This is a perfect example of common sense. Thurston had the good sense to know that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. TV illusionists do much the same thing, knowing that it all works together as part of a package that entertains the audience.

We naturally want to preserve the secrets of magic in order to maintain the mystery. I believe without mystery, there is no magic. But, if in order to mystify and entertain 5000 people, I must expose the secret to 5 of them, you can sure bet I would.

All good points made here, just to add something about the idea of stealing a job from another magician. I don't really think they are doing that if they are renting the prop from another magician. Most likely they would be using said magician to do the trick anyhow.

So as a performing professional magician, one of my services is to rent props to my clients and then let them do my show for me?
If they are renting my props, then why would they hire me to perform them? What kind of new business model is that?
Also, by taking a job from a magician, it's not just that I am losing one job, but all the other engagements that the exposure from that gig would generate. That's how I think as a full time pro when I lose a gig.

Back to the Thurston thing, does anyone know what Kellar meant when he said that Thurston had ruined his beautiful levitation?

Jim

Jarret also had some choice words about Thurston.

Thurston used to bring up people on stage especialy children
and would let them get close to enough to the floating to
expose it.
He felt that the audience would assume that no magician would
do this if the person onstage could see the gimmick
and so she really must be floating. Only the person onstage
would often really see the gimmick thus upsetting Kellar.

Hello Jim,
I guess I didn't word my point very well. My thought on it was that the magician renting out the prop would most likely have been the magician to perform for them so technically someone would not be out of a job. If someone is renting a single prop then they are not wanting a full magic show, therefore they would not be hiring a magician.

To me, the concept denigrates magic, relegating it to the category of a cheap trick that anybody with a few bucks can do- especially in the minds of the "renters" and their audience.

"Hey, buddy, how much to rent ...

That plane;
Andretti's Formula One car;
An operating room;
Your wife;
Trigger (no, don't need Roy, I'll just dress like him...)

You do basically realize from a plane to a famous horse can all be rented? Denigrating an art? Don't magicians do that fine all by themselves. The masked magician will never be able to expose magic to the degree or with the regularity that most magicians do through sloppy performances. We should never expose magic? Huh, guess you haven't done too many illusion shows in theaters. Some things are easy to hide, other things are blatantly exposed to the techs. I hear you scream ND agreement, that's a joke. A renter can't send a tech to help perform an illusion? But if a "magician" is there then what it's not exposure? I can't imagine too many corporate people are asking to rent Origamis etc and performing full shows. If it's making them appear quick it's no big deal. To give them illusions to truely perform is ridiculous simply because they couldn't even pull them off. But we all love Tony Curtis in Houdini or other magic elements on TV. Isn't that exposure? How many people have been drawn to magic by these "exposures"? You have to ask yourself does the good out weigh the bad?

Keller's lev? Ohhhh... You mean the one he STOLE while in England. Ethics and magic, such an interesting concept. You buy and sell at magic stores, you don't think a Steinmeyer book is worth $1000. Complain about paying $150 for his last one but, YOUR precious secrets should be protected. It has been said by far smarter than me "you guard an empty box". Don't be the hero and complain about exposure be the hero and be a great magician. Do great magic, don't rent your props if that's your choice (I don't) but, I have sat in the audience where a regarded and frequent Magic Café user performed. He had COUNTLESS MAJOR flashes. That to me is the worst exposure. We have all been guilty of it but, that's the first exposure to stop. Talking about rentals is mostly a waste of time. Unless.... You don't really perform. Huh.

As a licensed private pilot, I know what it takes to rent a plane. Try to do it without a license and medical and see how far you get. Interestingly, I also raise, and ride, horses. Please tell me what "famous" horse you are able to rent, without credentials?

Perhaps you miss you point, which I will admit I made in the abstract. Good tools need qualified users. It is usually not just the tool. As a matter of fact, the higher level the tool, the more skilled, knowledgeable and practiced need be the user. Rent a jet, anyone?

I do perform, and do not feel speaking out is a waste of time. When magicians are gone because no one needs "rent" them anymore (who needs the magician to "have a lash" at magic), it will not be an improvement...

Yes you can rent a jet too. People with tons of money do it all the time to do mock-up dog fights. If it exists it can be rented. As for without a qualifided operator that's unlikely. As it is unlikely for magic equipement. But you don't address my main point that magic is exposed and hurt more by unprofessional performances by "magicians". Qualified to perform? We've got a thread right around this one about not using the mirror on the Origami. Magicians of all people seem to lack what makes effects work. And I reiterate this is a waste of time if your primary focus isn't first stoping exposure in your own show. This is all a red herring "this comany is aweful, look what they do" all the while so many here put out inferior quality in their own shows. Easier to blame than to focus on doing a better job. There is no magic test at any of the major builders to see if you're really a magician when you throw down your cash for a piece. The beat system is Jim Steinmeyer's, some of his effects can't be purchased unless you talk to him directly and then it can only be built by a very small handful of authorized builders. And no sellable plans exist for those effects. That is exposure control. Let's be concerned with our ethics and our own performances and this art will fair better than it currently is.

A big time magician that was in Vegas did this for yrs. He would have a company pay 90,000 for an appearance illusion and then he would show up and would do the stage hand work. For example he would sit on stage right and do the control box for an Illusion like Elevator. This illusion would be used without a magician to produce the CEO or who ever needed to be the big shot of the day. Then after the show he would roll the prop in the truck and move it to the storage for the hopes of someday becoming a big show in V.. Which he did.

This is pretty common in the magic business to produce a Ceo or make someone important do a zig zag etc... Normally it involves the magician. But sometimes the illusion is so complex like the Elevator that it can work it's self if you have all the bells and whistles..



Guess who????????
Most of his illusions were bought through this form of business.

This is truth not an opinion.. The guy told me point blank..

Taylor

There are two great speeches in the film "Other people's money".

In the film, there are two men, one is arguing to the crowd that the buisness should remain, because even though it is loosing money, it means more than the value of its stock - the other man argues that the company is dead, and should be burried with financial dignity.

that's it: Capitalism VS idealism



Personally I am an idealist when it comes to magic, but its all an opinion.
By the way, check it out, its a good film.



Tom
xx

Thanks everyone, I still would like to see more thoughts on this.