as much as I would compare him to someone else nobody liked for a long time...

Hitler. I would compare Brian Brushwood to Adolf Hitler.


DD
[/quote]

See BB's BT thread... I knew it... I knew it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
Message: Posted by: Jamie Ferguson (Mar 8, 2013 07:25PM)
Now THAT was a prediction :wow:
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 8, 2013 07:26PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 17:07, Matt Adams wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 16:34, gdw wrote:
First, I would argue there is a difference, and it's actually that the pitchman is almost exclusively targeting laymen, where as Scam School is being watched by people who, by the very act it watching, have shown an interest in the subject material, and learning it.
Not saying the pitchman's audience isn't showing interest, but he isn't targeting "magicians," where as Brushwood's show is geared towards people interested on performing what he teaches.
[/quote]

Now that's a good point there...didn't think about Brian's "target" audience. It's actually not the public at large (such as the Masked Moron).
(Obviously still rather him not expose...but you got a point there.)
[/quote]

Wow, thanks. Sorry, that's just incredible to see, especially in an online discussion, lol.
Message: Posted by: parmenion (Mar 9, 2013 06:41AM)
:)
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 9, 2013 07:27AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 20:26, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 17:07, Matt Adams wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 16:34, gdw wrote:
First, I would argue there is a difference, and it's actually that the pitchman is almost exclusively targeting laymen, where as Scam School is being watched by people who, by the very act it watching, have shown an interest in the subject material, and learning it.
Not saying the pitchman's audience isn't showing interest, but he isn't targeting "magicians," where as Brushwood's show is geared towards people interested on performing what he teaches.
[/quote]

Now that's a good point there...didn't think about Brian's "target" audience. It's actually not the public at large (such as the Masked Moron).
(Obviously still rather him not expose...but you got a point there.)
[/quote]

Wow, thanks. Sorry, that's just incredible to see, especially in an online discussion, lol.
[/quote]

LOL. I know some folks argue just to argue. But that's incredibly foolish if you ask me. It's extremely unlikely that the "other side" has NO valid points. How ludicrous (and arrogant) to think we have the all the answers! You are also right, unfortunately, in that this is very rare online. But it's also rare in "real life" - people just don't want to say "You're right"

But they should! Heck, the moment I find out something I'm believing isn't quite spot-on, I'm changing that to follow Truth. :)

Unfortunately, Truth is hard for many people to recognize. :-P
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 9, 2013 10:00AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-09 08:27, Matt Adams wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 20:26, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 17:07, Matt Adams wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 16:34, gdw wrote:
First, I would argue there is a difference, and it's actually that the pitchman is almost exclusively targeting laymen, where as Scam School is being watched by people who, by the very act it watching, have shown an interest in the subject material, and learning it.
Not saying the pitchman's audience isn't showing interest, but he isn't targeting "magicians," where as Brushwood's show is geared towards people interested on performing what he teaches.
[/quote]

Now that's a good point there...didn't think about Brian's "target" audience. It's actually not the public at large (such as the Masked Moron).
(Obviously still rather him not expose...but you got a point there.)
[/quote]

Wow, thanks. Sorry, that's just incredible to see, especially in an online discussion, lol.
[/quote]

LOL. I know some folks argue just to argue. But that's incredibly foolish if you ask me. It's extremely unlikely that the "other side" has NO valid points. How ludicrous (and arrogant) to think we have the all the answers! You are also right, unfortunately, in that this is very rare online. But it's also rare in "real life" - people just don't want to say "You're right"

But they should! Heck, the moment I find out something I'm believing isn't quite spot-on, I'm changing that to follow Truth. :)

Unfortunately, Truth is hard for many people to recognize. :-P
[/quote]

That is such a wonderful, and refreshing attitude to see, and you're roht, sadly seen rarely in real life too.
It can be wonderful to change your mind.
Message: Posted by: Jamie Ferguson (Mar 9, 2013 10:01AM)
I never change my mind.

Actually, yes I do.
Message: Posted by: JackMagic (Mar 9, 2013 01:21PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-09 11:01, Jamie Ferguson wrote:
I never change my mind.

Actually, yes I do.
[/quote]

This is idea of Jamie's humour

Predictable !
Message: Posted by: Jamie Ferguson (Mar 9, 2013 01:30PM)
As is JackMagic's nonsensical sentence construction.
Message: Posted by: Don Dasher (Mar 9, 2013 01:54PM)
LOL. Maybe he just didn't think you were worth arguing with.



DD

[quote]
On 2013-03-09 11:00, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-09 08:27, Matt Adams wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 20:26, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 17:07, Matt Adams wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 16:34, gdw wrote:
First, I would argue there is a difference, and it's actually that the pitchman is almost exclusively targeting laymen, where as Scam School is being watched by people who, by the very act it watching, have shown an interest in the subject material, and learning it.
Not saying the pitchman's audience isn't showing interest, but he isn't targeting "magicians," where as Brushwood's show is geared towards people interested on performing what he teaches.
[/quote]

Now that's a good point there...didn't think about Brian's "target" audience. It's actually not the public at large (such as the Masked Moron).
(Obviously still rather him not expose...but you got a point there.)
[/quote]

Wow, thanks. Sorry, that's just incredible to see, especially in an online discussion, lol.
[/quote]

LOL. I know some folks argue just to argue. But that's incredibly foolish if you ask me. It's extremely unlikely that the "other side" has NO valid points. How ludicrous (and arrogant) to think we have the all the answers! You are also right, unfortunately, in that this is very rare online. But it's also rare in "real life" - people just don't want to say "You're right"

But they should! Heck, the moment I find out something I'm believing isn't quite spot-on, I'm changing that to follow Truth. :)

Unfortunately, Truth is hard for many people to recognize. :-P
[/quote]

That is such a wonderful, and refreshing attitude to see, and you're roht, sadly seen rarely in real life too.
It can be wonderful to change your mind.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: ©NathanaelBergenMagic (Mar 9, 2013 04:12PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 20:02, Don Dasher wrote:
Hitler. I would compare Brian Brushwood to Adolf Hitler.
[/quote]

Godwin's Law. You're done here; move along.



