David Ben - exposer

[Jim Riser]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
<snip>
Again, I have as yet to hear from anyone who has a solution as to how the "magic community" will stop "exposures." I hear a lot of whining and sanctimonious blather, but I have as yet to hear one concrete proposal that will stop exposing if you think it so damaging.

David;
I'm surprised that you have not seen the solution. It is obvious from many of the above posts. All we as a magic community need to do is burn all of the books, magazines, DVD's, etc. except for one copy of each. These remaining copies of all of magic's secrets would be in the custody of the "magic police". These keepers of the secrets would dispense individual secrets on a "need to know" basis. The "magic police" determine who needs to know - not the seeker of secrets. Simple and elegant!

The only hitch to this solution would be those pesky unpublished secrets and new secrets which might pop up at a moment's notice. Controlling these might become a problem. Perhaps the magic community could outlaw new and unpublished secrets? Publishing anything related to magic would need to cease immediately. Sorry, Richard.

Perhaps a portion of all word processing software could include "magic control filters" which would automatically delete anything related to magic secrets that people try to produce with desktop publishing techniques.

Or the magic community could acept that things have changed and learn to live with these changes (this might be a more managable solution). Things are as they are not necessarily as people might wish them to be. The one constant in life and magic is change and it is really best to accept this.
Jim

[John LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Jim Riser:
The only hitch to this solution would be those pesky unpublished secrets and new secrets which might pop up at a moment's notice. Controlling these might become a problem. Perhaps the magic community could outlaw new and unpublished secrets? Publishing anything related to magic would need to cease immediately. Sorry, Richard.

Jim, the solution to that issue is simple: when someone deigns to even suggest they have a new magic secret, they should be gagged with a whoopee cushion, topped with rubber doggie doo.

And then there's the once suggested penalty for striking a Roman officer.

Just a thought.

John LeBlanc
http://www.escamoteurettes.com

[Bob Coyne]

Jim Riser says:

Or the magic community could acept that things have changed and learn to live with these changes (this might be a more managable solution). Things are as they are not necessarily as people might wish them to be. The one constant in life and magic is change and it is really best to accept this. Jim

What's wrong with voicing a protest? Would you take the same laissez faire attitude toward dealers who rip off other people's creations and sell them? Or performers who copy/steal other performers material? The magic world is rife with that and there's not much chance of changing that either. So should everyone be quiet about that too?

I agree it's not the end of the world that David Ben exposed a trick. Plus he's contributed a lot to magic, so this should be seen in context. But I think it's fine for people to point out something they perceive as wrong without being characterized as being the "magic police."

[Bob Baker]

I believe that we are debating two different things. Mr. Alexander, I don't think any reasonable person can disagree with your assertion that magic secrets are readily available to anyone with minimal effort. Further, I think we can all agree that this is unfortunate.

However, it requires a great leap of logic to conclude that this availability in some way excuses a peformer who esposes items from working performers' repertoires to lay people. This is not what magic is about, and it is not, as Ross Johnson points out, what magicians do.

Indeed, one need only read the blurb about Mr. Ben's presentation on the Canspeak web site to understand exactly what Mr. Ben is selling:

"David Ben, a magicianwho routinely performs the impossible. As a keynote speaker, David teaches how to make problems disappear by magic. David regards problem solving as everyone's core business. David demystifies the problem-solving process by taking his audience behind the scenes of the world of magic and revealing the tricks of the trade - the methodology magicians, gamblers and psychics use to perform the impossible.

Now, I know Mr. Ben probably did not write this, though I suspect he at least had to approve his speakers bureau's description of his talk.

What is Mr. Ben selling in his talk? The profound insight that problem solving is important? Or that thinking about a problem differently can help solve it? Well, duh. I'm sure no business person ever tried that before.

What he is selling is the exposure of magic. That's what he's using to differentiate himself, to sell his presentation. Exposure is his sales gimmick.

I think it's fine to use magic to illustrate business points. Scores of successful trade show performers, after-dinner speakers, etc do so. The Gil Eagles, Ross Johnsons, Anton Zellmans, Seth Kramers of the world make superlative livings doing it. What they don't do is expose.

I continue to believe that Mr. Ben is taking something valuable that doesn't belong to him and selling it to lay people. Can I stop him? No. Can I remove all the magic from the internet? No. Should I therefore not speak out against exposure? I think my answer is obvious.

