The Worst Exposers of All Time?
- Thread starter Steerpike
- Start date
- Status
Right, and I'm saying that it makes no sense. What is your solution? All you're doing is being hypocritical by inciting another "witchhunt" (which is two words, by the way: witch hunt). You still haven't proposed a solution.
lol this thread has gotten a little out of hand, I think it needs to be closed.
Everyone else just read the thread before posting. Please.
Everyone else just read the thread before posting. Please.
idiot
dood ur an idiot penn and teller r awsome and the way they xpose stuff is just another trick not the real thing bumb *ss
dood ur an idiot penn and teller r awsome and the way they xpose stuff is just another trick not the real thing bumb *ss
Please let that be a joke...(not about Penn and Teller being awesome. That's no BS. They're bomb-diggity.)
But I will say this. I agree with cbols23. This thread is really quite pointless. It is not furthering anyone's intellectual horizons in the realm of magic, at least not mine.
I would have to agree.
You may want to personally ask Teller if he believes and what he thinks about this exposure issue over at the Magic Woods, he has been over there asking questions, i am sure he will.
Keenan
Normally I would agree with this topic but Penn and Teller do reveal syuff however it's usually part of their act. And you can't say that penn and teller reveal them. teller doesn't talk. and revealing tricks has already got those two booted out of the magic circle.
I can only judge you by your words. It is clear from them that you are a die hard E apologist. Nothing wrong with that, mind you. It's ok to embrace it for what it is.
But let's stay on topic.
You made, I presume, an analogy between E's direction and the work of P&T. Some have commented that those who defend P&T from this accusation are in some how hypocritical should they assess the same title on E.
This is fallacious logic.
The question that needs to be asked is simple: Does the practice engaged in by E constitute exposure?
Some think it does, some think it doesn't. But until we come to an agreement as to what exposure is, and whether or not E is engaged in that practice, then all we have are fans versus critics.
So, I'll ask the question: Is E engaging in exposure? Specifically, how does what they do qualify as exposure?
Thoughts?
Brad
Why not?
Exposure has historically been a hot and important topic in our art. If people feel that someone has engaged in that practice, it is worth discussion.
Brad
Exposure has historically been a hot and important topic in our art. If people feel that someone has engaged in that practice, it is worth discussion.
Brad
I absolutely agree, I just think that this is the wrong context in which to discuss it.
The solution I propose is to stop clawing at the throats of those we percieve as exposers, and instead focus on overcoming the obstacle. It can be done and it has been done, but each magician needs to find the impetus in themselves to figure out how they personally can overcome the challenges they've encountered.
Unless I know them personally, I can't do that. I've tried giving general advice, but hardly anybody listens when I or anyone else for that matter does.
No, the name was just convenient for me. I'm trying to say that freaking out over every instance of the laity having a chance to learn magic betrays a lack of perspective.
To answer your question, no. I deem exposure to be the revealing of methods for selfish or malicious intent, or perhaps out of ignorance and a moment of poor judgment.
Revealing of methods with the intent of teaching and bringing new blood into the scene isn't exposure to me. We may sometimes go awry in our efforts to do right and someone will abuse the knowledge we give them, but if the medium of learning was through a book or DVD instead of personal tutoring, then I find it hard to blame the tutor anymore than I do a man who wrote a book on the mechanics of firearms and some crazy uses that knowledge to shoot up his workplace.
I really do believe that people are too quick to try and find an enemy. It's easier to tell where you stand when you have one, or at least think you do.
As to discussing exposure, I'd be more than happy to see an intelligent conversation. But you notice that there are a lot of people here attacking me who clearly didn't read past the first post. They just assumed I was serious despite my efforts to make it clear I was kidding, and went straight to the Reply button without first reading what came before them.
Camel Cigarettes launched a campaign MANY years ago called "It's fun to be fooled, but it's more fun to know." In their packs of cigarettes they included small cards which explained leading stage illusions of the day. They harbored no ill will towards magicians. In fact, had it not been for the success of magic in that day their promo campaign would have never been viable. So, there was no maliciousness. I can assure you that one of the largest cigarette companies does not engage in a nation wide advertising campaign without thoughtful consideration. So, in order for this to be exposure, it would have to be selfish - giving away magic secrets in order to sell more product.