So, only 3 pages in, and I've already had to endure someone making light of cancer (my mother has cancer, fyi - and I'm sure I'm not the only one with a connection) and someone saying that Brushwood revealing the ID is bad enough that he should be compared to being Hitler (take notice of my location, you'll see why I'm offended).


I've seen a lot of threads around here go on much longer than they should have - this is definitely one of them.
The OP got his answer; it should have ended there. And now the more comments and replies on here only make this thread more and more worthless.


Before commenting further, read this:

[quote]
On 2013-03-08 16:38, BrianMillerMagic wrote:
There are 54,000 registered members of The Magic Café, and already 1500 views in this thread that isn't even two pages. All of you who are worried about exposure? This is a PUBLIC forum with the same potential numbers as Brushwood has on YouTube, via Google searching. You're doing the exact same thing that he did: drawing attention to a major secret in a public forum. And yet... only magicians care.
[/quote]

Then do yourself a favour, and just turn elsewhere. There's nothing to see here besides grumpy ol' men making horribly tasteless jokes and others bickering over 'ethics'.


I'm just as upset about Brushwood revealing the ID - but posting here, and raising this threads "Googlibility", is only doing more harm than good.

(Bear in mind, when Googling the names of magic effects, the Café is usually the first in the list of results - and most of the time, there's plenty of reveal going on. This thread will suffer the same fate - stop adding to it.)


Dobranoc.
Message: Posted by: Jamie Ferguson (Mar 9, 2013 04:25PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-09 17:12, ©NathanaelBergenMagic wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 20:02, Don Dasher wrote:
Hitler. I would compare Brian Brushwood to Adolf Hitler.
[/quote]

Godwin's Law. You're done here; move along.



So, only 3 pages in, and I've already had to endure someone making light of cancer (my mother has cancer, fyi - and I'm sure I'm not the only one with a connection) and someone saying that Brushwood revealing the ID is bad enough that he should be compared to being Hitler (take notice of my location, you'll see why I'm offended).


I've seen a lot of threads around here go on much longer than they should have - this is definitely one of them.
The OP got his answer; it should have ended there. And now the more comments and replies on here only make this thread more and more worthless.


Before commenting further, read this:

[quote]
On 2013-03-08 16:38, BrianMillerMagic wrote:
There are 54,000 registered members of The Magic Café, and already 1500 views in this thread that isn't even two pages. All of you who are worried about exposure? This is a PUBLIC forum with the same potential numbers as Brushwood has on YouTube, via Google searching. You're doing the exact same thing that he did: drawing attention to a major secret in a public forum. And yet... only magicians care.
[/quote]

Then do yourself a favour, and just turn elsewhere. There's nothing to see here besides grumpy ol' men making horribly tasteless jokes and others bickering over 'ethics'.


I'm just as upset about Brushwood revealing the ID - but posting here, and raising this threads "Googlibility", is only doing more harm than good.

(Bear in mind, when Googling the names of magic effects, the Café is usually the first in the list of results - and most of the time, there's plenty of reveal going on. This thread will suffer the same fate - stop adding to it.)


Dobranoc.
[/quote]
:applause:

Listen to Dobranoc folks.The guy talks sense.

Time to move along now. Nothing to see here.
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 9, 2013 05:46PM)
But just for the sake of arguing (which I never do? haha, yeah right...), aren't we prolonging a stupid thread by commenting "move along" over and over?

Nevermind...We're done. Move along.
Message: Posted by: writeall (Mar 9, 2013 05:59PM)
So talking about the ID in this thread is on par with the youtube video we've been talking about? Have you seen that video?

The only difference between what I know in magic and what a raw punter knows is that I took the time or spent the money to find things out. That's it. The value comes from the difficulty and the effort expended. Maybe it was tracking down a book in a library or paying to attend a convention -- some barrier to separate the casually curious from the serious.

So, yeah, putting it on Youtube is too easy. It's as easy as showing someone "how it works" right after you've shown the effect.

I don't demand CIA-level secrecy. All I want is to make things a little bit hard. All "exposure" isn't equivalent. Not by a mile.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 9, 2013 06:44PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-09 17:12, ©NathanaelBergenMagic wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-08 20:02, Don Dasher wrote:
Hitler. I would compare Brian Brushwood to Adolf Hitler.
[/quote]

Godwin's Law. You're done here; move along.



So, only 3 pages in, and I've already had to endure someone making light of cancer (my mother has cancer, fyi - and I'm sure I'm not the only one with a connection) and someone saying that Brushwood revealing the ID is bad enough that he should be compared to being Hitler (take notice of my location, you'll see why I'm offended).


I've seen a lot of threads around here go on much longer than they should have - this is definitely one of them.
The OP got his answer; it should have ended there. And now the more comments and replies on here only make this thread more and more worthless.


Before commenting further, read this:

[quote]
On 2013-03-08 16:38, BrianMillerMagic wrote:
There are 54,000 registered members of The Magic Café, and already 1500 views in this thread that isn't even two pages. All of you who are worried about exposure? This is a PUBLIC forum with the same potential numbers as Brushwood has on YouTube, via Google searching. You're doing the exact same thing that he did: drawing attention to a major secret in a public forum. And yet... only magicians care.
[/quote]

Then do yourself a favour, and just turn elsewhere. There's nothing to see here besides grumpy ol' men making horribly tasteless jokes and others bickering over 'ethics'.


I'm just as upset about Brushwood revealing the ID - but posting here, and raising this threads "Googlibility", is only doing more harm than good.

(Bear in mind, when Googling the names of magic effects, the Café is usually the first in the list of results - and most of the time, there's plenty of reveal going on. This thread will suffer the same fate - stop adding to it.)


