Difference between revealing and teaching?
- Thread starter SportsMagician54
- Start date
Great topic. I guess I can start and keep in mind fellas this is solely and opinion. I do not claim to be right or wrong. To me revealing means that you blatantly are showing how an effect is done to primarily draw attention to yourself and that you "know" how an effect is accomplished. This is normally done to boost one's ego and to gain status socially either among friends, strangers or online communities. This would also involve trying to gain "likes" and followers on social media accounts.
There can also be revealing in the fact that the magician has not put in a sufficient amount of time, practice and such so that the effect can be properly demonstrated / performed. This would be in the sense that the magi flashes a gimmick but maybe did not do it on purpose. I do not get upset at these performers as much as the initial group because they aren't trying to gain social status necessarily but just didn't put in the proper amount of practice time. It is IMPERATIVE that you practice, practice, practice and then practice some more and not just by sitting on your bed in front of a cam.
Teaching to me means that you are giving forth knowledge of an effect, to a student via a mentor or instructor. Plenty of times students can sign up for a magic class after school or attend a summer classes at a library / college.
Many of these kids have paid money to learn a few effects and in doing so will get a few coins, a deck of cards, rope, rubber bands, a plastic ball and vase, etc. and are expecting to learn magic and sleights. This to me is teaching.
To me, teaching of effects that are not your own should not happen on a FREE basis. For example. I pay my mentor $40.00 to show up at his house and he teaches me his entire ambitious routine with a card to mouth finale. Now, does this mean that in doing so he has exposed Marlo's tilt to me? Hmmm...ponder that for a minute. Technically I paid for the lesson.
Magic clubs are another weird animal all together. I belong to IBM and FCM and in many of our meetings magicians will "share" secrets on how something is done. Is this revealing? Probably. More of a, "Well...I'll show you how to perform X effect if you show me how to perform Y effect. Magic clubs also have DVD, VHS, and book libraries where ANYONE in the club who pays their financial dues may take whatever items from the collection and check them out in the convenience of their own home. Is this wrong? I don't know. Some people will say yes, others will say no.
There can also be revealing in the fact that the magician has not put in a sufficient amount of time, practice and such so that the effect can be properly demonstrated / performed. This would be in the sense that the magi flashes a gimmick but maybe did not do it on purpose. I do not get upset at these performers as much as the initial group because they aren't trying to gain social status necessarily but just didn't put in the proper amount of practice time. It is IMPERATIVE that you practice, practice, practice and then practice some more and not just by sitting on your bed in front of a cam.
Teaching to me means that you are giving forth knowledge of an effect, to a student via a mentor or instructor. Plenty of times students can sign up for a magic class after school or attend a summer classes at a library / college.
Many of these kids have paid money to learn a few effects and in doing so will get a few coins, a deck of cards, rope, rubber bands, a plastic ball and vase, etc. and are expecting to learn magic and sleights. This to me is teaching.
To me, teaching of effects that are not your own should not happen on a FREE basis. For example. I pay my mentor $40.00 to show up at his house and he teaches me his entire ambitious routine with a card to mouth finale. Now, does this mean that in doing so he has exposed Marlo's tilt to me? Hmmm...ponder that for a minute. Technically I paid for the lesson.
Magic clubs are another weird animal all together. I belong to IBM and FCM and in many of our meetings magicians will "share" secrets on how something is done. Is this revealing? Probably. More of a, "Well...I'll show you how to perform X effect if you show me how to perform Y effect. Magic clubs also have DVD, VHS, and book libraries where ANYONE in the club who pays their financial dues may take whatever items from the collection and check them out in the convenience of their own home. Is this wrong? I don't know. Some people will say yes, others will say no.