When we look at it in those terms, would E's free tutorials then be a case of "giving away magic secrets in order to sell more product." In this case, not cigarettes, but more magic secrets?
Now, some may think we benefit from having more people involved in magic. To them I ask, why? When has quantity ever trumped quality? What guarantee is it that any of the people who visit the site will ever do more than just "learn a secret" or perhaps "buy a secret?"
Thoughts on either question?
Brad
In the case of Camel cigarettes, that's an interesting situation.
After giving it some thought, it wasn't out of any maliciousness, and I can't say I entirely approve, but it's not something I'd get worked up over. Could it be considered exposure? Yes, but I admit to finding tobacco companies utterly repugnant so I'm maybe a bit biased.
However, some might have a small heart attack when I say this but I actually bear no ill will toward Valentino. FOX's intentions may not have been particularly honorable, but Valentino himself hoped to bring new blood into magic. I can't be angry with him for that.
I see something similar happening here. It seems to me that a lot of magicians want to keep the threshold separating magicians from the laity as strictly defined as possible.
It's not a matter of quantity being better than quality. This analogy is kind of obtuse, but I ask that you humor me long enough to make a point.
Are you familiar with black metal? The genre as we know it really came about in the late 80's in Norway with a small music scene that gained enormous press because of the various psychoses and felonies of its musicians. Among the most famous stories were the numerous church burnings, and the stabbing to death of Oystein "Euronymous" Arseth by former bandmate Varg Vikernes. But I digress.
Despite the blood and chaos of the scene, a lot of good music actually came out of it, but it was steeped in an anti-mainstream ethos. Bands rejected traditional notions of musicality in many ways, some going so far as to even forego writing songs with actual key signatures. They developed a phelgmy, inhuman vocal style, a tradition of lo-fi recording, and made a habit out of wearing borderline-ridiculous "evil" costumes and facepain (referred to as corpsepaint) in order to cement this reputation.
Unfortunately, it's going too far. A couple years back, numerous black metal bands actually wrote angry emails to the wiki site Metal Archives (Encyclopedia Metallum) demanding that their band profiles be taken down because being on the internet was too mainstream and was ruining their credibility in the scene. As a result, the genre is stagnating because no new blood or ideas can be rotated into the scene.
It doesn't help matters that bands that actually do try something different or original such as Bal-Sagoth, Dimmu Borgir, Emperor, or Melechesh are shunned by the purists of the genre.
Quantity doesn't trump quality, but being afraid of that which brings a new generation into the fold is only counterproductive.
There is no quarantee. Anymore than the people who check the books out of a library will actually become proficient at coin sleights because they read Modern Coin Magic.
But rather than seriously weighing the risk and doing a cost/benefit analysis, most people it seems would rather assume the worst and not take the risk out of fear of the worst-case scenario.
May I respectfully suggest that you not believe everything you hear. Valentino's had NO desire to bring new blood into magic. His rationalization ran along the lines that if he exposed how tricks were traditionally done, it would force magicians to come up with new methods.
Of course, even this dubious claim has no merit when you look at the content of the specials themselves.
Repeatedly the host offers "Whenever you see any trick like this, it is ALWAYS DONE THE SAME WAY." (emphasis added.)
In other words, this claim that he hoped to foster new approaches is simply a last minute rationalization. If he had meant it he would have said something to the audience about magicians having numerous and personal methods for these effects, or that technology allows innovation. Nope. Instead they made everything a dead end: If you ever see anything LIKE this, it's done THIS WAY.
Second, the overall tone of the show was "look how simple. Can you believe you were fooled (by something so stupid)."
Sorry, the Zig Zag Lady may be simple, but it is genius in its simplicity. The fact that something has fooled so many people so badly for so many years doesn't make it stupid, it makes it wondrous - even when you know...no, especially when you know how it was done.
Rather than making statements designed to intrigued or create interest in the art, they tear everything down to the "isn't it silly you were fooled by this" level.