Dobranoc.
[/quote]

Actually, no one was making light of cancer. The post which brought cancer was doing so to point out the wrong in wishing harm, as done by a previous poster, whom most seem to have completely ignored in favour of taking the cancer reference completely out of context.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Mar 9, 2013 07:05PM)
Nevertheless it was a horrible thing to say. It is not a moot point, gdw.
Message: Posted by: Xiqual (Mar 9, 2013 07:17PM)
It was horrible. So was Russell Davidson saying "Let's all pray Brian Bushwood lights himself on fire with his fire eating"
I also saw a thread in which Russell Davidson said Hitler had some good ideas. Nice guy this Russell Davidson fellow.
James
[quote]
On 2013-03-09 20:05, tomsk192 wrote:
Nevertheless it was a horrible thing to say. It is not a moot point, gdw.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: ©NathanaelBergenMagic (Mar 9, 2013 07:19PM)
[quote]
Actually, no one was making light of cancer. The post which brought cancer was doing so to point out the wrong in wishing harm, as done by a previous poster, whom most seem to have completely ignored in favour of taking the cancer reference completely out of context.
[/quote]

I didn't ignore anything - the very fact that someone made a 'joke' regarding cancer, even sarcastically to prove a point to another member's comment, is still making light of it.

I didn't take it out of context - I was merely pointing out that it should never have been said in the first place on a forum for the discussion of magic, even to prove a point.


EDIT: Also, not to mention the comment about him lighting himself on fire.
Regardless if he exposed a method, wishing someone harm (seriously or sarcastically) with fire or cancer is in poor taste and potentially (or in this case, successfully) offensive to others.
I'm not saying we have to be over the top with our public correctness, I'm just saying when we're discussing magic on a forum for magic, let's leave the flaming and ill'wishing to other's health aside.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 9, 2013 07:54PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-09 20:19, ©NathanaelBergenMagic wrote:
[quote]
Actually, no one was making light of cancer. The post which brought cancer was doing so to point out the wrong in wishing harm, as done by a previous poster, whom most seem to have completely ignored in favour of taking the cancer reference completely out of context.
[/quote]

I didn't ignore anything - the very fact that someone made a 'joke' regarding cancer, even sarcastically to prove a point to another member's comment, is still making light of it.

I didn't take it out of context - I was merely pointing out that it should never have been said in the first place on a forum for the discussion of magic, even to prove a point.


EDIT: Also, not to mention the comment about him lighting himself on fire.
Regardless if he exposed a method, wishing someone harm (seriously or sarcastically) with fire or cancer is in poor taste and potentially (or in this case, successfully) offensive to others.
I'm not saying we have to be over the top with our public correctness, I'm just saying when we're discussing magic on a forum for magic, let's leave the flaming and ill'wishing to other's health aside.
[/quote]

It wasn't a "joke." There's the issue then.

"Lets stop posting about this idiot Brushwood & start praying he sets himself alight with his fire eating."

"And I hope you get cancer... AND DIE! (That doesn't feel good does it? Think before you drink.)"

The last line could be considered a joke/insult, but it is not built upon the cancer reference.
The cancer reference made a serious point, not humour in there at all. Then the insult at the end was adding 'you're an idiot' as a tag.

Unless Stucky indicates otherwise of his intentions, then any "joke" seen is only one inferred.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Mar 9, 2013 08:26PM)
Nothing out of context. I found it rather insulting that it had to be referenced. It's also rather insulting tat anyone would wish the guy harm.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Mar 9, 2013 08:28PM)
Yes.
Message: Posted by: bonesly (Mar 9, 2013 08:41PM)
I agree its inappropriate and an insult
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Mar 9, 2013 08:52PM)
That is one way of putting it.
Message: Posted by: Dr. Eamon (Mar 9, 2013 09:36PM)
Exposure is wrong. He is making money with inventions that are not his. He does not respect creators. I think it’s cheap! But I think if he had not taken the job they would have found someone else to do it. So at the end I think the network is to blame the most…
Message: Posted by: Stucky (Mar 10, 2013 06:05AM)
[quote]
It wasn't a "joke." There's the issue then.

The last line could be considered a joke/insult, but it is not built upon the cancer reference.
The cancer reference made a serious point, not humour in there at all. Then the insult at the end was adding 'you're an idiot' as a tag.

Unless Stucky indicates otherwise of his intentions, then any "joke" seen is only one inferred.
[/quote]

Yes not a joke at all. I was going to an extreme to make a point. Anyone ever read Johnathan Swift? (It's good thing the internet wasn't around when he was alive. Sheesh.)
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Mar 10, 2013 07:00AM)
That only works when an extreme is needed to get the point across. In this case there was no need and it just insulted members here who are battling cancer each and every day
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 10, 2013 08:05AM)
Ok guys, maybe it's cause my family has battled cancer longer than many of you (since the 1990's) but the comment wasn't THAT insulting...it wasn't funny, but they were saying things to make a point. The original "die" comment wasn't very nice, but we are online after all - the glorious place folks can speak as cruel as they like with minimal consequences. :-P But still - making a point. I would seriously doubt any of us wish he would get set on fire for revealing an ID. Sheesh.
Message: Posted by: ©NathanaelBergenMagic (Mar 10, 2013 08:43AM)
Regardless if they're jokes, attempts at making points, sarcasm, extremes, whatever - they weren't needed.

Saying things like:
"Lets stop posting about this idiot Brushwood & start praying he sets himself alight with his fire eating."
"And I hope you get cancer... AND DIE! (That doesn't feel good does it? Think before you drink.)"

Are not okay. I'm aware we're on the internet, therefore people can say whatever they want without fear consequences - but it needs to be considered that we're on a MAGIC DISCUSSION FORUM, specifically. We have rules here we're expected to follow:
"Staying on topic is a must here at the Café. Personal attacks or insulting opinions and statements regarding other posters can not and will not be tolerated."
I'm aware this is directed towards members at members, but I think we can safely say this may relate to flaming people NOT on the Café as well.

The topic was "Who is Brian Brushwood" - NOT let's start wishing he lights himself on fire or compare him to Hitler. (Even if said comments were made sarcastically).

While talk like that is expected/encouraged on youtube comments or wherever your chosen venue for inappropriate comments may be - this isn't the place.