Brian Brushwood, in one of the theory 11 live things said that difference between teaching and revealing is how you have to pay the money to learn a lesson, but you have to give up being surprised at a effect, to quote directly "being sugar is less awesome than tasting sugar" as it means is being a magician can mean less fun for you because you give up the ability to be shocked by many effects, if you can give up that as the cost I believe that is teaching. Even here in Theory 11 there is the wire, which teach the effects for free, but that is not revealing, and people say oh if you put a effect in YouTube it is revealing but free tricks on Theory 11, which is one of the first thing that pops up when you search magic tricks on google, it is not? And people that put David Blaine or Criss Angel on the cover of their thing? Sure it is bad but even ellusionist promotes David Blaine saying do you want to learn what David Blaine did? Then click here, sort of thing. I guess it is more of will they do it once it is taught, will the effect that was taught going to be used in any way shape or form? As in revealing it is to the layman, this is how it is done, so the layman can feel smart.
Yet he exposed the ID for free on his channel purely to drive people to his channel for more ad revenue and to sell his book test. ID is in no way a scam or a bar bet. It is a very very commercial effect. He can try to spin it anyway he wants but it is still exposure and exposure hurts the magic community.
I wouldn't listen to everything Brian Brushwood says. The guy tried to do a smash and stab routine and ended up impaling his hand through a large nail. He's not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
The difference is really this. There are guys on youtube who "teach" sleights and effects (but are just plain awful when it comes to actually performing and doing them.) and there are guys who actually assess your level of skill,dedication and effort when teaching you something. The 2nd option is always the best, because they can actually do the things they are teaching properly and have been doing them for years in front of live audiences.
The difference is really this. There are guys on youtube who "teach" sleights and effects (but are just plain awful when it comes to actually performing and doing them.) and there are guys who actually assess your level of skill,dedication and effort when teaching you something. The 2nd option is always the best, because they can actually do the things they are teaching properly and have been doing them for years in front of live audiences.
Yes, the reveal of invisible deck is a mistake on his part, but just because he showed ID it does not instantly make him an enemy of the art, also i still firmly believe his quote and how he said that sometimes being the magicians is not as good as being the spectator.
P.S. The smash and stab trick, when he gets 'stabbed' is the part of the trick, many magicians do it that way apparently, breaking the obvious I guess
P.S. The smash and stab trick, when he gets 'stabbed' is the part of the trick, many magicians do it that way apparently, breaking the obvious I guess
The fact that not only did he expose the ID and tell you how to make it, he has exposed more than a few strong principals all in the name of pimping his book test and driving up views for his sponsors. How would he feel is someone exposed his book test?
Being a magician is better than being the spectator. If you are a good magician you get to transport them back to a time of wonderment and innocence when they believed in magic. Also when you see another magician that really and truly fools you then you get to see that same feeling again.
I would say it's a 50/50 situation. Being a spectator is great and all, but it's nothing close to working your ass off on a routine and having it go exactly the way you planned or better.
With me seeing other magicians. I either get bored or enjoy watching them for their entertainment value. Case in point: David Williamson is a man who could put out a book or DVD on algebra and I'd buy that DVD/book in a heart beat. (And I hate Algebra or math magic).
With me seeing other magicians. I either get bored or enjoy watching them for their entertainment value. Case in point: David Williamson is a man who could put out a book or DVD on algebra and I'd buy that DVD/book in a heart beat. (And I hate Algebra or math magic).
Missing on Smash & Stab doesn't mean someone doesn't know something, I'd argue that Brian is one of the smarter cookies in the jar and one would be hard pressed to find a better source for teaching the kinds of things he teaches. . . Banachek trusts him.
As to the Topic at Hand. . . It's a sticky scenario in that some of the greatest, most successful personalities in magic history are guilty of exposing magic; Blackstone (Sr), Dante, Will Rock and Mandrake each revealed secrets in their comic book series in the 40's and 50s. Boy's life magazine had several issues with magic tricks featured in them and we can't leave out Cereal Boxes, Jiffy Pop, Burger King, Ronald McDonald and Oreos. . . each promotion having a major magician behind them which included the likes of Dunninger, Mark Wilson, Blackstone (Jr), etc.
