Exposure Question

[CDarklock]

On page 201 of the Hugard/Braue volume Expert Card Technique, I found an interesting pair of excerpts from 19th century manuscripts.

Henri Decremps, in the 1853 book La Magie Blanche Dévoilée, states of an effect:

"...as we have not divined this method for ourselves, and since it has been confided to us by its inventor, under seal of secrecy, we would be unfaithful trustees and we would surely be recreant to the laws of honor if we should give it publicity here."

Ponsin's Nouvelle Magie Blanche Dévoilée - published the following year - proceeds to state of the same effect:

"...as I have bought it and paid well for it, I have not the same motive as M. Decremps for keeping it from my readers to whom I am about to give it in confidence."

This does not seem to have generated any outcry or disapproval.

The question that immediately comes to mind is, as an ethical question, doesn't this imply that once one has purchased some effect he is free to redistribute it as he desires without violating the principle of nonexposure?

I don't currently have an opinion on this, but with a little thought I'll probably develop one within the next 24 hours. In fact, I'm about to wander off for the night and think about this question, so I probably won't see any replies until morning.

 

[MoJoe13]

My first question: Did Ponsin credit the effect's creator before teaching it? Second question: Did the creator authorize the instruction and/or receive compensation for it?

Ponsin seems to have compatriots in E, T11 and any other magic teaching company that teaches an effect while giving credit to the creator. If you show a trick but don't explain it, then that's simply a performance. Before I really have an opinion, I'm curious to know more of the context in which Ponsin wrote what he did. If Ponsin's book is dedicated to teaching sleight of hand and other tricks, then I don't see how it's any different from the videos available in the 1-on-1s.

 

[CDarklock]

My first question: Did Ponsin credit the effect's creator before teaching it? Second question: Did the creator authorize the instruction and/or receive compensation for it?

That's three questions, really.

Ponsin did credit the effect's creator, and his statement implies that no instruction was authorised, but he did compensate someone - one would assume the creator - to learn the effect.

Before I really have an opinion, I'm curious to know more of the context in which Ponsin wrote what he did.

The books in question are instructional manuals on magic.

Having given this some thought, it seems that there are three components to explaining an effect without violating the principle of exposure.

1. You credit the original creator of the effect.
2. You have not been sworn to secrecy on the matter.
3. You distribute your explanation only to other magicians.

In retrospect, I don't think compensating the creator for the effect is necessary; it's the simple question of whether you've been instructed not to reveal it. One would think most effect DVDs contain such an instruction, but since I don't buy them, I don't know.

What gets hairy in the internet generation is that third component: distributing your explanation only to other magicians. It can be pretty convincingly argued that if you write a book on magic, only another magician will ever see it - because it's a major investment of time. It's a little less obvious whether recording a magic DVD sufficiently conceals the secrets from non-magicians; after all, a DVD generally only requires some ninety minutes to watch in its entirety. Less, if you fast forward or chapter scan.

But what you really can't deny is that when you put instructions on the internet, a search engine will run across them and index them, providing anyone who bothers to type the right search terms with the answer on their screen. This is true whether you put your explanation on a web page (robots.txt notwithstanding), or in a video posted to YouTube or some similar site.

So the question becomes, is someone who knows those search terms a magician?

It seems like you could properly restrict a video on YouTube by using a cryptic description and tags, which would effectively prevent that video from coming up in a search for (say) "card trick". If you put an ambitious card routine under "alberti ponsin hugard braue ambitious" - crediting both potential creators and the authors of a well-known book describing the routine - it can be safely assumed that only a magician would find it.

Of course, if your description is "The classic card trick", you screw up the whole thing.

It seems to me that magicians could be using the internet better, but we're not. We seem to spend a lot of time complaining about it and decrying its horrific effect on magic as an art, but we aren't saying "what can this great tool do for us?" - and that's rather a shame.