We were answering the question of a fellow member as to who Brian Brushwood was. While his career choices (exposure) were expected to arise and discussion thereafter was encouraged, these "jokes" and "points" and "extremes" were just not.

Considering we have a magician most of us look up to, and others call friend, ACTUALLY get lit on fire. I don't think we should be wishing it on others, even sarcastically - - And, in turn, that wish should not be met with a comment hoping said member gets cancer, even to prove an extreme.

I'm not saying that shouldn't be said - I'm saying that shouldn't be said on THIS magic forum.
There's a time and a place - this may be the time, but this isn't the place.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Mar 10, 2013 09:46AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-10 07:05, Stucky wrote:
[quote]
It wasn't a "joke." There's the issue then.

The last line could be considered a joke/insult, but it is not built upon the cancer reference.
The cancer reference made a serious point, not humour in there at all. Then the insult at the end was adding 'you're an idiot' as a tag.

Unless Stucky indicates otherwise of his intentions, then any "joke" seen is only one inferred.
[/quote]

Yes not a joke at all. I was going to an extreme to make a point. Anyone ever read Johnathan Swift? (It's good thing the internet wasn't around when he was alive. Sheesh.)
[/quote]

You compare yourself to Swift? "Sheesh".
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 10, 2013 10:57AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-10 10:46, tomsk192 wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-10 07:05, Stucky wrote:
[quote]
It wasn't a "joke." There's the issue then.

The last line could be considered a joke/insult, but it is not built upon the cancer reference.
The cancer reference made a serious point, not humour in there at all. Then the insult at the end was adding 'you're an idiot' as a tag.

Unless Stucky indicates otherwise of his intentions, then any "joke" seen is only one inferred.
[/quote]

Yes not a joke at all. I was going to an extreme to make a point. Anyone ever read Johnathan Swift? (It's good thing the internet wasn't around when he was alive. Sheesh.)
[/quote]

You compare yourself to Swift? "Sheesh".
[/quote]

Wow, the eagerness to jump on everything and infer your own conclusions rather that seeing what is the obvious intent.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 10, 2013 11:00AM)
My wife's grandmother recently died . . . of old age. Next time anyone mentioned age, I'm loosing it!
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Mar 10, 2013 11:15AM)
Oh do give over.

Jonathan Swift didn't offend many people who had cannibalised their children. Nor did he trivialise giants or minute 6" high people. Swiftian satire is rather more than saying "get cancer". You really are being a boor. My grandmother died with dementia last year, but the only irritating thing about your post was your misspelling.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Mar 10, 2013 11:29AM)
Well the cancer comment did offend. If he's had the right to say it. We have a right to raise point!
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Mar 10, 2013 11:49AM)
[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!
[/quote]

Y'know, its ok to sometimes apologize. I screw up all the time and own up to it when I realize it. Its a good thing.
Message: Posted by: ©NathanaelBergenMagic (Mar 10, 2013 11:51AM)
[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!
[/quote]

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.
Message: Posted by: writeall (Mar 10, 2013 02:38PM)
And for my next trick, I'll make this thread disappear!

Might take a minute...
Message: Posted by: Raymond Singson (Mar 12, 2013 08:22AM)
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.
Message: Posted by: MichaelKent (Mar 12, 2013 08:26AM)
Raymond - that was a hell of a post.
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Mar 12, 2013 08:29AM)
Magic has a whole is a wonderful concept. Of course, the community is made of real people. Will it hurt in the long run the entire field? time will tell - but I think it can hurt individual humans.

Of course the paradigm shift I think that needs to occur is entertainers need to understand the goal is engaging people and entertaining them and being flexible and nimble to shift to plan b-z and beyond... so that the methods are really METHODS and not GOALS...

IMHO
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 12, 2013 08:41AM)
[quote]
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!
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

I was intentionally being absurd.

Also, "someone wishes another member to die from it while discussing a magician's career," is pretty much what happened, albeit not wishing directed at a "member" of the forum, when someone wished Brushwood dead. Stucky was clearly offended, hence his response.
The true irony of this is astounding.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Mar 12, 2013 08:47AM)
You must be easily astounded by small ironies. Remind me to show you the 21 card trick sometime.

Any chance of getting back on topic?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 12, 2013 09:27AM)
[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.
[/quote]

YES! This is EXACTLY what I have been saying. Not 100% sure I agree that spectators don't care for the methods as much as they do for the experience, well, in general, yeah, maybe, though spectators are individuals of course, and there certainly are some who care more about the methods, but this is largely, as I see it, propagated by, as you said, the attitude which "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."
THIS is the REAL problem that so many are ignoring, and some flat out dismissing, instead, continue their childish whining about "exposure."

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Although one could argue some of those trivial aspects are part of what make magic unique, I would absolutely agree with you here.

Makes me wonder, can one even be said to truly view magic as an art if they are complaining about the general public learning their "precious secrets?"

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

That first special was, as Penn Jillette says, "the best TV magic special ever done" because of the focus on the the audience, and their experience. Simply turning that camera around was a stroke of brilliance, whether Blaine knew it or not. Often the brilliance of art is found in happy little "accidents."

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Which makes truly artful magic that much more impressive, beautiful, and valued.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

I'm getting kind of sick of agreeing with you.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Though I wouldn't agree that it really 'threatens' the livelihood of individual creators, other than that, yup, I agree again.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

A LOT of people here will probably disagree with you here, more so than anything else you posted, but, me, no surprise here, I agree.

I almost want to re-quote it just to let it all just sit out there, lol.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 12, 2013 09:31AM)
Dammit, hit quote originally instead of edit.
Ok, here was what I meant to change.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Though I wouldn't agree that it really 'threatens' the livelihood of individual creators, [b][i]while they certainly can, and will, get upset by it, any effect on their livelihood at that point will be of their own doing.[/i][/b] Other than that, yup, I agree again.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Mar 12, 2013 10:05AM)
[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.
[/quote]

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.

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.