Bob Baker

[David Alexander]

Steve H. to David Alexander -
Your posts are easily the most condescending and arrogant ever posted at the Forum.
_______________________

Ah com'on Steve...worse than yours? I'm truly honored.

I shall carry this all my days. Perhaps I'll have my computer screen bronzed.

Thank you Steve.

[David Alexander]

Ah, my friend Jim Riser speaks the truth. Thank you Jim.

Bob Coyne writes:
"I believe that we are debating two different things. Mr. Alexander, I don't think any reasonable person can disagree with your assertion that magic secrets are readily available to anyone with minimal effort. Further, I think we can all agree that this is unfortunate.

However, it requires a great leap of logic to conclude that this availability in some way excuses a peformer who esposes items from working performers' repertoires to lay people. This is not what magic is about, and it is not, as Ross Johnson points out, what magicians do."

_____________________________
Bob, it's not an assertion. It's a fact, but beyond that, I give up. I can't seem to get my point through that I'm not making up excuses for David Ben when I say what he's doing is inconsequential. Easy availability of magic secrets was used as an illustration of how things are as a way of putting Ben's behavior into context, not to excuse him.

Unfortunately, people keep reading my statements as though I'm making excuses for him or that I'm "pro-exposure" or whatever nonsense they want to read into it to make their own points. I was trying to put things into context, but that doesn't seem possible.

Perhaps I should have said that what Ben has done means very little in the overall scheme of things magic and that other than voicing a protest, nothing....I repeat, NOTHING can be done about it. David Ben will continue to do what he's doing and that's the long and short of it.

People can prattle away all they want, but all the sound and fury will amount to nothing because magic is not a profession....a performer does not need the permission of any governing body to perform and the history of amateur magic groups overflows with impotence and hypocrisy.

I'm outta here.

[Bob Coyne]

David Alexander writes:

Bob Coyne writes: "I believe that we are debating two different things. Mr. Alexander, ...

David, you apparently confused me with Bob Baker who wrote that. And I certainly never wrote or implied that you were pro-exposure (though others have). On the contrary, I thought your messages were quite clear on that and other points.

[Matthew Field]

My god, if we haven't beaten this dead horse once too often -- why don't we resurrect the Mac King stuff on World's Greatest Magic, or Tom Mullica and the Phoa Cut & Restored Silk.

Enough, sez I. David Ben is a serious, respected, intelligent, creative and talented performer. Remember that David Devant got kicked out of the Magic Circle for exposure. Is there anyone today who has given up performing the Linking Rings because the Masked Magician exposed it a few years back?

Magic hasn't suffered since Professor Hoffman (Angelo Lewis) wrote a book of exposure aimed at the general public. Who today thinks Herbert Becker fatally hurt magic?

David Ben is head and shoulders above most of us venting on this Forum. I'd ask that we show him a bit of respect and deference.

Time to move on, no?

Matt Field

[Guest]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
[
And for Rex SikesI dont have a clue what I don't think it is okay to pagerize the 'bill of rights' or george wahsington or lincoln's comments means.

Where I come from we use large first letters in the spelling of proper names. I would have thought that 30 years in the corporate arena would have taught you that.

Again, I have as yet to hear from anyone who has a solution as to how the "magic community" will stop "exposures." I hear a lot of whining and sanctimonious blather, but I have as yet to hear one concrete proposal that will stop exposing if you think it so damaging. [/QB]

Sorry you only reply centers around capitalization of letters of proper names - but if you found offense then you must also realize people find offense by your words and actions and the actions fo peope who willfully expose magic to non-magicians. If so little can hook you - non capitalization then perhaps you can understand that for people who may have invested their lives and their careers and the money in learning, performing and keeping magical secrets that those who share them
are not held in a very good light.

I agree with you on this - there are no good solutions forth coming on how to stop or prevent it. Some have suggested boycott, and other means to let the offender know they are unhappy. Perhaps that is all that cna be done - whine - and not purchase.

But maybe if enough people found exposing a problem - not a world problem in the grand scheme of things as some seem to attempt to
suggest it is not - but a problem for the magical world it is.

As for the 'bill of rights, lincoln and washington" still not capitalized just for you
I stated that none of us would probably or should plagerize the works of others - we could not claim ownership to the quotes we took (we' be caught -they are too well known)
but the point is plagerism still is a problem and still is unethical. Likewise - the exposure of an effect that does not belong to you - one that belongs to another or is in public domain is equally wrong and unethical. It is theft of an idea that belonged to someone else and utilized in a manner that was not intended by the original author.

