This is some BULL

JohnShack

Elite Member
Feb 3, 2011
44
0
Oklahoma City, OK
Howdy!

I'm sure all of us here have seen "Magic's biggest secrets finally revealed" Well I originally found it very funny, since most of the items the teach are fairly out-dated or simply look like crap and are fairly obvious in the first place, as I'm sure you already know..

Well I was watching one of the episodes and got kinda upset about it. They explained Prohibition, the cap in bottle effect.

I'm not a huge fan of this effect, but it is a marketed effect that Mr. Justice is still selling to this day, The handling and method were exactly the same as with the marketed effect.

I suppose the reason for this little rant is... Do the creators of the effects being exposed receive any payment?? I assume there would be simply because the show is still on air.. If there isn't any compensation I would sue the crap out of them. Since it is more or less piracy.

Does anyone have any other insights/opinions??

John
 
Apr 7, 2011
143
0
the underground.
I don't know any of the behind-the-scenes that takes place between the artist and the show - but I doubt there is any - but wasn't Wayne Houchin's 'Sinful' effect revealed on there once, or at least that's what I heard. I'm all for TEACHING young and starting magicians a few BASIC effects, but REVEALING effects to them without any prior permission from the ORIGINAL creator is VERY disrespectful... than again, that's the BIGGEST DOWNFALL of magic.
 
Oct 17, 2009
41
0
a lot of the things they reveal are not convienent meaning you have to build something or buy a saw... I havent seen the episode or trick but maybe they found it from somewhere else or asked the creator or payed him money... anyway people watch it for enjoyment and are not likely to go out and perform it badly.
 
Jun 5, 2010
140
0
New York, New York
I don't know any of the behind-the-scenes that takes place between the artist and the show - but I doubt there is any - but wasn't Wayne Houchin's 'Sinful' effect revealed on there once, or at least that's what I heard. I'm all for TEACHING young and starting magicians a few BASIC effects, but REVEALING effects to them without any prior permission from the ORIGINAL creator is VERY disrespectful... than again, that's the BIGGEST DOWNFALL of magic.

If you pick up a copy of Sinful there is a little comic in the back about a masked magiacian tyring to expose the effect but failing miserably. So bad in fact that he stabs himself in the hand if i'm not mistaken. There might be some bad blood there.
 
Jun 5, 2010
140
0
New York, New York
I never really understood the point magic exposure shows. I mean I can understand the whole idea of the "It gets people interested in magic" argument. And i'm all for expanding our community. But not at the cost of artist's work. It would make sense for a artist to be able to sue one of these shows for revealing their work. I mean I am an art major at my school. Now if I tried to present someones work as my own I would be in some deep you know what. I would even run the risk of being thrown out of my school. If I did that in the real art world I would be blacklisted, attacked, and most likely sued by the original artist. The same can be said with many fields. If I went out and remade Avatar and called it my own I would be in lawsuits up to my eyes. I really believe that the justice system needs to treat these exposure shows as a major form of piracy. The artists who are effected by these shows need to be compensated. These effects are how they make money and survive. It doesn't just effect the artists though. It effects us as performers. I forgot which one but in one of Daniel Madison's books he tells a story about how he was performing and a spectator called him on an invisible deck. Apparently he learned about it somehow. I mean think of how much these show could ruin a way that a person sees magic. Imagine if you are performing for a group of people and not because you flash or because you didn't perform it right but because someone saw how to do it on tv or youtube they call you out. That would ruin the magical experience for everyone else watching you. Granted you should always have a few tricky ways to get out of jams like that. But still. It really shouldn't have to come to that. I could go on for hours about this but i'll cut this one short. But I seriously think that people need to rethink what they will put on tv for ratings. And if anyone is interested itricks has a podcast with the guys from fun incorporated. If you can find it on the site they talk about this kind of exposure. It's a pretty good listen.
 
Dec 23, 2007
1,579
4
36
Fredonia, NY
99 times out of 100 it wont matter. Most people will not remember or care. They wont even associate a tv program they saw 2 years ago with the miracles you are performing in front of their face. The few people that will pay close attention to that tv show and remember are the same ones that will google magic and youtube it and look up stuff after the fact. These are the people that cant handle being fooled, or are usually lousy spectators anyways. Meaning they want to catch you out, they want to ruin the magic and not just sit back and enjoy it. Fact is that many of them may end up future magicians so there really isn't much we can do. All you can do is remember, people want to see a performance not a trick and make ourselves that special ingredient that completes a perfect recipe.
 
