David Ben - exposer

[Jim Riser]

Why is it that every time the self appointed magic police find an "exposure" they go on a rant? Who and under what circumstances this person (David Ben in this instance) makes some sort of "exposure" definitely affects the enormity of the crime - if, in deed, there was a crime committed. To me Mr. Ben has committed no crime - period. The magic police have brought attention to this video which no one would have seen without their alert. Who is doing the "exposing" here? Methinks the magic police need an investigation by internal affairs. It all appears to be a petty attack against Mr. Ben. Jealousy leads people to do some mighty strange things.

The very worst exposures I have ever seen have been by poor performers who were not adequately prepared to perform before an audience. Now, those guys I could "go after". The magic police seem to ignore these guys.

Most of the many books related to magic in my personal library seem to "expose" something. Perhaps this is why I bought them. If I pay for the exposure is it then OK? The business men paid Mr. Ben, I assume. I just ordered two upcoming books from Todd Karr at the Miracle Factory. Even though I already have the original David Abbott book, I'd like to see what other goodies Todd has uncovered. Mr. Abbott was a real thinker. I'm personally at least as interested in the thought processes behind routine/effect development as much as methods. The method is the easy part and the part the magic police seem to want to protect from unauthorized viewing. How and who gets authorized to view exposures is never detailed. The Roy Benson text will include newly found portions discovered by Teller. There is a reason why Mr. Benson was great. Perhaps some of his thinking which contributed to his greatness will be in the new book. This is the type of exposure I am willing to view and pay for. Greatness is built upon details.

Those who seem to want to stop any and all instances of what they consider exposure are living in a fantasy land. For years magic dealers have gotten away with the "no refund after the secret is sold" line of bull. On my web site I choose to show exactly what people will be getting for their hard earned money. This service allows magicians to make educated purchasing decisions. I'm certain that the magic police would want this practice stopped. To that I say "tough". I want my customers to know what they are buying to help them determine if these items will fit into their performing style, conditions, etc.

The context and who is doing the "exposing" do matter.

The biggest magic exposing is done on ebay by guys selling their stuff. Why have not these magic police shut down ebay with its world wide exposures?

If there are sides to be chosen, I'll side with Mr. Ben rather than the self appointed magic police. To the magic police: "get a life".
Jim

[Michael Kamen]

I am not going to play word games or he-said she-said with you Steven. The posts are all there for anyone to read -- you should actually read them yourself sometime.

[D Laub]

David Alexander,
Thanks for the kind words on my material:) As to whether I foolishly threatened to disrupt your act, reflecting badly on myself, see the reductio ad absurdum post above. My point was to socratically ask where the line should be drawn. If it is ok for DB to expose methods used by current performers, would it be ok for someone to expose your material before your cliental? It simply was to drive the exposure quesdtion to a more nuanced definition. As for me exposing your act or anyone else's, remember I'm the one against exposure:)
The ethics discussion never seems to go anywhere, but should still be broached from time to time. One problem area of exposure is that those who believe it is damaging to the field often withdraw their creative voice from the wider magic community.I know several formerly active creative individuals who no longer produce material for the larger community. Of course because so much is going on today, they will not be long missed.
Jon Racherbaumer,
I wonder if Schopenhauer has ever been quoted in discussions of magician's ethics before?
I have absolutely no trouble calling you a writer. Always enjoy your perspective, don't think we have a better thought-provoking writer in magic. Cheers
P.S. As an anti-exposer, I would think that Nietzsche's perspective may be relevant from the exposer's viewpoint:)

[Guest]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
No Ford, I'm not making up a definition to support my statements...and you would only be a professional if you belonged to an organization that is professional in nature and scope such as a local, state, or national bar association if you were a lawyer or the California Medical Association or the American Medical Assoc if you were a doctor. There are clear benefits of belonging and clear disciplinary protocols for those who violate the profession's ethics...client confidentiality is a case in point for lawyers. Violate that and the lawyer can be disbarred. State licensing or not, he won't be working as a lawyer any time soon.

Clearly, you don't understand what a professional is, so further discussion seems kind of pointless.

From Ford
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!

[Guest]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
Jeez....some of you are as thick and two planks. I never said "exposure was good."

David Ben did not ruin The Tossed Out Deck for corporate presentations any more than Ali exposing the Thumb Tip stopped its use.