There are those so-called "debunkers" that literally tip how several Mentalism bits are done in their shows and lectures to the general public but "that's ok because they are "educating" the public about evil Psychics" is the attitude held by the magic fraternity.
Is it?
Look at how they hurt members of that same fraternity and say that.
TEACHING, at least in my experience, comes in three forms; you pay for lessons or you're lucky enough to have an elder take you under his wings and guide your through the business and then comes that day when you're the elder, passing on your knowledge and experience. .. this is somethig that has changed in the past decade or so because of the internet. I'm in the position to work with dozens of young people daily though there are only about six that I work with semi-regularly . . . I take pride in the fact that they take to heart what I share and apply it in what they do and typically, they become quite successful as the end result (though they always forget to send me their tithes. . . ) No, I'm not in it for the money, knowledge must be past on or it gets lost and what I teach generally comes from what my various teachers over the years shared with me . . . and yes, most all of my teachers were grumpy old sticks in the mud, just like I tend to be. They (most older teachers) get that way because they want us to learn how to be critical in what we do and not accept something second rate, that is why I stopped doing formal stage shows, I can no longer deliver the quality I once took pride in delivering.
I bring that out because most "exposure" is not done intentionally but as the result of sloppy performers. There's a couple of acts that play in Vegas as headliners on a regular basis that stink; one of them is known for flashing a dove pan gimmick everytime she performs it and that's just one of the things she mucks up, but she's a poor little rich kid whose mommy pulls strings so she can work and because she's got nice tits she draws a crowed (of dirty old men more than a family audience). Sorry, but this is what makes 90% of the females that do magic SUCK. . . they rely too much on T&A and so they don't devote enough time to learning proper skill. We've seen this in a handful of young men as well. . . I'm getting flashes of AGT's like up in recent times. But trust me, "cute" don't last!
Just my two cents worth.
If he was going to feel bad he would have never exposed it in the first place. There are a great many people out there who hate magic. They look at it as a puzzle that has to be solved and they you insulted their intelligence by performing for them. For them there is no trade off. And it;s not just him There are many more that are exposing that I rail against as well.
No it will pretty much be the same. Showing the general public in an open forum how an effect is done. An effect that you did not create is exposure. Now there are some younger magicians who learned how to do something on yourube and think that the person who they learned it from is great and that they are teaching, but it is still exposure. I'm sure as this thread goes on you will see the majority will say that the youtube "teachers" are exposing.
Please do not speak for the whole magic communities, even in this forum there are five or six people with different answers, and everybody is entitled to their opinion, there might be same starting baseline I.E. Val Valnentino (masked magician), but there are some really secret people who does not even share their magic because that is also exposing to them, I believe Charles Miller, a brilliant magician, did not share his effects at all, to him the baseline would be higher than say Dai Vernon, Chris Angel (I do not like him, he exposed magic as well) or even some of those 'YouTube' magicians. What you believe is right and what other believes are right is different. Now I do believe that showing to a general forum how a trick is done is sometimes wrong (in sometime I am counting the occasional kids tv show that reveals simple effects that everybody knows, it is by a professional or a semi professional magician, and they show tricks that they did not invent, is that exposing? I don't think so), and I have different baseline than you do, for example Penn and Teller, shows how some tricks (cup and balls using clear plastic balls, show the classic woman sawn in half) are done, that is exposing to general public and it is not exactly theirs (different variation, but the effect being the same), but some people do not think that is revealing but brings bigger experience to the audience. Anyway what I am not trying to say is not to change your mind, but I want you to not be putting yourself as a representative for the most magicians, because there are so many different opinions.
Charlie Miller did teach his stuff. You might have heard of two of his students Ricky Jay and Michael Weber.
Dai Vernon had students. My mentor was one of them.
