Ok, here goes:
Intro
Some of these myths aren’t necessarily magical, but you see them a lot in the artistic community and need to be put down. There are some things a man just has to do.
This tells me Steer believes these things to follow to be the definitive argument against these ideas. Nothing wrong with passion, but this is a tall order. If there are any flaws in his arguments, then these myths have not been "put down."
Second, and this is just a fun observation, I do not know if I have ever seen any of these issues labeled "magical maxims" or "self evident truths" by anyone other than Steer. He has told me that he based these ideas on that which he has read in forums. While these may be hot topics on one or two forums, I can assure you that on others (such as the Genii forum) or among most magicians I know - none of these would be considered universally held truths. That doesn't mean that it's not worth discussing them, but it shows me that Steer has not based his arguments on a wide berth of magical thought
(edited to content)
Myth #2: The definition of exposure is subjective.
No it isn’t.
Well, anyone who has studied linguistics or semiotics knows this statement to be ridiculous on face value. All linguistic symbols have an interpretive element, it is called connotation. When we deal with issues of philosphy or aesthetics, things only get more complicated. Here, Steer has given himself the insurmountable task of making a dogmatic claim which he must now defend.
In our discussions Steer said that this was the best definition he had found and he asked me if I had a definition of exposure which was better? I countered that his very question negated the point of this "myth busting." The notion that there can be another definitions establishes the point that the definition of exposure IS subjective. Simply because he claims otherwise does not make it so.
The definition of exposure is a tricky business, and everyone seems to want to keep the definition as flexible as possible, resulting in some rather embarrassing moments for the magic community in general.
Really? Who wants to keep it flexible? I know I don't. I know the people behind the various code of ethics for clubs don't. I know the guys at WAM didn't. Quite the contrary, magicians have spent countless hours debating this notion of exposure trying to determine exactly what is and what isn't. I do not know of ANYONE who has ever campaigned for a flexible definition. If Steer can produce evidence of a movement for this, I will concede.
Second, what embarrassing moments? I have been a subscriber to the major magic magazines for some 20 years now and cannot recall any "embarrassing moment" to the magic population coming from the exposure issue (and the nature of the definition in particular). I don't think the Becker book was embarrassing to anyone but Becker. I don't think the Poundstone book was embarrassing to anyone, not even Poundstone.
There have been controversial moments, such as the Page book. But I don't think either Page or the Magic Circle were embarrassed. They each stood their ground and it was what it was. (At least, that's what Page intimated when I was working on his interview.)
The same can be said for the Camel incident, and even the Vallerino nonsense.
So, I know of no embarrassment caused to the world of magic in general from this alleged flexibility of the definition of exposure. If Steer knows of some, he should state them.
Celebracadabra in particular has become a hot button issue now that the Chicken Littles of magic have figured out that no one’s listening anymore once they start screaming about YouTube. People are saying magic is exposed on the show even though they never actually watched it. And then when they learn about the free trick Brad Christian teaches, all bets are off. The howling and flinging of excrement begins with a fervor and vitriol seldom seen outside of a British soccer game.
Accusations of exposure are thrown at everyone and everything that displeases a magician. Criss Angel, Adam Sandler (Click), Ben Stiller (Night at the Museum), and really just about anything else that threatens a magician’s tiny microcosm of elitism in which they don’t want to share their table with anybody else. It’s obscene.
Maybe I hang with a different crowd, but the guys I know aren't talking about this. When they talk about youtube, they talk about crappy performances, not exposure. Heck, one of my best friends was responsible for most of the magic that has appeared in movies over the past decades. While some small groups of people on a couple of forums might be incensed, when you look at the magic community as a whole - you just don't see it. You don't see it on the Genii forum, you don't see it discussed at Magic Live!, and you don't read about it on the Magic Castle BBS. Steer has elevated a molehill into a mountain and has drawn conclusions from it that are in no way based on what the larger world of magic and magicians have experienced. I will not discount that there is a small demographic that he is describing, but to "put something down" there has to be something to put down. And these issues are not reflective of what many magicians are concerned about. Who is this magic elite and how are they trying to control things - and if they are the elite, why are they whining on the Ellusionist forum?
Rick Maue in his tome of wisdom and effects The Book of Haunted Magick said that exposure is “the senseless and destructive revelation of secrets with no positive magical intent.” If you can find anything about that definition you don’t like, keep in mind that you’re wrong. I’m not trying to be cute; I’m dead serious.
Really? This IS the definition of exposure then? We can poke no holes in it or find issues with it as a practical tool? Now, it would be worthy to discuss this definition. However, Steer has told us there is no point. We would be wrong in not accepting it as is.
Anyone else see a problem with this?
The reason magicians refuse to agree upon a standard definition of exposure like that is because they’re still hung up on their vendettas. Exposure is one of the worst accusations to level at another magician. Performers in general love to use it to attack those they don’t like, and in order to do that they need to keep the definition vague.
Ok, who? I know of no case where the exposure issue was used in this "vendetta" fashion. If Steer has a case to bring forth, I would love to hear it. This "vendetta" concept is his evidence for the reason the definition is kept so vague - by some secret cabal of magicians, I suppose. Who is ratifying these definitions? Did they have a meeting? Was I not invited? Who is advocating the Scarlet E to be stuck upon another's forehead? Anyone?
I found this an interesting claim. However nothing I know of in the history of our art bears this our to be a regular practice, let alone true at all.
Unfortunately, this just creates more divisiveness among the community and distracts us from dealing with real problems in a proactive manner. Internet petitions to YouTube fail every time, but every few months we get someone wasting everyone’s time by trying to resurrect the idea. FOX is going to continue airing the Masked Magician specials every few years, regardless of what a bunch of high school and college students have to say. And there’s always going to be some punk in your school who buys DVDs just to show everybody the methods in a shallow bid for attention and social status.
How about instead of sounding the klaxon every time one of these events comes up, you just practice more? I know what you’re thinking. “Alex! If people know how to do a pass, how can practicing it ever help?” I never said to practice your sleights. And if you think of asking, “What else is there?” keep in mind that you will be personally responsible for me once again attempting suicide with cheese fries and vodka.
Ok, this part get's a little iffy. Not sure what he's going for here, but if it's "don't worry about it, figure out a way to get around it" then I agree. However, I also ask, should we encourage behaviors that place roadblocks in our way rather than tear them down? I mean, a smart performer can overcome most anything, but should we shoot ourselves in the foot willingly just to prove we can hope on one foot?
THAT'S what I felt was wrong (historically) with the post.
Brad
(sorry Steer, I know you want to move on, but I wanted to show that it wasn't personal - it really was a concern with the ideas as stated.)
