Exposure or not?

[Rev]

I think most of us would agree, exposing magic on YouTube is wrong. Especially other people's creations, which is why some of the big name YouTube magic 'teachers' (and I use the word loosely) have always been a no go for for me.

However, there is one person on YouTube, who put's up tutorials twice a week, which I watch without fail. And that's Jay Sankey.

Twice I week Jay posts up videos teaching everything from beginner party tricks to interesting sleight of hand pieces with cards and coins. We all know Sankey is a great teacher and very creative, but my question to you is this:

Is this exposure?

Where do we draw a line? Ok, Jay is explaining his own creations for the most part, but his influences and sleight 'arsenal' are very classical, therefore, it becomes necessary for him to teach things like forces, double lifts, colour changes etc. The other day he taught a vanish that can be found in Bobo, and he did an excellent job. is that ok? Personally, I'm ok with it as Jay has proven himself to be a more than adequate teacher and always starts every video with a full performance, so we know he knows what he's talking about.

But again, where is the line? Jay can teach the riffle force as part of a routine and that's fine. But if I post up a video teaching the Jog Shuffle (which I considered doing) am I simply exposing?

Not suggesting there's a right or wrong answer here. Just wondered what everyone else thinks.

Rev

 

[JCash]

I feel like if a magician teaches something directly out of a book, DVD, etc with full knowledge that the owner of the effect is alive, still profiting, and that there are few to no other tutorials, that's when I draw the line. I feel like it's a very case by case basis but magic is generally reusing the same techniques in different, innovative ways making it hard NOT to copy or expose someone at some point.

 

[Gabriel Z.]

I don't expose any magic on my youtube channel(Or at least I think I don't?) I just learn the effects to the best of my ability and perform them in front of my GoPro. I don't think im doing anything wrong. Plus im not a big name. I can understand if my channel was reaching a large population but it's not. Another thing is that I'm not a professional card magician obviously it's a worthwhile goal but at the moment it's fun learning new effects and seeing peoples responses.

 

[Rev]

I feel like if a magician teaches something directly out of a book, DVD, etc with full knowledge that the owner of the effect is alive, still profiting, and that there are few to no other tutorials, that's when I draw the line. I feel like it's a very case by case basis but magic is generally reusing the same techniques in different, innovative ways making it hard NOT to copy or expose someone at some point.

Interesting. So what about people teaching things such as the Elmsley Count, Erdnase Colour Change, Bobo Switch etc? Is it ok to teach this on a site where the public my see them?

Also, you say 'few to no tutorials'. Does that mean if an effect has been widely exposed it is fair game, even if it was originally a marketed effect?

And what about the 'creator being alive' issue. Can I therefore teach Dean Dill's coin routines or Rene Levand's Oil and Water because they both died a couple of years ago? Is there length of time they have to be dead before it's ok?

Not having a go by any means or suggesting you're wrong, just trying to create some discussion.

Rev

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

I say it's exposure. He is, literally and by definition, exposing methods to the general populace. Same thing Brian Brushwood does (Except Brian does it slightly less often). But for some reason about half of people think Brian is the devil but Sankey is just peachy keen. The other half has it flipped.

I have been wondering a lot lately, why it's OK for someone like Sankey to expose things but newbies are totally wrong to do so. How are we supposed to teach new magicians not to expose things when someone who is looked up to quite a bit (Sankey has a huge reputation) exposes tricks regularly?

A question for the ages.

 

[mclintock]

Even Penn and Teller got crap over their Cups and Balls exposure. Exposure is very difficult to define in the magic community, sometimes people are okay with it, sometimes they aren't.

 

[Josh Burch]

I kinda feel like it is exposure. I love Jay Sankey, we have a professional relationship and he has shared some of my magic on his Inside Deception website. His magic moral compass is different than mine, I don't think of it as a character thing it's just a difference.

The issue that I have with it is that many of the techniques Jay uses are not his own, they may be his application of a move or his handling or it's possible that it was independently created by someone else. I love Jay's magic and I have spent good money on many of his products. Another issue I have is that it kinda stings when he shares a trick that I love that is on a DVD. He has shared a few magician foolers that I have enjoyed performing for other magicians but now they are available for everyone casual magician or not.

I love Jay, I think his channel does expose magic. Is this a bad thing? Probably not. Do I like it? Most the time, i'm okay with it.

 

[DavidL11229]

Is it exposure that libraries carry magic books containing explanations to many classic tricks? Well, yes it is, but at least it used to take a bit more effort than it does today. Before I was reasonably heavily into magic I saw what was probably Doug Henning make a duck disappear on television and I couldn't figure it out. I went to the library and read up on the classics just because I didn't like not knowing how they were done, not because I wanted to learn magic. It was all there. No secret password or anything. Everything free to read. The internet is an instant library that has made exposure more easily accessed and therefore it is a bigger issue, but for the most part it is and always has been there fore those who are looking for it.