It is theft blatant theft. And just so you understand - it is not about claiming ownership it is about utilizing someone else's material, idea, secret - without their permission (even if it is public domain) because the originator of it - though that eprson may long be dead - has no say in how it is presently being utilized. I find that form of rip off as offensive as claiming ownership of something that doesn't belong to you.

And far more offensive than failing to capitalize... certainly you must realize if you can be fofended - then so can others.

david...david...david....

[Guest]

Bottom line what do we care about david alexander - who has seemed to have made himself a prominent voice in this matter -as if it is only his opinion that matters. it doesn't.

the issue goes beyond him.

I do think proposals for what to actually do - if anything can actually be done- are in order.
Even if it is only one person's statement as to how they personally will handle it.

I think ben crossed the line - I won't purchase
anything from him in the future or recommend him anywhere either. that is what I will do -

I find the practice he engaged in distasteful.
Again only my opinion - and since it is mine and I may not change anyone else - I can only be true to myself. Hence, my decsion not to support anything he offers in the future since I know the source of it and it offends me.

[Jonathan Townsend]

This forum had a long thread about open discussion of the Dusheck/Kohler/Lassen gaff for a coin trick, and would as likely react poorly to a detailed discussion of the mechanics used in Anders "Healed an Sealed" or Dean Dill's Explosion or even his "box" trick.

If we won't discuss such things here, when why would it be okay to discuss method issues with the public?

Or is okay now to discuss these things too?

Do we NEED to discuss the mechanics of items that we or our peers use in public...WITH THE PUBLIC? My feeling is no. Then again I don'e even care for the false transfer discussion in the Vernon cups and balls routine. Simply a matter of not giving people tools they don't need in their worlds.

How to handle such a thing when it happens is something else. Again, my personal perspective on this favors ASKING the person what they had in mind and how they came to do what they did. Such could turn out to be a productive discussion. Discussions that begin by ringing the "exposer/exposure" alarm in our community are not so likely to be productive.

It's a new year. Let's do better this year.

PS, the link to the show seems non-functional. Can someone provide a working link or a copy of the file so we can have something definitive to start a more productive discussion?

[Guest]

I'm all over the place on this, but their are a few points I'd like to look at.

I've agreed with Steve Hook on ethical issues in the past, but I think David Alexander is coming off fairly sensibly in this discussion. He is by no means "pro-exposure".

And niether am I, Jonathan is right. However, I tend to think that intellectual property issues between magicians cause more lasting harm than those between the magicians and the public. This hardly justifies exposure, however.

The advert that someone shared from David Ben's show...I often discuss physcology (and some of my theories behind it) of Magic, and Art, and the things that go into it, with my audiences, to make points, or when they wish it, etc. I do not consider this "exposure". However, I use tricks to illustrate specific areas of these philosophies WITHOUT exposing the secrets behind them, one because they are not mine to expose, and two because the audience enjoys things much more that way, and I can use my own theories more productively.

Another question...why is everyone so pissy about people using their real name. I agree with "Andy" from the Magic Circle Jerk on this...it is the CONTENT that counts. Then again, I'm way out of any sort of magic community with conventions and clubs and societies and whatnot, so perhaps there is some sort of complex reprisal system that causes people to be completely invalid when their names are hidden? Not sure, certainly many would probably blanch if "Andy" wrote under his real name...At any rate, I really believe that is a somewhat tired, and not terribly valid argument to make against someone's post.

Guess I'm on both sides of this one...

On a periphrial note, does anyone have David Ben's contact information? Perhaps sending me an e-mail with it would be better, so he doesn't get virtually lynched or whatever. I wish to speak with him about business concerns.

The other thing that bothered me on this thread is that many people (and one person, as I noted on page two, came right out and said it) are hinting that magicians are made by what they buy, etc. I am but a novice to the Art, but it should take any 'laymen' years of study, practice, expierience, research, and thought to approach my ability as a magician.

Exposure is bad, however. What is wrong with contradiction? Why must you fellows be so black and white? I think poor David Alexander is rather grey here, and has been unfairly labeled as being on a "side".

I certainly am not.

[magicam]

Okay, let's say "exposure" is bad.