I'm not speaking for the whole. I'm saying what I have seen, what I have read other places. What I have heard in lectures, at conventions and at Ring meetings. Only the young guys really like the youtube stuff. Most of it is poorly taught. Many of the guys only use it to drive people to their channel. Just look at how many guy will expose a ton of stuff but when they show something that was expensive or something really killer they say "well this one I'm not going to teach you." Why? They will say it is something for sell. Well so was all of the other effects you exposed on your channel. Could it be you just dropped $150 on that gimmick and don't want to show it? There is no difference between The Masked Magician Brian Brushwood Jerek Mismage or any of the others who expose magic in a public forum. It's wrong and in no way does it help the magic community.
The reason why some of us do not share our magic with the community at large is because we do not want someone exposing it on youtube. We do not want some no talent hack to lift our act, patter and all. We do not share because of the massive amount of theft there is in the magic community, and it's only getting worse. I have seen how bad it has become in the last 20 years. This why my lectures were never on effects but card splitting sound systems and PR.
Ok, by the way you worded it, it sounded like you were speaking for the whole, but sorry if I misunderstood
But let's start with Charles Miller, I forgot he shared his effects but he did not share as much as Dai Vernon, to a person like Charles Miller, you'd think he would be more tough about the difference between revealing and teaching.
And, yes many people who does YouTube thing gives away effects and gets money from them, but people like Mismag teach it not for the profit but because he enjoys the challenge behind it, and the reason why the kids like YouTube so much is that it shows them effects for free, and they impress people, to teens, who often has less money than an adult, can not buy as many DVDs, and some ( and I mean not all) people who sorely learned from YouTube magic are not bad, some are better than 'pros', of course when they get interested they will spend money on magic, but it is YouTube that drives some of their spark.
Now, is showing magic to young people so that they have potential to be the next 'great magician' so bad? Maybe and maybe not, that is other peoples' decision to make. Is YouTube revealing or teaching? That is a question that you think all YouTube magic is revealing, but some people do not think so, especially people with not much money.
But let's start with Charles Miller, I forgot he shared his effects but he did not share as much as Dai Vernon, to a person like Charles Miller, you'd think he would be more tough about the difference between revealing and teaching.
And, yes many people who does YouTube thing gives away effects and gets money from them, but people like Mismag teach it not for the profit but because he enjoys the challenge behind it, and the reason why the kids like YouTube so much is that it shows them effects for free, and they impress people, to teens, who often has less money than an adult, can not buy as many DVDs, and some ( and I mean not all) people who sorely learned from YouTube magic are not bad, some are better than 'pros', of course when they get interested they will spend money on magic, but it is YouTube that drives some of their spark.
Now, is showing magic to young people so that they have potential to be the next 'great magician' so bad? Maybe and maybe not, that is other peoples' decision to make. Is YouTube revealing or teaching? That is a question that you think all YouTube magic is revealing, but some people do not think so, especially people with not much money.
Teaching comes with a price. Revealing is free of charge. That's the difference. Exposure is an financially motivated definition.
Also Revealing often deals with exposing material or work that is copy righted, protected, performed, or patented by someone else. If you created the effect then it's yours to do with what ever you want. But Shadows is Teller's effect, so for you to teach it with or without financial compensation would be revealing and thus wrong.
You guys do realize that Brushwood video where he "misses" on his Smash and Stab routine is a joke, right? It's no more real than the one where Teller puts a knife through Penn's hand.
I am trying not to turn this into another "Exposure is not as big a deal as it's made out to be" rant. I feel like I just had one of those the other week.
To me, the major differences between Exposure and Teaching are intent and permission.
If your intent is just to give away a secret to someone else's trick - that's exposure. Usually this is done in some misguided attempt to get attention and adoration from strangers on the internet. The problem there being that as soon as you don't have any more secrets to give up, people lose all interest in you because you have nothing else to offer. This seems to account for the majority of 'magic' on YouTube.
Permission is my other criteria - If someone asks the person who created the effect, and gets their permission to teach it - is it exposure? No. It's teaching. The wisdom of it is debatable, but I that's another topic.