I never really understood the point magic exposure shows. I mean I can understand the whole idea of the "It gets people interested in magic" argument. And i'm all for expanding our community. But not at the cost of artist's work. It would make sense for a artist to be able to sue one of these shows for revealing their work. I mean I am an art major at my school. Now if I tried to present someones work as my own I would be in some deep you know what. I would even run the risk of being thrown out of my school. If I did that in the real art world I would be blacklisted, attacked, and most likely sued by the original artist. The same can be said with many fields. If I went out and remade Avatar and called it my own I would be in lawsuits up to my eyes. I really believe that the justice system needs to treat these exposure shows as a major form of piracy. The artists who are effected by these shows need to be compensated.

Ok, let me clear some things up.

Exposure shows are to EXPOSE magic. Not to inspire interest in the art. Its to say "Here's how they do it."

Do the creator's get compensated? OF COURSE NOT. Its a kick in the jaw, not meant to be something good for them.

They can't sue and its totally legal to expose secrets, because thats all they are doing: Exposing secrets. They aren't broadcasting the dvd or anything which is all the creator actually has a right to.

And its interesting they you guys think explaining a trick is comparable to remaking a movie without permission, because theory11 and other sites have taken to calling their creators "artists". They could be artists. Its not for me to say. Making up tricks that are very similar to other tricks, or vastly different and unique tricks and packaging them all nicely is NOT where the art lies in magic.

The true art lies in crafting a show, a performance that inspires wonder and transports people the way great theatre, film or music does.

I'd say that the exposure shows hurt magic as little as explaining the make-up process for Lord of the Rings hurts the fantasy genre.

It doesn't matter and its perfectly fine.
 

James Wise Magic

Elite Member
Dec 28, 2007
1,021
13
I don't know any of the behind-the-scenes that takes place between the artist and the show - but I doubt there is any - but wasn't Wayne Houchin's 'Sinful' effect revealed on there once, or at least that's what I heard.

Yeah Sinful by Wayne Houchin was revealed, pretty poorly explained but he got the general method down. Wayne had explained this before in one of his Daily Update videos that he really didn't care, infact he actually was kind of excited that it was. He also goes to explain that even though it was revealed he is still able to fool his spectators with the effect, even the ones that have seen it exposed in that episode still gets that crap fooled out of them! So in turn, him revealing all of this stuff is meaningless, disrespecful but meaningless.
 
Sep 2, 2007
1,186
16
42
London
While I don't think that this kind of exposure does much harm to magic, the thing that annoys me about these shows is the sneering tone they take. Rather than presenting it as, "Look how clever this idea is!", they come across as "These magicians are so stupid, thinking they can decieve people with these childish tricks!". As well as this attitude towards magicians, they treat their own audience like idiots, as if they didn't know that these effects were tricks and illusions, and the show had to spell it out for them.

It's exactly equivalent to someone going, "The Wachowski brothers want you to believe Neo from The Matrix can climb walls, but actually it was done using wires. In fact, his name isn't even Neo, it was an actor called Keanu Reeves pretending to be called Neo. And, actually, hardly anything in the film actually happened, it was all made up." The attitude of these exposure shows just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of performance art on the part of whoever made them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I don't think that this kind of exposure does much harm to magic, the thing that annoys me about these shows is the sneering tone they take. Rather than presenting it as, "Look how clever this idea is!", they come across as "These magicians are so stupid, thinking they can decieve people with these childish tricks!". As well as this attitude towards magicians, they treat their own audience like idiots, as if they didn't know that these effects were tricks and illusions, and the show had to spell it out for them.

It's exactly equivalent to someone going, "The Wachowski brothers want you to believe Neo from The Matrix can climb walls, but actually it was done using wires. In fact, his name isn't even Neo, it was an actor called Keanu Reeves pretending to be called Neo. And, actually, hardly anything in the film actually happened, it was all made up." The attitude of these exposure shows just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of performance art on the part of whoever made them.