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's 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 )

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.
Message: Posted by: bonesly (Mar 12, 2013 10:46AM)
[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.
[/quote]

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'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.

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. :(

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.

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.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 12, 2013 10:54AM)
[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Movies absolutely depend upon hiding the methods. A movie would not work if you watched it, and you saw all the crew, cameras, etc, green screens, motion-capture suits, etc. These things, in the general*, must remain hidden during a performance for the film to work.

The fact that people can still enjoy a film, while, outside of the film, having been "exposed" to the behind the scenes realities, is kind of the point. Similarly, you can enjoy a concert, even if you know the mechanics of each of the instruments.

Now, if, during a movie, you see a crew member in the background, or you see the wires suspending someone during a stunt, or catch a glimpse of a crash mat, or a stunt double, it "kicks you out" of the movie. If all you can hear during a concert is the electrical hum of the mics, or poorly oiled pistons of trumpets constantly squeaking, then you will be similarly "out" of the experience.

However, the mere knowledge of these mechanics and behind the scenes aspects do not otherwise ruin the movie, or concert going experiences

We should be more concerned with getting magic to be appreciated on a level like this, rather than complaining about the side effects of the fact that it is not viewed as such an art, which only, as Raymond Said, "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."
By doing so you only give credence to this notion, and further relegate magic to a "lesser art." It's a circle which you are propagating.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

That's a terrible example, as you are basically pointing to bad magic, and being disappointed by such. This is much more akin to watching a bad film, and constantly being "disappointed" by bad audio, and terrible effects work. Like an Ed Wood film, but without the heart.

[quote]
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 )
[/quote]

As someone who's spent a LOT of time "pitching" D'Lites at a magic theatre's magic shop, I disagree. Though there certainly was the occasional "disappointed" customer (maybe they were expecting "real" magic)the majority were quite enthralled. I would watch kids running around the theater lobby "tossing" the "light" back and forth with each other, elated by the notion of being able to do a little "magic" themselves.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

"Training the lay public to focus on method" is exactly what you are doing NOW, by focusing on the exposure of methods your self. YOU are propogating exactly what you wishing to stop. It's the same as Beyonce’s publicist going after the pictures from her half-time performance: it only exacerbated the situation, and that was all anyone was talking about after.
Same with Janet Jackson's wardrobe "malfunction." The uproar from censors ensured more interest in Jackson's nipple, and it's fancy piercing.
Or the white-house demanding that [url=http://masermedia.org/contest-best-shop-of-obama-shooting-skeet/]no one manipulate the photo of Obama skeet shooting.[/url]

This is what you are ENCOURAGING, not preventing.


*A deconstructivist approach to film could be interesting, similar to Penn & Teller's approach with magic.
Message: Posted by: Glenn Morphew (Mar 12, 2013 11:18AM)
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.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 12, 2013 11:25AM)
[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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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. :(
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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."
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 12, 2013 11:34AM)
[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Nothing new. He's been teaching "magic" on it for a long time. Both Ammar and Daniel Garcia appeared and taught what were clearly magic tricks, and not just scams to win drinks. "Magic" school is definitely what it is, the "scam" angle is, and always has been, simply the hook.
Message: Posted by: Raymond Singson (Mar 12, 2013 11:54AM)
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.
Message: Posted by: bonesly (Mar 12, 2013 12:04PM)
[quote]
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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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. :(
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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."
[/quote]

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)

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.

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

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.

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.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 12, 2013 12:07PM)
[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Lol, thanks I guess, although not too many others seem to think so.
Oh well, time will show in the end. History has shown that those who fight progress (knowingly or not,) are simply left behind.
Paradigms shift. You can recognize it, see the future, and you get behind it, or you can just get in the way. One of those approaches will end up with you left behind.
That's the nature of progress.
Message: Posted by: bonesly (Mar 12, 2013 12:22PM)
Oh by the way:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/9208514/Penn-and-Teller-magician-to-sue-over-stolen-trick.html

Like I said exposers will never really understand the damage until it knocks on their own door.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 12, 2013 12:40PM)
[quote]
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)
[/quote]

Have you actually seem Tamariz live? You WILL experience wonder.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

You know, I pretty much agree, which is why you should stop focusing on "exposure" as you are propagating an attitude which is about preventing, and destroying the wonder, just as Raymond explained.

[quote]
On 2013-03-12 13:04, bonesly wrote:

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

Oh I disagree. Perhaps we can make the FEEL like anything is possible, but we should NOT be changing their perception of reality to the extent that the believe "anything" is possible. Make them feel like that in that moment, sure, but not changing their notion of reality. We should be celebrating reality.
Trying to make people believe anything is possible is more the tactic of "physics" (as opposed to mentalists) and other scam artists.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Lol, I'd agree about mm, but that is patently false in regards to Penn & Teller. They worked FAR
They worked FAR harder than Copperfield ever did. Not that Copperfield doesn't, and didn't work hard, but Penn & Teller have MORE than payed their dues. The controversy with their cups and balls certainly helped them, but they worked their asses off (relatively speaking, lets not kid ourselves, none of us work even half as hard as probably 2/3 the worlds population.)
Not to mention, Copperfield, and Penn & Teller consider themselves friends, and colleagues.
Not sure if Blaine and then consider themselves "friends," or more "acquaintances."


[quote]
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.
[/quote]

I'd argue some people actually got MORE work due to the increased interest in magic. I know I did. As I explained before, not only did I notice more interest in magic, I was able to use audiences "knowledge" from "exposure" to fool them even more.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 12, 2013 01:00PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-12 13:22, bonesly wrote:
Oh by the way:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/9208514/Penn-and-Teller-magician-to-sue-over-stolen-trick.html

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

Yeah, this has bothered me. The cognitive dissonance they must be experiencing due to the conflict between their view of "secretary in magic and their antiquated views on intellectual "property."

That said, I believe Teller went after the guy for his initial "performing" of the knock off of Shadows. The guy's offer to sell an explanation of the routine was, as I am recalling, his response to Teller asking him not to perform it.
Of course I could be mistaken about the order of events, but, as I recall it, it was the "IP infringement" that upset Teller, not (necessarily, or at least not initially) the "exposure."