Now, take Brushwood, since he's been brought up. I will say I haven't watched his show in a couple years, but I did for a while. I was broke and he taught things that a discerning student could use in ways he never teaches. Which is kind of my point. He teaches things in such a way that only magicians will really understand what he's teaching. Normal people just see a neat trick - I bet most of us who have performed for a couple years could take those same tricks, dress them up with a different presentation, and still fool the people who know the trick Brushwood taught.
Which comes down to the really important thing: Presentation! But that goes back to the rant from the other week. Exposure really isn't that big a deal.
Unless all you do is copy other people's material.
Krab - I understand your "Exposure is bad" stance but I have a question. Someone like Brushwood - what about the people he inspires to actually become serious magic students? We see it happen with the terrible YouTube exposers, too. People start to learn from them, then discover 'real' sources and usually don't look back. The ones who never make it to becoming serious students wouldn't have invested much anyway - so no loss there.
This is what motivates some people not to release their material, or to release it at prohibitive prices and in very limited runs. I am fine with this. Actually, to be completely honest, I like it this way. For one, it provides an automatic filter that is no longer provided by the publishing companies thanks to the ease of self-publishing. For two, it forces people to prove themselves before learning the really solid material, or in the very least it forces people to be willing to spend quite a bit of money to learn something. We tend to value the things we have to work for much more than those we get for free. I have tried to find resources and been met with "I won't sell that to you, I don't know you" and honestly - I felt good hearing that. It means there's still secrets out there - they're just buried a bit deeper than I've made it yet.
So don't worry about exposure - just perform the best, most unique material you can (couldn't resist a little bit of the rant)
I am trying not to turn this into another "Exposure is not as big a deal as it's made out to be" rant. I feel like I just had one of those the other week.
To me, the major differences between Exposure and Teaching are intent and permission.
If your intent is just to give away a secret to someone else's trick - that's exposure. Usually this is done in some misguided attempt to get attention and adoration from strangers on the internet. The problem there being that as soon as you don't have any more secrets to give up, people lose all interest in you because you have nothing else to offer. This seems to account for the majority of 'magic' on YouTube.
Permission is my other criteria - If someone asks the person who created the effect, and gets their permission to teach it - is it exposure? No. It's teaching. The wisdom of it is debatable, but I that's another topic.
Now, take Brushwood, since he's been brought up. I will say I haven't watched his show in a couple years, but I did for a while. I was broke and he taught things that a discerning student could use in ways he never teaches. Which is kind of my point. He teaches things in such a way that only magicians will really understand what he's teaching. Normal people just see a neat trick - I bet most of us who have performed for a couple years could take those same tricks, dress them up with a different presentation, and still fool the people who know the trick Brushwood taught.
Which comes down to the really important thing: Presentation! But that goes back to the rant from the other week. Exposure really isn't that big a deal.
Unless all you do is copy other people's material.
Krab - I understand your "Exposure is bad" stance but I have a question. Someone like Brushwood - what about the people he inspires to actually become serious magic students? We see it happen with the terrible YouTube exposers, too. People start to learn from them, then discover 'real' sources and usually don't look back. The ones who never make it to becoming serious students wouldn't have invested much anyway - so no loss there.
This is what motivates some people not to release their material, or to release it at prohibitive prices and in very limited runs. I am fine with this. Actually, to be completely honest, I like it this way. For one, it provides an automatic filter that is no longer provided by the publishing companies thanks to the ease of self-publishing. For two, it forces people to prove themselves before learning the really solid material, or in the very least it forces people to be willing to spend quite a bit of money to learn something. We tend to value the things we have to work for much more than those we get for free. I have tried to find resources and been met with "I won't sell that to you, I don't know you" and honestly - I felt good hearing that. It means there's still secrets out there - they're just buried a bit deeper than I've made it yet.