Thats a hilarious comparison. And yeah, it is that kind of snide attitude that motivated the show in the first place, I feel. And its target audience is such a small number (people that feel cheated by magic because they can't stand not knowing something, or being fooled).
 

gavinross

Elite Member
Dec 6, 2008
66
0
39
toledo, ohio
I think the difference between exposing magic and exposing The Matrix is people know movies are not real. But does no one reading this present their magic as though its Real magic? I know I certainly do. I only do a few effects, a dozen or so on a regular basis - I keep the number small and do them exceptionally well so that my spectator has no out, no where to go in methodology other than, of course, this performer can do Real Magic. The last thing I want is them thinking I use trap doors and mirrors and slight of hand - the method (to my spectator) is Magic.
And thats where my issue with these shows/youtube come in; people see effect after effect revealed with some clever gimmick or set up and little by little their belief in Real Magic erodes away and makes our job harder. The Last thing we want as performing magicians is for the spectator, in the back of their mind, to be thinking "there must be some trick to it" - this mindset almost sets up a competition in their mind to figure out "the trick" instead of enjoying the Magic.
-Tyler
 
Sep 2, 2007
1,186
16
42
London
I think the difference between exposing magic and exposing The Matrix is people know movies are not real. But does no one reading this present their magic as though its Real magic? I know I certainly do. I only do a few effects, a dozen or so on a regular basis - I keep the number small and do them exceptionally well so that my spectator has no out, no where to go in methodology other than, of course, this performer can do Real Magic. The last thing I want is them thinking I use trap doors and mirrors and slight of hand - the method (to my spectator) is Magic.
And thats where my issue with these shows/youtube come in; people see effect after effect revealed with some clever gimmick or set up and little by little their belief in Real Magic erodes away and makes our job harder. The Last thing we want as performing magicians is for the spectator, in the back of their mind, to be "there must be some trick to it" - this mindset almost sets up a competition in their mind to figure out "the trick" instead of enjoying the Magic.
-Tyler

I would suggest that any magician who intends a modern, intelligent, adult audience to believe that what they're witnessing is "real magic", i.e. something supernatural, is fooling themselves. For over a century, the best known and most successful magicians haven't claimed any supernatural power, instead preferring to present their work as something at the fringes of scientific understanding. In other words, they respect the education of the audience, and use that "little knowledge" to lead them towards a false solution. The bottom line is, everyone who you're likely to perform for knows these things are tricks. I would go so far as to suggest that if someone did genuinely perform a miracle, anyone watching would instantly assume it was a clever illusion.

So, I believe the modern magician has two choices. One is to fight against the tide like the Catholic church against the printing press, ultimately leaving both the performer and audience unsatisfied. The other is to accept that things have moved on, our audiences aren't medieval peasants, and to use the veneer of rationalism that is ingrained into Western education to enhance your effects.
 

gavinross

Elite Member
Dec 6, 2008
66
0
39
toledo, ohio
I would suggest that any magician who intends a modern, intelligent, adult audience to believe that what they're witnessing is "real magic", i.e. something supernatural, is fooling themselves. For over a century, the best known and most successful magicians haven't claimed any supernatural power, instead preferring to present their work as something at the fringes of scientific understanding. In other words, they respect the education of the audience, and use that "little knowledge" to lead them towards a false solution. The bottom line is, everyone who you're likely to perform for knows these things are tricks. I would go so far as to suggest that if someone did genuinely perform a miracle, anyone watching would instantly assume it was a clever illusion.

So, I believe the modern magician has two choices. One is to fight against the tide like the Catholic church against the printing press, ultimately leaving both the performer and audience unsatisfied. The other is to accept that things have moved on, our audiences aren't medieval peasants, and to use the veneer of rationalism that is ingrained into Western education to enhance your effects.

While I respect your opinion I have to respectfully disagree that people no longer believe in magic. I do see (and use myself) education leading spectators to a false solution, but even in these scenarios we as magicians then do something that spectators simply cannot do themselves (example: heat in our fingers to bend a penny) - and it Needs to be Magic that's the answer to why they cannot do it, Not tricky slight of hand. My reactions would be 1/2 of what they are today if my audience thought it was some kind of smoke and mirrors; but instead I lead them down a path where the only answer is pure magic is being performed.

Take for example an effect we all know and love, Stigmata. I dont know if you perform it, but if you do what is your "rationalism" for that effect? When I perform it, I build it up and then as the magic happens (the reveal) I let the spectators mind go frantic - they run into brick wall after brick wall and ultimately come to the conclusion that something Very Special has happened to them/with them. No false explanation needed as it would kill the effect, whether they believe the "explanation" or not.
-Tyler
PS - Juan Tamariz has some excellent thoughts on this very topic in his book The Five Points in Magic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results