In the very real sense that education and exposure overlap I have no problem with the exposure. It is going to lead to exposure to people who are not aspiring magicians, but that is unavoidable. I think the real problem is teaching a trick you have no right teaching. If someone is selling a lesson and you teach the same trick it is just like making a poor quality photocopy of their book and selling it.

I think of it really as a copyright issue. If something was first published in Bobo it would likely still be copyrighted, but there was coin magic before him. Surely the sleights are not all original. Any sleights from the time of T. Nelson Downs, even those given in Bobo, I would consider public domain by now and I'm all for people posting instructional videos on these things.

Frankly I think the biggest exposure problem comes from the pure performances. Many (most?) on youtube are performed so poorly that merely watching the performance gives away the method. I think exposure (including poor performances) of effects that are released for sale is wrong. Posting classics or your own creations is just the modern form of having your work available in the library.

Ideally there would be free, high quality basic sleight of hand instruction available in the library that is the internet. Most of the rest should probably be in magic based sites. It would be nice if some of the more advanced stuff stayed under the radar, my library only took me so far... I can't tell someone they are wrong for posting that, but I wish they wouldn't on youtube at least.

 

[mclintock]

To attempt to build some on what David said. I think it has a lot to do with intent, of both the creator of the video (or whatever it may be) and the viewer of said material. I feel like a lot of the people who watch Jay are there to become better magicians and learn more about their art. However I believe that the primary viewership of a channel like Disturb Reality are there to either A.) Just figure out the trick. Or B.) Just learn a few tricks to do for some friends (The latter not being nearly as destructive as the first but still not advancing our art.). I cannot vouch for what the intentions of these larger people would be but I would assume that Jay's purpose would be to advance our art through the medium of the internet, the question is if he is doing it the right way.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

I actually should clarify - I don't think exposure is as big an issue as it is often made out to be. If your career is ruined by someone exposing a trick online, you need to work on your creativity in performance. The human mind is really good at matching things up - not so much at laterally applying what it has seen to new experiences. So if you take a method someone knows, but you give it a presentation that is new - they usually won't be able to equate the two. It is only when someone is performed more or less exactly as someone has seen it before that they go, "Oh, hang on, I saw this on YouTube" or whatever.

Jay's purpose is to advertise. He is trying to get more customers. "First taste is free" kind of deal. If he were all that concerned about making people into better magicians, he'd stop shilling tricks and spend more time teaching people how to perform well - which has little to nothing to do with tricks.

 

[Tower of Lunatic Meat]

In todays day and age, its hard to keep things away from the internet. Personally, I think of the internet as a way to get the 'first taste' in magic before a book is able to, since its faster to pull up a Youtube of a Classic Pass and whatnot--regardless if its done well, that's what people see and what MAY get them interested.

I think that if it's of the CLASSICS and/or beginner level material to draw people more into magic, and its taught well by someone who has some swing and credibility. Then okay. Classics are classics for a reason. I think one aspect of the books and resources teaching classics is to draw people in so that they want to continue, they can further their path in learning intermediate tricks/sleights

If the creator is doing THEIR OWN material, then okay. That's all on them.

But posting material that one would normally have to pay for, and/or someone else's material? Exposure

I'd even go so far as to say that 'intermediate' tricks/sleights would be considered exposure. I think if you want free resources, you start at 'easy'.

 

[JustinT]

I actually should clarify - I don't think exposure is as big an issue as it is often made out to be. If your career is ruined by someone exposing a trick online, you need to work on your creativity in performance. The human mind is really good at matching things up - not so much at laterally applying what it has seen to new experiences. So if you take a method someone knows, but you give it a presentation that is new - they usually won't be able to equate the two. It is only when someone is performed more or less exactly as someone has seen it before that they go, "Oh, hang on, I saw this on YouTube" or whatever.

Jay's purpose is to advertise. He is trying to get more customers. "First taste is free" kind of deal. If he were all that concerned about making people into better magicians, he'd stop shilling tricks and spend more time teaching people how to perform well - which has little to nothing to do with tricks.

I personally watch his videos to see how he applies principles and concepts. Also, to my knowledge, a lot of the routines he constructs for that channel are original, and use everyday props, which is my favourite type of magic. So personally I use his videos as a little resource to feed my creativity and give me ideas. But i digress

 

[EndersGame]

Jay is still producing tutorials on his youtube channel on a regular basis, so I figured this thread was worth coming back to.

Firstly, I agree that Jay Sankey is a brilliant creator and teacher. The quality of his youtube videos is only improving with time, and it is good to see some quality magic being taught on youtube, that goes beyond some 13 year old magic-newbie filming in his basement with a webcam. He has a genuine passion for magic, and I really don't know that non-magicians would be checking out his channel.

By some of his routines do come awfully close to marketed effects. For example, check out Bob Solari's Right and Wrong:

Is Jay Sankey's psychic Yes + No routine basically the same thing, or do you think it's something quite different?