So don't worry about exposure - just perform the best, most unique material you can (couldn't resist a little bit of the rant)
That is exposure. He is teaching things he did not create in an open public forum. Know what it is called when you take something that is for sell but you do not pay for it? Theft. They are stealing. When I first started my mentor would show my things. He would lend me books but most of all I learned a number by heart, 793.8. 793.8 is where the magic books are at the library. You can't say teens can not go to the library and check out the Mark Wilson book or any other magic book there. Dover has published many great books that can be had for less than $15. So you can spend $100 on a DVD and get a few effects or you can spend that same $100 and get Complete Tarbell Course in a single book by Tarbell (the PDF version), Royal Road to Card Magic, by Hugard & Braue, Modern Coin Magic by Bobo, Abbott's Encyclopedia of Rope Tricks by James, Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic, Amateur Magician's Handbook by Hay, and finally, Magic and Showmanship by Nelms. Those books alone could be a life time of magic enjoyment. Again many of those can be found at local libraries under 793.8. So not it's not about having less money it is about ethics. There is a growing section of the public that think all movies books DVDs programs and music should be free.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately, not all libraries have that extensive amount of books in magic. My library did have Modern Coin Magic by Bobo, but that was it. I am sure that there are many libraries with variety of magic books but there are places with very minuscule amount of magic book, some has none.
On the note of YouTube thing, yes there are people who gives out effects that are teaching things that are not theirs, but do not group all of them together because there are people who just teaches basic sleights, if you think that has no morale as well, consider this Jason England teaches sleights that are not even his, granted some of the moves are hundreds of years old and it is very hard to track them, but Jason England teaches those sleights, and so does bunch of other youtubers, even though none of them are not at his caliber, but Jason England teaches sleights and some YouTubers teaches sleights, neither of them claims the move is theirs, 52 kards, a youtuber is an example, he does not say he invented the move, and he teaches them fairly nicely, and he does not put David Blaine or criss angels name out there, he just wants to share to the world his love of magic, is he a thief? I don't think so, he is just another magician who wanted to teach beginner magician how to get started, the difference between him and Jason England's lessons are the length, the quality and the cost, and just because there is group of people that are thief in YouTube does not mean all of them are thieves.
On the note of YouTube thing, yes there are people who gives out effects that are teaching things that are not theirs, but do not group all of them together because there are people who just teaches basic sleights, if you think that has no morale as well, consider this Jason England teaches sleights that are not even his, granted some of the moves are hundreds of years old and it is very hard to track them, but Jason England teaches those sleights, and so does bunch of other youtubers, even though none of them are not at his caliber, but Jason England teaches sleights and some YouTubers teaches sleights, neither of them claims the move is theirs, 52 kards, a youtuber is an example, he does not say he invented the move, and he teaches them fairly nicely, and he does not put David Blaine or criss angels name out there, he just wants to share to the world his love of magic, is he a thief? I don't think so, he is just another magician who wanted to teach beginner magician how to get started, the difference between him and Jason England's lessons are the length, the quality and the cost, and just because there is group of people that are thief in YouTube does not mean all of them are thieves.
Again those guys on youtube are teaching things in an open public forum so it is exposure. You can't change the definition just because you like some of those guys. It is exposure. It seems like you want to change what is and isn't exposure based on who you like and their skill level. 99.9% of the time the youtube guys do not give credit. Jason is not posting his stuff where just anyone can watch them for free. Jason gives full and proper credit. He is teaching. 52 kards is exposing. Doesn;t change because you like the teaching.
Also libraries have inter-library lending. I grew up in a small town in Ohio and was able to get many many different books back in the 90's. Also with website selling legal PDF of many of these books for a third of the price of the physical copy there is no excuse to use youtube other than laziness or too cheap to spend the money.
PS think making internet videos is no big deal? I'm sure there is someone on this forum who can tell you what happens when you expose magic on the internet.
Also libraries have inter-library lending. I grew up in a small town in Ohio and was able to get many many different books back in the 90's. Also with website selling legal PDF of many of these books for a third of the price of the physical copy there is no excuse to use youtube other than laziness or too cheap to spend the money.
PS think making internet videos is no big deal? I'm sure there is someone on this forum who can tell you what happens when you expose magic on the internet.