There was NEVER any intent to inject lifeblood into the magic as a result of Valentino's actions.
Why not? Seems to me that is a pretty good thing. But what do I know.
I don't think anyone is afraid. At least no one I know. So, I think your position is without merit there. The question is, does this really serve to bring people "into the fold" or does it really go to the issue of selling a few DVDs to impulse purchasers who visit the website.
I would LOVE to see a concentrated "magic appreciation and education program" enacted. Whether it was through a thoughtful TV show or website that offered a systematic and respectful approach to the art, or through a school program, it wouldn't matter. In fact, I think this would go a long way to improving our audiences appreciation of what we do.
The question is - is a free tutorial on a website which sells secrets (often not their own) hyped on a TV show which purports that ANYONE can do magic going to engender that respect, and lead the student forward in a systematic manner, or is it just going to tell a bunch of people something that they really have no reason to know?
But is there not a difference in the dynamic of the person who seeks out the book on their own, and a company giving away secrets in order to sell more product? Should that company have any responsibility to the art? Or no? If no, why?
Brad
You can call me naive if you like, but I want to believe the best in him. And I really think that the tone of the show was more the producer's doing than anyone else.
Not when it stymies those who want to learn.
Would "oppose" work better for you?
As for being afraid of newbies, I really do think it happens. It's not a magician thing at all. It's something the ignorant do all the time. I once related a mistake I had made in a video project and got a nasty PM from some guy telling me that amateurs like me were the reason nobody respected independent cinema.
I really do believe that there are people out there who believe that the naive mistakes beginners make in their early days is somehow going to hurt them.
Do you think we have the ability to say just yet? I see a lot of negative predictions, but the show isn't over. We're seeing a trickle of new members at the E forums, but it's still too early to know where they want to go with this. I won't write them off as impulse buyers before I've at least had a conversation with them.
We could actually talk to people and find out.
You know how the old cliche goes. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Unless your mind is a malleable lump of play-doh, you're not going to click on a link just because a TV commercial told you to. There has to be some kind of personal reason for you to want to follow that link, and I think far too many people assume that those motivations are almost unanimously negative.
It's really just because of the parent post, I guess. This seems like a topic for a different thread...maybe it's just me...
In my mind, the issue of exposure is one of intent. So many of these posts place the onus on the seeker. But really, the responsibility lay with the person putting the information out there.
I think we need to consider their intent - or try to infer it from their actions.
When I look at E, I see a company built on the selling of secrets - often not their own. Their intent is to profit on the foundation of our art, a foundation that have done little to contribute to (other than to mass market it for their own profit.)
When I see "free magic" ads on a TV show, it seems that someone is using our art, and it's secrets, in order to direct people to their site in order to sell them product. This is, in my mind, no different from the Camel ads of so many years ago. The only difference is that they are selling more secrets.
I see nothing from E designed to encourage an appreciation of magic as an art. They do not teach anything of the history of our art, and in fact have often intentionally confused the record for their own financial ends. They have no program (it seems) to encourage purchasers to look beyond their own insular product line to the larger literature of magic. It seems, and this is as an outsider looking in, that E is more concerned with building an isolated community of people who are willing to buy magic secrets from them then it is in educating people interested in becoming magicians. If their goal were the later, you would see far more quality information and resources available on the site. You would also not see the crediting nightmares that they have dreamed up.
Finally, E had created a community of secret traders. Magic tricks are treated like Pokemon cards. You buy it, play with it, and show it to your friends and pass it along. (On a digression: People now have collections of playing cards. I have been doing magic for many MANY years and have at least a thousand decks on hand at any moment, but I do not collect them. They are tools. Pieces of paper that are otherwise worthless. But this collecting mentality has led to amazing profits in the E camp.)
I have seen people whose sole source of magic information is E in the real world. Here are two scenarios:
E guy 1 performs a trick for friends at a bar. He gets a limited but positive reaction. Without pause he says, "Let me show you how it's done, that's the cool part." He repeats as a tutorial and gets a better reaction.