But heres the problem: I dont think there is a definition of exposure that can be defined with clarity and precision such that everybody could agree. As I wrote earlier, I think there are too many subtleties and contexts which occur/can be imagined which make a black and white definition practically impossible.

Given all the back and forth on this thread, it would be interesting to see if any of us could come up with a definition which would allow a magician of average intelligence to determine fairly certainly whether or not he/she was engaging in exposure.

I dont think it can be done, but Id love it if somebody proved me wrong. Im sure some of the magical organizations have attempted to define exposure, so it might be interesting to read their definitions and policies. But I still suspect those policies have vague aspects to them or are malleable.

Any thoughts?

Clay

[Michael Edwards]

Clay:

That's precisely why I placed the poll in another thread on this forum...to explore some of the situational aspects of the issue. That poll probes some of the conditions under which Forum participants believe "exposure" might be acceptable:

1) Never
2) To educate and inspire future magicians
3) To deepen and enhance the magical experience
4) When it is your own trick, effect, or method you are revealing
5) To debunk those who make fraudulent claims of psychic abilities or phenemona
6) So that individuals can be more effective, valuable or successful leaders in other non-magical fields
7) To assist nonmagicians put on more effective theatrical productions
8) If the trick has already been widely revealed to the general public
9) So the technique can be used for an important nonmagical purpose (think John Mulholland's work to teach covert methods to operatives during the Cold War
10) To save a life

Of course, there are many other possible situations, but my intent was to begin to round out the discussion and to add some depth and color to what we mean when we say exposure is wrong.

There is, as you and Diego have suggested, another -- yet related -- dimension to this...perhaps an even more basic one...which is the establishment of a definition of "exposure" on which we can all agree...or at least use as a reference point for this discussion. In forming such a definition, I would assume one would look at such matters as what is being revealed, to whom, under what conditions, to what ends. Perhaps the vehicle for exposure is relevant; perhaps the motivation. Any other suggestions?

[magicam]

Sorry, Michael, I did not see that poll. I'm sure you, Diego and many others are way ahead of me on this topic, but I thought it was worth asking the question on this thread. Besides the fun of debating, it seems like this conversation is going nowhere, and that the touchstone is ultimately a definition that folks can agree on and work with. I still maintain that a good, clear, and meaty definition that most of us can agree on is practically impossible, and I think thats the key to the disagreements here and the downfall of something productive deriving from all this. I could be wrong, of course!

The elements you mention all seem relevant to me, and if they are, I think they tend to support my assertion that a cogent definition of exposure is going to be very hard to come by and that there are too many subtleties to account for. If defining exposure takes a mini-essay, then no wonder we have debates like this on this thread.

Clay

[magicam]

Just read your edited post, Michael. Some good thoughts/ideas in your checklist. I think your poll is helpful in raising issues, but Id still like to see somebody define the meaning of exposure. Ill throw humility out the window and state it more provocatively: fellow magi, a cogent definition of exposure that magicians can agree on is impossible to formulate. End of story. Until one is formulated and agreed on, then rambling, sometimes incomprehensible and vituperative threads like this one will be a staple of GF. Sure, it may be fun to read, but other than allowing us all to vent and offer our opinions, its getting us nowhere.

There are some great minds who read and participate on GF, so I challenge you guys and gals to define exposure in the manner I have requested. You know who you are. Maybe you are too busy to participate, or maybe a lesser known like me making this request just doesnt get you excited. But since exposure seems like a sacred cow in our little world, why not take a crack at it. If nobody responds with some cogent thoughts directly on point, that will support my suspicion that it cant be done. And if you think Im baiting you, I am.

Clay

[Guest]

Exposure is bad, no question. However, does anyone teach magic? Is that exposure? For those of you who know David he is a master teacher and his presentations to execs have that effect. He motivates people to become not only fans but practioners.

In my humble opinion, this is a tough subject to make black or white.

Is it possible to see a little bit of grey?

[Guest]

While exposure has been broadly assumed since almost the beginning of the thread, I am not sure that is the case here. My view of the "lecture" was that the effect would likely have been seen as developed to make the point, and not a "real" trick, thus limiting any retelling of the method. What I would think would be retold and remembered were the lessons, not the effect--which was the vehicle.

