I was reluctant to post these on this web site because exposure of magic on TV shows really gets people stirred up. Is it good or bad? Should we react or ignore it? However, by request I have placed a few of the more interesting posts about exposure here. If you have made an interesting post about exposure and you would like me to add it here, please just send it to me. I may well have missed it.
By: Jon A. Hand
Well, we have the new furor of the latest exposure of magic on TV. It
seems to me that there are three schools of thought on exposure.
The first says that exposure hurts magic, because exposed tricks cannot be used any more. This is garbage; most people watched those specials out of mere curiosity, and consequently little of what they "learned" was meaningful enough for them to care about or remember longterm. Also, many of those tricks are either long out of use or done in newer and better ways now. Those who do remember can see quickly that what they know does not necessarily apply, so they promptly forget it.
The second says that the real damage is that exposure teaches people not to respect magic as an entertainment anymore. This is also garbage, as the public knows how play sets and movie sets are made, and how movie stunts and minatures are done, yet no one has lost interest in plays or movies due to this exposure. Magic is LIVE, where movies are not. It is the live component of magic that will keep people interested.
The third says that exposure forces magicians to be more inventive and create new effects. In a sense, this is garbage, too, since there are only a limited number of basic effects that are possible. Everything else is just "window dressing" (see OUR MAGIC by Maskelyne and Devant and/or THE TRICK BRAIN by Fitzkee for more information). Magicians need to be creative, yes; but great tricks live on through exposure and the fads of time anyway. Cups and Balls are thousands of years old, for example.
Finally, I would say that any exposure does hurt magic to some degree by removing some of the wonderment and mystery for the audiences. Yet, the public forgets these things quickly, just like they forget the lastest hit songs after 6 weeks. As a parting example, let me point out that Houdini went around the US for years exposing every fake medium (seance speaker to the dead) that he could find. The methods of mediums are well-known and available in most larger libraries, yet Fortune Tellers, ESP phone lines, and Mediums still find gullible and trusting souls to fleece for $$$. Has exposure hurt them? Not that I can see!
Keep all of the secrets you can, and cherish any that fool and entertain an audience, but don't get terribly upset if some things get out. The public forgets.
Jon A. Hand
And, taking the liberty to quote from a friend, Neil Alexander, who runs Conjuror.com, these thoughts:
Those who regard magic only as an intellectual challenge need more
self-validation than we as entertainers can offer, and are beyond our
ability to reach. Most are smart enough to know they are tricks, and
not worry about how they're done. Most will tell you they don't want
to know. They represent the majority, and they are overwhelmingly the
largest part of any magic audience.
Neil Alexander
magic_happens@conjuror.com
By: Zhi Wei
After witnessing all of these stuff on the MM, here is my bit into
this matter.
As what John told me and I agree with him, people in general have very short memory banks.
This what I have read up years ago, there are three different "types" of memory. I may be wrong in this though.
The first one stores temporary info, that will last maybe a few hours and it is gone. Maybe a person glances through a magazine and see some pictures.
The second one stores memory for a while maybe for a few years or more, like studying for an exam and later in life, we forget them.
The third is stored for maybe our whole life. Maybe a very important event in life or something like that.
Most things people see/hear etc. is stored in the first one.
This is what usually happens when watching TV. Most people will forget what they watched and therefore, the exposure will not hurt magic that much. Furthermore, not many people watch them.
-------------
This is a something that happened to me earlier this year.
After a concert band competion, a couple of my friends and I went to a shopping mall to have dinner. Before that we went to a magic shop and there I got a thumb tip and tried it on and such. My 2 friends are the ones whom I frequently test my sleights and such on so they know most of my secrets and such, but I trust them to keep it to themselves. I told them that the tip is a gimmick to aid in magic.
Later, about half hour, we went to a Burger King's to eat and there, I showed them Ammar's 41 Cent Miracle. They were blown away, which is quite a new thing as they are not usually amazed at what I do, after all, they know how most things I do are done. They never suspected the tip they saw a while ago and were really amazed.
---------------
These are just my thoughts in this matter. If you really present it well, let them get involved in the magic they won't suspect anything and just be amazed.
Then again, I am just 16 and only a year and a half experience in magic and I could be wrong.
By: Steve
"...The third (stance) says that exposure forces magicians to be more
inventive and create new effects. In a sense, this is garbage, too,
since there are only a limited number of basic effects.."
This kind of comment shows that magicians should look at other art forms such as music and painting. In Jazz, for example, if the younger players in his band han't helped push Miles Davis in new directions we would not have heard as many new and innovative sounds from such a gifted artist. (in a sense, they exposed him to new concepts). Jeff McBride is an example of a magician that brings freshness and originality to old effects while creating new ones that have not been done before in the same manner.
In effect (no put intended), magicians should look to be more creative and inventive and if TV exposures are a sad by product of that so be it. I bet it won't stop Paul Harris from coming up with something fresh and original...and that would make a Thurston smile.
By: Jon A. Hand
I am a professional musician, and I do agree with what you said about
jazz, and magicians looking to the other arts. I think you might have
missed my point, though. There are only a limited number of effects;
the presentation of those effects is where the creativity is. The
appropriate music analogy would be: there are only 12 different
pitches, but the arrangement of those pitches is everything. From Bach
to the Beatles, from Miles Davis to Eddie Van Halen, the arrangement
of the pitches, the presentation if you will, is everything. I am all
for creativity in magic. I am not sure that exposure is a real
creativity spark, though.
The discussions on these web pages were extracted from MagicTalk and are therefore Copyright 1998-2003 by Bryan Dean and used with his permission. While this website may be freely read, it may not be freely copied. If you want to copy any of the information from this web site you need to contact Bryan Dean at bryan@magictalk.com to obtain permission.