In my view, there's really no difference between exposure and "IP infringemen." They can both be, depending on the situation, dick things to do, however they are not inherently immoral.
Similar to burping. Nothing wrong with burping, and you have every right to burp, but it can be a rude, and dickish, thing to do depending on the situation.
Message: Posted by: bonesly (Mar 12, 2013 02:39PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-12 13:40, gdw wrote:
[quote]
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)
[/quote]

Have you actually seem Tamariz live? You WILL experience wonder.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

You know, I pretty much agree, which is why you should stop focusing on "exposure" as you are propagating an attitude which is about preventing, and destroying the wonder, just as Raymond explained.

[quote]
On 2013-03-12 13:04, bonesly wrote:

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

Oh I disagree. Perhaps we can make the FEEL like anything is possible, but we should NOT be changing their perception of reality to the extent that the believe "anything" is possible. Make them feel like that in that moment, sure, but not changing their notion of reality. We should be celebrating reality.
Trying to make people believe anything is possible is more the tactic of "physics" (as opposed to mentalists) and other scam artists.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Lol, I'd agree about mm, but that is patently false in regards to Penn & Teller. They worked FAR
They worked FAR harder than Copperfield ever did. Not that Copperfield doesn't, and didn't work hard, but Penn & Teller have MORE than payed their dues. The controversy with their cups and balls certainly helped them, but they worked their asses off (relatively speaking, lets not kid ourselves, none of us work even half as hard as probably 2/3 the worlds population.)
Not to mention, Copperfield, and Penn & Teller consider themselves friends, and colleagues.
Not sure if Blaine and then consider themselves "friends," or more "acquaintances."


[quote]
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.
[/quote]

I'd argue some people actually got MORE work due to the increased interest in magic. I know I did. As I explained before, not only did I notice more interest in magic, I was able to use audiences "knowledge" from "exposure" to fool them even more.
[/quote]


GDW your still failing to understand the difference between AWE and WONDER. They are similar but not the same.

I believe when you witness Tamariz that you are left in awe watching a master who has perfected his craft, however that feeling cannot be wonder if you know the method/secret to anyone of his effects.

Okay P&T have worked hard in selling their brand of entertainment. However, their brand is 'we are the guys who **** off all the magicians and tell you how the tricks are done'. That sounds controversial and is a great marketing ploy. It was mainly their brand that made them successful, people were naturally drawn to the controversy.

To be fair to P&T some of the exposure wasn't even really exposure. The exposure was done in a way to make lay audiences admire the secret and the puzzle. Some of the methods were more impressive than the actual tricks themselves. Also they mainly exposed their own routines and tricks, ones that they had invented. Although, I do remember them exposing the thumb tip, which left me annoyed when I went to school.

I'm glad you got more work because of Penn & Teller. I would be surprised if that was the case for most magicians around that time. In fact I think Penn has contributed to a negative view of magicians to the public.
When you hear Penn talk you get this feeling that he doesn't really like magic and he thinks most magicians are lame and cheesy.

I don't think a celebrity like him helps eradicate the negative stereotypes that the public have with magicians. So, in general, I don't agree with the notion that because of Penn and Teller more magicians have gained work.

IMO magicians like Copperfield, Blaine, Dynamo, Cyril etc have done much more to help improve the publics perception of magicians than MM, P&T and all the other sellouts have done.
Message: Posted by: bonesly (Mar 12, 2013 02:44PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-12 14:00, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-12 13:22, bonesly wrote:
Oh by the way:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/9208514/Penn-and-Teller-magician-to-sue-over-stolen-trick.html

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

Yeah, this has bothered me. The cognitive dissonance they must be experiencing due to the conflict between their view of "secretary in magic and their antiquated views on intellectual "property."

That said, I believe Teller went after the guy for his initial "performing" of the knock off of Shadows. The guy's offer to sell an explanation of the routine was, as I am recalling, his response to Teller asking him not to perform it.
Of course I could be mistaken about the order of events, but, as I recall it, it was the "IP infringement" that upset Teller, not (necessarily, or at least not initially) the "exposure."

In my view, there's really no difference between exposure and "IP infringemen." They can both be, depending on the situation, dick things to do, however they are not inherently immoral.
Similar to burping. Nothing wrong with burping, and you have every right to burp, but it can be a rude, and dickish, thing to do depending on the situation.
[/quote]

What you believe is hearsay, the facts are there for all to see
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 12, 2013 03:14PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-12 15:39, bonesly wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-03-12 13:40, gdw wrote:
[quote]
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)
[/quote]

Have you actually seem Tamariz live? You WILL experience wonder.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

You know, I pretty much agree, which is why you should stop focusing on "exposure" as you are propagating an attitude which is about preventing, and destroying the wonder, just as Raymond explained.

[quote]
On 2013-03-12 13:04, bonesly wrote:

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

Oh I disagree. Perhaps we can make the FEEL like anything is possible, but we should NOT be changing their perception of reality to the extent that the believe "anything" is possible. Make them feel like that in that moment, sure, but not changing their notion of reality. We should be celebrating reality.
Trying to make people believe anything is possible is more the tactic of "physics" (as opposed to mentalists) and other scam artists.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Lol, I'd agree about mm, but that is patently false in regards to Penn & Teller. They worked FAR
They worked FAR harder than Copperfield ever did. Not that Copperfield doesn't, and didn't work hard, but Penn & Teller have MORE than payed their dues. The controversy with their cups and balls certainly helped them, but they worked their asses off (relatively speaking, lets not kid ourselves, none of us work even half as hard as probably 2/3 the worlds population.)
Not to mention, Copperfield, and Penn & Teller consider themselves friends, and colleagues.
Not sure if Blaine and then consider themselves "friends," or more "acquaintances."


