1) Oppose the willful exposure to the public of any principles of the Art of Magic, or the methods employed in any magic effect or illusion.

Wouldn't anyone who markets a magic kit or book to the public be guilty of breaking this rule? Or as long as you charge a fee are you exempt? Just asking?

Cheers.

Willful exposure means to expose for the sake of giving the secret away for no good reason other than to expose the secret.. Sale of a trick, for the purpose of instruction, etc. is not considered willful exposure. The masked moron got paid to "expose" but the type of exposure was considered willful because he was aware that it was going to be widely broadcast and the whole purpose was to simply expose how the trick was done to anyone who cared to watch.

No I contend that your first statement stands true in that his purpose was to make money. And if we accept that, did he in fact break the rule or was his actions ok according to your assessment of exposure for the sake of profit?

Later.

Interesting thoughts guys. Now I am thinking that there really isn't a difference between a magician taking money upfront for a book to be sold to the general public, which can, and will be, republished over and over for years to come...and taking money to produce a dvd ( or TV show) which exposes as well to the very same market, just in an easier to learn format. Both are paid to expose the same information intended to be given to the same general audience, just in a different format.

I think there is a huge difference and this is what it is: whether it's a published book or DVD teaching magic, the person seeking it out has to make a concentrated effort to do so and usually has to sacrifice something in order to obtain it (i.e. money to buy the book or DVD). What the Masked Magician did was exposure: not teaching. That is the difference. The viewer doesn't even have to seek it out, he can just be randomly flipping through the channels and come across it. Also, the MM only revealed secrets-- he offered nothing in way of how to perform the illusions, how to contstruct them, how to interact with the audience, etc. That is what a teaching book does-- it teaches you how to be a performer. The MM just showed us how to be a voyeur. He was wilfully exposing secrets for the purpose of entertainment only-- not for the purpose of teaching and he did so in a widespread manner that was easy to obtain by the masses. In conclusion, I think the difference hinges upon the intent of the person doing the exposing and what medium he is doing it in. Is the purpose to teach or entertain? That's the difference between a Tarbell volume or the Mark Wilson course and say, the MM or Herbert L. Becker's books. That's how I see it anyway.

Does it matter? When Marshal Brodeen hawked the "TV Magic Cards" to thousands if not millions of people with his infomercials back in the 70's, do you think he really cared weather everyone buying them would learn? I don't think he cared one way or another. What he wanted was to sell decks. And he did, so what?
That is capitalism. No problem. The problem comes in when we start to moralize capitalism as if it has a continence. Magic is a business for those of us who choose to make money from it and as such has but one goal to make money. Those magicians who try deluding themselves into believing that there is some greater good or purpose being served are as insane as a person believing they're Neapolian.

We are entertainers and as such have a right to be paid and well if we choose to be. That is what it means to be professional. The only obligation a professional entertainer has is to entertain. Since the Masked Magician entertained did he not do his job? And if he indeed was paid and paid well did he not optimize professionalism? I only raise the issue since in this forum we seem to have no problem and in fact cheer on those looking to hawk their wheres on us but let somebody else try to make a buck with what they call a real seance or energy bracelet and we go mad with indignation.

We can't have it both ways unless we admit to the hypocrisy. Either it's wrong to sell secrets or it's right, and if right then others have the right to be secretive about how they use secrets to sell. I believe that if the IBM, SAM, Magic Circle and or any other magic club were to be honest, they would have to admit that what they are indeed against is the free exchange of information for the purpose of teaching without profit. And that capitalism is the underlined motivation. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that but to contend that there is a higher purpose is as much a sham as the snake oil being sold under today's new verbiage.

Cheers.

Hi Lash...Many magic books do not teach how to perform, in fact many magic authors tell you up front that here are the "bare bones" and that presentation is up to the reader.

The original posted question was that if the magician who writes the magic book or makes a video or tv show of exposure gets compensation , is he therefore "exempt" from the rule.

You proposed a new question, that is about the intent of the "exposer". Could the writer of a magic book have an intent that did not include that they receive monetary compensation and also the ego factor to get their name out in front of the general public?

I still think JDmagic's original question was a good one. Maybe the answer not only lies in the question does the magician charge a fee...but also in who pays that fee. Should he turn down the fee if a large corporation (tv network, book publisher) is offering big dollars because (obviously) their intent is distributing this information to the general public?

Posted: Dec 14, 2010 4:02pm
JDmagic...your post arrived minutes before I got to post mine, so I didn't see it prior to my posting. I think we tend to agree on this subject.

Well...this WAS an interesting thread.

It's kind of been resurrected in the penny section. Here, http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......um=15&13 by somebody with a lot on his mind. LOL

Cheers

I would have to agree with Lash,. Writing a book with the intent to make money is not wrong. Those who buy and spend money tend to be serious about the art. You lay audience won't do that. The MM on the other hand exposed secrets to a general public who did NOT spend money on the effects exposed. This then ruined the effect for those who learned the secret and for those who perform the effects in their act.

The difference is certainly in the intent and the attitude. I think the money has little to do with it. Violation is not just the opinion of one person, but likely a review board of IBM members who would review the case at hand. Sure, there are grey areas, the rule is there to encourage members to not ruin the effects of others through blatant exposure.

Intent and Attitude, you're bang on the money.

Best
Dom