[Guest]

I am truly dizzy from going round and round in the circles of this thread. So some of the greats in magic have exposed secrets. Blackstone did it, Hoffman did it, Mark Wilson did it, many did it in books which someone who truly has an interest in magic secrets MUST go and look for it, hunt it down and then take the time to learn it. The masked magician exposed on a television show but again, someone had to tune in and watch it to get the secrets. David Ben exposed secrets to a captive audience who were taught secrets that were NOT sought after and the secrets were not solicited.

In my opinion ALL exposure is wrong. Just because so and so did it does not make it right. Will it harm what I or any of you do? Doubtful. Will it harm magic? Not in the short run but it is slowly whittling away the mystery of the magic and WILL ruin it eventually, maybe not in our life time or our children's but it will.

A long time ago one had to seek out a magician to teach them. Few books, few secrets top be had and then after you learned from the magician, if they felt you worthy, they would introduce you to others and those others would introduce you to others and if you were deemed worthy you were also introduced to the inner secrets of magic. There was an underground of magic and secrets and only a select few were privy to that. Now in this day and age where secrets are commonplace, there is a new underground that while there are more in it, many will not allow others in. It is a new secret elite that has the latest and greatest and it is for this "exposed" society that it has formed and will grow. Magicians have made sure that this would happen and it has returned, an underground elite that will not share secrets with anyone not in that group.

Now the real fact is that David Ben does not give a rat's a** about what we all think. he will continue to garner good lay reviews, good paying gigs and will continue to work BUT he has lost the respect of many that would have held him in a much higher regard for what he has done. To be held in contempt by many of ones peers (and I do mean peers and not just hobbyists) is NOT a good thing in my books.

PSIncerely Yours,
Paul Alberstat
AB Stagecraft
http://www.mindguy.com/store
Supplying unique mentalism world-wide

[Fred Zimmerman]

What the heck, I might as well jump in with an observation or two.

I watched David Ben's video, and I've seen shows like the "Masked Magician," and the two will serve to illustrate a point I wish to make.

I firmly believe that there are two kinds of exposure.

The first I will name "metaphorical" exposure, and the second I'll name "sophomoric" exposure. (Ooops, are my value judegements showing?)

David Ben is using the exposure of magical methods in order to illustrate a larger point metaphorically. In other words, he is not exposing magical effects for the simple reason of garnering praise or stature.

Certainly, he is looking to make a good impression on his audience and drive home his points in a memorable way, thereby winning more speaking engagements. However, the primary, and I'll also say secondary, aim of his performance is not to expose magic for the sake of it.

Alternately, the second kind of exposure--"sophomoric" exposure--does just that. The only point of the exposure is to say "Hey, look at me! Aren't I cool?" I think we can all agree that performers like Valentino do this out of desperation to make a mark on the world of entertainment. "Blot" would be nearer than "Mark," but there you have it.

Now, is one better than the other? Well, at face value, David Ben's way appears more noble. However, I'll be the first to say that I am undecided about this. I waffle between not caring, and being marginally upset. I've learned over time that nothing can really quench the fire of the public's love of the mysterious, but I can't say I've made up my mind either way about "metaphorical" exposure.

On the other hand, "sophomoric" exposure is undoubtedly a bad thing by virtue of the fact that it simply isn't entertaining. Bad singing, bad acting, exposing magic tricks ... all bad because they're simply ... a bad show.

The reason I make these categorizations is because many of the posts on this thread lump someone like Valentino in with someone like David Ben. Certainly, an arguement can be made that they are all alike, but I feel that careful contemplation allows for many more shades and colors of opinion.

Lastly, in addtion to acting and magic I am a business writer, and routinely create metaphorical pieces to communicate simple and complicated ideas to audiences. My advice to David Ben, were he inclined to listen, would be that I'm sure that if he worked a little bit harder, he could use magic just as powerfully to make his points, but not expose them in the process.

After all, it just isn't cricket.

Fred Zimmerman

[Guest]

One thing this thread has amply illustrated; if you're famous in magic, IE: David Ben, Mac King, Blackstone, et al, you can expose with impunity because rank hath it's privvy's.

If you're a relative no-name, as Valentino was....God help you!

That double standard, more than the actual exposure, is what chaps my chop cup.

~T

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Fred Zimmerman:
...I firmly believe that there are two kinds of exposure. ...

So was it just indecent exposure, or was it pornography?

If one seriously desires to discuss and demonstrate deception, no need to use conjuring examples.