[quote]
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.
[/quote]

I'd argue some people actually got MORE work due to the increased interest in magic. I know I did. As I explained before, not only did I notice more interest in magic, I was able to use audiences "knowledge" from "exposure" to fool them even more.
[/quote]


GDW your still failing to understand the difference between AWE and WONDER. They are similar but not the same.

I believe when you witness Tamariz that you are left in awe watching a master who has perfected his craft, however that feeling cannot be wonder if you know the method/secret to anyone of his effects.

Okay P&T have worked hard in selling their brand of entertainment. However, their brand is 'we are the guys who **** off all the magicians and tell you how the tricks are done'. That sounds controversial and is a great marketing ploy. It was mainly their brand that made them successful, people were naturally drawn to the controversy.

To be fair to P&T some of the exposure wasn't even really exposure. The exposure was done in a way to make lay audiences admire the secret and the puzzle. Some of the methods were more impressive than the actual tricks themselves. Also they mainly exposed their own routines and tricks, ones that they had invented. Although, I do remember them exposing the thumb tip, which left me annoyed when I went to school.

I'm glad you got more work because of Penn & Teller. I would be surprised if that was the case for most magicians around that time. In fact I think Penn has contributed to a negative view of magicians to the public.
When you hear Penn talk you get this feeling that he doesn't really like magic and he thinks most magicians are lame and cheesy.

I don't think a celebrity like him helps eradicate the negative stereotypes that the public have with magicians. So, in general, I don't agree with the notion that because of Penn and Teller more magicians have gained work.

IMO magicians like Copperfield, Blaine, Dynamo, Cyril etc have done much more to help improve the publics perception of magicians than MM, P&T and all the other sellouts have done.
[/quote]

I think you completely misunderstand me. Tamariz is one of the few who have made me truly feel like a laymen again. He fooled the **** out of me.
I am talking about people who CAN, and DO still fool you, and yes, even with methods you are familiar with. Just because you are aware of a method does not mean you cannot be taken in by it. Methods you know can be used to "fool" you.

Also, I was referring even more so to the MM being the one who created more interest in magic from which I benefited from, far more so than Penn & Teller at the time.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Mar 15, 2013 10:00PM)
Here is a quote from a a very successful well known magician: I respect his comments. Name withheld

"It's getting that reaction again and again and again that creates the desire to learn a new trick to perform. The awe and the question “How did you do that?” is a powerful moment. For magicians, it's not so much a matter of a big secret that we have, but it's the power of having the secret. How you answer the question - How did you do that? - determines where you'll end up going. If it's “Oh, that not a big deal, here, I'll show you how it's done,” then the magic just becomes a passing phase and you eventually become a doctor or a lawyer or something else. However, if you maintain the secrecy, then you control that power and eventually become a magician and learn another trick.

Just thought it was relevant to the conversation. But I'm thinking I should have left the sleeping dog lie.
Message: Posted by: Matt Adams (Mar 16, 2013 02:48AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-15 23:00, davidpaul$ wrote:
But I'm thinking I should have left the sleeping dog lie.
[/quote]

I was just thinking, "DANG IT ALL!"

haha
Message: Posted by: writeall (Mar 16, 2013 06:06PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-15 23:00, davidpaul$ wrote:
Here is a quote from a a very successful well known magician: I respect his comments. Name withheld

"It's getting that reaction again and again and again that creates the desire to learn a new trick to perform. The awe and the question “How did you do that?” is a powerful moment. For magicians, it's not so much a matter of a big secret that we have, but it's the power of having the secret. How you answer the question - How did you do that? - determines where you'll end up going. If it's “Oh, that not a big deal, here, I'll show you how it's done,” then the magic just becomes a passing phase and you eventually become a doctor or a lawyer or something else. However, if you maintain the secrecy, then you control that power and eventually become a magician and learn another trick.

Just thought it was relevant to the conversation. But I'm thinking I should have left the sleeping dog lie.
[/quote]

Tell me more about the part where I become a doctor or a lawyer.
Message: Posted by: professorwho (Mar 17, 2013 10:14AM)
I can't get excited about exposure of:
Invisible Deck
Sven
Stripper
TT
Cups and balls
Linking rings