I asked him about it. He (and his E buddies) think of magic as a game. You buy it, play with it, perform it, then teach it. Rinse wash repeat.
E, it seems, does little to discourage this. As long as he keeps buying new stuff, why should they care.
E Guy 2 watches magician perform. Immediately after he starts trying to deconstruct everything, showing the crowd a double life. I spoke with him. He had NO IDEA that this behavior would be considered inappropriate. No one - and he was an E regular - have ever explained that to him. In his mind, magic was a puzzle that you watched and then figured out. If you couldn't figure it out, you bought the secret. Once you had that, then it was your turn to help others figure it out by telling them.
Again, his sole source of magic knowledge came from E. Clearly there is no interest in ensuring a respect for the art in that organization. If there were, we would have proper crediting and not excuses like, "I'll put out that fire when I have to." If there were, we would have a generation of magicians who respected others in performance, and didn't rush to explain everything they bought on youtube as soon as it downloaded.
I can't blame these newbies. They don't know better. I blame their teacher. That teacher is E. They have profited greatly off of magic and, as far as I can see, have done nothing to give back to it and ensure it is treated as an art worthy of respect.
Afterall, that does not increase their bottom line.
Brad Henderson
I think we need to consider their intent - or try to infer it from their actions.
When I look at E, I see a company built on the selling of secrets - often not their own. Their intent is to profit on the foundation of our art, a foundation that have done little to contribute to (other than to mass market it for their own profit.)
When I see "free magic" ads on a TV show, it seems that someone is using our art, and it's secrets, in order to direct people to their site in order to sell them product. This is, in my mind, no different from the Camel ads of so many years ago. The only difference is that they are selling more secrets.
I see nothing from E designed to encourage an appreciation of magic as an art. They do not teach anything of the history of our art, and in fact have often intentionally confused the record for their own financial ends. They have no program (it seems) to encourage purchasers to look beyond their own insular product line to the larger literature of magic. It seems, and this is as an outsider looking in, that E is more concerned with building an isolated community of people who are willing to buy magic secrets from them then it is in educating people interested in becoming magicians. If their goal were the later, you would see far more quality information and resources available on the site. You would also not see the crediting nightmares that they have dreamed up.
Finally, E had created a community of secret traders. Magic tricks are treated like Pokemon cards. You buy it, play with it, and show it to your friends and pass it along. (On a digression: People now have collections of playing cards. I have been doing magic for many MANY years and have at least a thousand decks on hand at any moment, but I do not collect them. They are tools. Pieces of paper that are otherwise worthless. But this collecting mentality has led to amazing profits in the E camp.)
I have seen people whose sole source of magic information is E in the real world. Here are two scenarios:
E guy 1 performs a trick for friends at a bar. He gets a limited but positive reaction. Without pause he says, "Let me show you how it's done, that's the cool part." He repeats as a tutorial and gets a better reaction.
I asked him about it. He (and his E buddies) think of magic as a game. You buy it, play with it, perform it, then teach it. Rinse wash repeat.
E, it seems, does little to discourage this. As long as he keeps buying new stuff, why should they care.
E Guy 2 watches magician perform. Immediately after he starts trying to deconstruct everything, showing the crowd a double life. I spoke with him. He had NO IDEA that this behavior would be considered inappropriate. No one - and he was an E regular - have ever explained that to him. In his mind, magic was a puzzle that you watched and then figured out. If you couldn't figure it out, you bought the secret. Once you had that, then it was your turn to help others figure it out by telling them.
Again, his sole source of magic knowledge came from E. Clearly there is no interest in ensuring a respect for the art in that organization. If there were, we would have proper crediting and not excuses like, "I'll put out that fire when I have to." If there were, we would have a generation of magicians who respected others in performance, and didn't rush to explain everything they bought on youtube as soon as it downloaded.
I can't blame these newbies. They don't know better. I blame their teacher. That teacher is E. They have profited greatly off of magic and, as far as I can see, have done nothing to give back to it and ensure it is treated as an art worthy of respect.
Afterall, that does not increase their bottom line.
Brad Henderson
- Status