[magicam]

Thanks for the lead in, Jonathan!

So nobody has answered my pointed request and attempted to define exposure. Im not surprised it cant be done IMHO.

I was speaking to a long-time acquaintance about this matter of defining exposure. Hes been a professional performer for a long time and has authored and published several books on performance. So hes qualified to weigh in on the subject. He agreed that exposure cannot be defined in a pithy way, but recalling a famous U.S. Supreme Court Justices comment about pornography, he told me that hed know exposure when he saw it. So maybe thats the best we can say on the subject?

Clay Shevlin

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Magicam:
...to define exposure. Im not surprised it cant be done IMHO...

One could argue that magic exists on the audience side of the stage or performing experience and ANY discussion or revelation of the performer's side of affairs is exposure. How does that work for you?

[magicam]

Jonathan T. wrote:

One could argue that magic exists on the audience side of the stage or performing experience and ANY discussion or revelation of the performer's side of affairs is exposure. How does that work for you?

Hey, Jonathan, I'll play along and offer that your proposed definition works only if you are prepared to say that practically every magician on earth is an exposer. By your definition, even Vernon and Malini talking in private about a double lift would be exposure. Any person who has written a book discussing magic secrets would be an exposer.

Yours in good ole discussion,

Clay

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Magicam:
...that practically every magician on earth is an exposer. By your definition, even Vernon and Malini talking in private about a double lift would be exposure. Any person who has written a book discussing magic secrets would be an exposer...

Vernon's discussion and demonstration of a false transfer in the context of his cups routine would qualify, as he is discussing means with A LAY AUDIENCE. Discussion among peers in conjuring would not qualify as both are supposedly aware that the magic exists ONLY for their audiences, at the time of performance, and of course they would be having this discussion without layman present.

The actor on stage does not discus makeup, lighting, stage direction or his script cues. The actor PERFORMS so that the audience can attend to the story as presented. The conjurer's performance is not so different. All the script, props, stagecraft merely serves to convey the stories presented.

Now if we wanted to discuss "backstage musicals" as exposure... we might agree there.

I am positing a simple idea here. The story as presented lives in the mind of the audience. The means of presenting the story fade to the background of the process of attending the story. When the means are brought to the foreground, the spell is broken. Good for a laugh perhaps (see the post about the moment in "seusical"), thought it comes at the expense of the integrity of the story and the audience.

Story in foreground, mechanics in background = performance.

Mechanics in foreground puts story in background => exposure.

Anyway that's my hypothesis. Does anyone care to offer counter examples or a more concise rule for looking at this issue?

[Guest]

why bother defining and determining when it is okay to expose. Just go back to your original magic books - where it says : secret.

Then somewhere it says - keep secrtets, don't tell how it worked and don't do same trick twice or they will catch on.

We belong to a fraternity that was founded on keeping secrets sacred. Some wish to violate that, some wish to look for loopholes but the premise remains - magic is best served by keeping its secret workings secret. Don't defile the art.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by rex sikes:
...go back to your original magic books - where it says : secret....

One might suspect that many started magic not with secrets but with gossip. There is an economy of secrets in magic among magicians, where the value of the secrets decreases as the ideas get disseminated. If these guys could keep secrets... ( not going there ) they might be more interested in their audiences instead of trying to impress each other.

It's a strange feeling to be told about the locking dollar thirty five coin gaff by a layman. Or shown Downs palm coin sleights by one's supervisor at work. The knowledge exists to elicit the feeling of magic in our audiences. When the knowledge leaks into the general community, it loses value very quickly. Sure they can still be entertained by a competent performance, BUT the experience has shifted from amazement down to mere appreciation of a performance. You said the lines very well and did not drop your gimmicks. Does that feel like "Bravo!" to you?

I will send a note to David Ben and ask his thoughts on the matter and inquire as to how well his discussions of magic methods have served his audiences.

[Jeff Haas]

Jonathan, interesting point...seems to go against the one made in Our Magic that audiences will appreciate magic more when they look at it as theater.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Jeff Haas:
...seems to go against the one made in Our Magic that audiences will appreciate magic more when they look at it as theater.

Where specifically do I address the performance of magic as anything other than theater?

I hold that in our internal or story world of what we believe etc, magic is a story component, while in our common or shared world, magic is about making physical illustrations of story type events.

[Richard Kaufman]

I think we're done with this for now.