Because they have been in the public domain for a very very long time and despite that fact spectators are still entertained by them.
Message: Posted by: ShirtlessKirk (Mar 17, 2013 04:26PM)
A big issue with online exposure now is that it is not at all difficult for spectators to look up these things on their phone right after seeing them. I've seen it happen many times. Good reason not to use the standard presentations/names of routines as it makes it much easier to look up. As for the issue of people still enjoying routines after they know the secret, they may appreciate the skill but it wont give them a sense of wonder. If you just want people to appreciate skill become a juggler. Magic to a degree depends on there being a mystery. Entertaining people is not enough.
Message: Posted by: professorwho (Mar 17, 2013 05:05PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-17 17:26, ShirtlessKirk wrote:
A big issue with online exposure now is that it is not at all difficult for spectators to look up these things on their phone right after seeing them. I've seen it happen many times. Good reason not to use the standard presentations/names of routines as it makes it much easier to look up. As for the issue of people still enjoying routines after they know the secret, they may appreciate the skill but it wont give them a sense of wonder. If you just want people to appreciate skill become a juggler. Magic to a degree depends on there being a mystery. Entertaining people is not enough.
[/quote]
Why on earth would you use the names of the routines?
To be honest if someone wants to look things up on their phone after seeing them they can't have been terribly engaged in the first place.
I think you are wrong about people not having a sense of wonder even if they know the routines, just look at kids watching a cups and balls routine even if they have a magic set with cups and balls in them.
I feel sad for people who can't accept that sometimes entertainment has to be enough, there are lots of people out there who don't like magic and react with hostility or disinterest- they are the people who are on the phone ruining things for themselves.
Message: Posted by: ShirtlessKirk (Mar 17, 2013 05:21PM)
I don't have a sense of wonder knowing the routines. I imagine it may be the same for others. I'm not suggesting someone would use the name of the routine when presenting it (it does happen, a laymen told me of a someone showing them stigmata - they knew what the trick was called) but using a popular presentation (ID) it could lead to someone finding an exposure easier. What I mean by entertainment is not enough is that if magic has anything to offer it is the sense of wonder and impossibility that comes with it. You need that impossibility otherwise why not watch other forms of entertainment.
Message: Posted by: ShirtlessKirk (Mar 17, 2013 05:26PM)
Also are there really "lots of people out there who don't like magic and react with hostility or disinterest". If that is the case why the hell do magic if there is a significant portion of people who don't care for it. Some may look for exposure because they don't care for being fooled but I think curiosity may be the overwhelming reason.
Message: Posted by: professorwho (Mar 17, 2013 06:03PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-17 18:26, ShirtlessKirk wrote:
Also are there really "lots of people out there who don't like magic and react with hostility or disinterest". If that is the case why the hell do magic if there is a significant portion of people who don't care for it. Some may look for exposure because they don't care for being fooled but I think curiosity may be the overwhelming reason.
[/quote]
Because there are enough people who like magic for it to be worth while.
Message: Posted by: professorwho (Mar 17, 2013 06:08PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-17 18:21, ShirtlessKirk wrote:
I don't have a sense of wonder knowing the routines. I imagine it may be the same for others. I'm not suggesting someone would use the name of the routine when presenting it (it does happen, a laymen told me of a someone showing them stigmata - they knew what the trick was called) but using a popular presentation (ID) it could lead to someone finding an exposure easier. What I mean by entertainment is not enough is that if magic has anything to offer it is the sense of wonder and impossibility that comes with it. You need that impossibility otherwise why not watch other forms of entertainment.
[/quote]
That sounds like you are thinking like a magician, our experience is not that of others. Even if they do not have a sense of wonder and they enjoy watching a skilful demonstration of prestidigitation then why not?
Magic is not some esoteric art that can only be effective in utmost secrecy, seriously!
Magic is a form of entertainment first and foremost, the magic comes from the performance not the "trick". This is why I don't really like or get the whole "street magic" thing, not my style of theatrics- give me a parlour or small table close up show any day.
Message: Posted by: ShirtlessKirk (Mar 17, 2013 06:09PM)
Maybe I'm optimistic but I think most people would like magic if shown good magic. I would really hate to believe that magic is disliked by any more than an insignificant portion of the population.
Message: Posted by: professorwho (Mar 17, 2013 06:11PM)
Unfortunately there are enough people who have been scarred by bad magic :-(
Message: Posted by: Chris Meece (Jun 13, 2013 06:55PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-07 19:43, Andrew Zuber wrote:
I'm gonna stick by my original post. One of the most obnoxious things on the Internet.
[/quote]

We are definitely entitled to our own opinion especially to what we find obnoxious. Personally I don't like rap music, but I won't denigrate those who do. And for the people who like rap music, denigrate means ‘put down.'

:)

Revealing ID is a pretty bad move and I don't support it at all. But as to being obnoxious, I really liked his take on the spiked routine: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOPT-BHX4Fk[/url]
Message: Posted by: Chris Meece (Jun 13, 2013 07:05PM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-17 11:14, professorwho wrote:
I can't get excited about exposure of:
...
Stripper


Because they have been in the public domain for a very very long time and despite that fact spectators are still entertained by them.
[/quote]
Am I the only one who snickered at this?
Message: Posted by: Markymark (Jun 13, 2013 07:12PM)
What would be the difference between making an exposure video of the spikes under cup and the Invisible deck?
Please don't say it's alright as Brian no longer uses the Invisible deck in his shows!
Message: Posted by: Chris Meece (Jun 13, 2013 07:18PM)
Markymark, I'm not sure if I follow you brother. Did you watch the video I posted? He didn't expose the spike under cup trick, he just did a cool version of it .. the framing was very cool. Or are you saying you would like to see how he felt if we exposed a trick he performs on stage?
Message: Posted by: Markymark (Jun 14, 2013 04:59AM)
Yes that's it Chris.I know it would be churlish and mean and show no respect for the craft but if I posted a video of how Brian does
the spikes under cup right beside his pretty good performance I don't think he would be pleased.Cheers.
Message: Posted by: Chris Meece (Jun 14, 2013 08:00AM)
I agree, but it would probably hurt us a lot more than it would hurt him.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jun 14, 2013 09:14AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-17 19:11, professorwho wrote:
Unfortunately there are enough people who have been scarred by bad magic :-(
[/quote]

Yup, this is the root of many "problems" in magic.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jun 14, 2013 09:17AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-17 19:09, ShirtlessKirk wrote:
Maybe I'm optimistic but I think most people would like magic if shown good magic. I would really hate to believe that magic is disliked by any more than an insignificant portion of the population.
[/quote]

I think that's fairly true, that most people like magic when they see good magic. As mentioned above, though, plenty have been tainted by bad magic, not a huge portion of the population, but enough to encourage people to perhaps focus on the issue of bad magic, the eal root, rather than complaining about "exposure," and challenge minded spectators.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jun 14, 2013 09:20AM)
[quote]
On 2013-03-15 23:00, davidpaul$ wrote:
Here is a quote from a a very successful well known magician: I respect his comments. Name withheld

"It's getting that reaction again and again and again that creates the desire to learn a new trick to perform. The awe and the question “How did you do that?” is a powerful moment. For magicians, it's not so much a matter of a big secret that we have, but it's the power of having the secret. How you answer the question - How did you do that? - determines where you'll end up going. If it's “Oh, that not a big deal, here, I'll show you how it's done,” then the magic just becomes a passing phase and you eventually become a doctor or a lawyer or something else. However, if you maintain the secrecy, then you control that power and eventually become a magician and learn another trick.

Just thought it was relevant to the conversation. But I'm thinking I should have left the sleeping dog lie.
[/quote]

While this certainly can play into one's ego, I completely disagree that having a secret provides any real "power." That is, it's not permanently hanging on it. If it were, then brain teasers would have long died out.
Message: Posted by: magicdave56 (Jul 31, 2014 03:51PM)
He come up with some stuffs , I will give him that.