And I never said David Ben ruined TOD for corporate presentations, but I don't think getting it wrong makes you thick as even one plank. I did say I think it hinders my ability to use it. I don't believe the word 'hinder' is synonymous with 'ruin.' There's no point in my going into my presentation, but if I were working for a group that had previously seen David Ben, I would not be able to use it. (Or the Cassandra Deck, or really any other variation)

--Christopher Carter

[Guest]

David's presentation is so smooth it looks like he has done it a thousand times. This rather makes me suspect he has been giving the secret of the tossed out deck away for years and years in his speeches.

I expect he has been going on his merry way doing this for a long time never expecting that any magician would ever know about it. He was probably taken by surprise that Canspeak would broadcast a tape of the speech and even more that Tom G (I think I know who this may be) would bring this to our attention. The chickens have come home to roost I am afraid.

David is a very fine performer who has done more for magic than he has ever done against it. He has given magic a certain status and dignity in Toronto that has done all the local magicians a lot of good even though they may not appreciate it as much as they should.

However I do believe on this occasion he was wrong. A performer of his intellect and creativity should surely have been able to make the same point without having to give away a professional secret which I happen to know a certain professional corporate mentalist in his city does as an important part of his act.

People are making a fuss about this exposure but it should be noted that David has put out a book (called "Tricks" I believe) which is on sale to the public and I think is aimed at the corporate market as some kind of self help book. The tossed out deck is exposed there too. A bit of a shame. I wouldn't have minded so much if it was a magic book but that didn't seem to be the main purpose of the tome.

Quite frankly David should know better. It is ironic that a few years ago my graphic artist told me that she had seen the David Ben show. She said she was disappointed. I asked why. It seems that the day before she went to the show the masked magician had come on TV and exposed some of the very tricks that she saw David do the next day.This ruined the show for her.

If exposing can affect David it can affect other performers. I hate to say this and it may inflame some people but in an odd way what David did may even be more reprehensible that what the masked magician did. Valentino HAD to expose in order to recieve his money. David didn't HAVE to. He could easily with just a bit of thought have made exactly the same point without having to give away a secret of magic.

Ironically I remember Patrick Watson his director coming on TV and decrying the masked magician for his "mean spiritedness"

I am not the sort of person who gives a fig about the opinions of other magicians. However I happen to know that David is. I think he would be better advised to alter his tossed out deck presentation if he still wishes to be respected.

As David Alexander says it isn't really a big deal but it is just plain unnecessary. It didn't have be done. I wonder if Mr Alexander would be quite so sanguine about the matter if David had exposed the miser's dream ( which Mr Alexander does so well) instead of the tossed out deck. People who don't care that much about exposure seem to change their mind very quickly if it is a trick out of their own repertoire that gets exposed.

Incidentally I cannot be sure but I do wonder about Tom G. I think I have a suspect but will not name him in case I may be very wrong. I suspect him for 3 reasons.

One, he has a history of animosity with David Ben which goes back some years.
Two. He hates exposure of any kind.
Three. His first name is Tom. I don't know where the G bit comes in though.

I may be wrong in my speculation of the pooper who is spoiling David's party. Still this is irrelevant to the main point. The exposure is certainly no big deal but it IS an irritant.

Again a clever performer like David should know better.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Tim Brown:
What is the difference between a magician and a layperson?

A magician is someone who, with a few mouse clicks and a credit card, purchases the secrets of magic.

A layperson is someone who hasn't yet clicked that mouse.

Tim Brown

God help anyone who buys these definitions, and god help the Art if there are many that define themselves with such standards.

No comment on the exposing issue.

I bow to Mr. Racherbaumer, however. To debate, to argue, is indeed fun, it can even be beautiful, believe it or not, but the focus must be removed from who wins, and placed upon the language.

Too seldom does this occur in these halls.

[Guest]

I didn't look at the tape as thoroughly as I could have but if Mr Alexander's assertion that David exposed the force, top change and even the one handed second deal I must say that I am quite mortified.

I didn't see this on the tape but if it truly is there I find this even more reprehensible that merely exposing one trick such as the tossed out deck.

You should NEVER expose a principle of magic. To expose the classic force or the top change fills me with squirming discomfort. This really is going too far. A trick I can just about swallow. A basic principle which can be used in many many tricks is just too much for me.

Please tell me that Mr Alexander was joking or that I have missed something somewhere.

It isn't true is it?

[David Alexander]

One of the things I was pointing out in my posts was the double standard under which amateur magic and Jim Riser's marvelously-named group the "magic police," operate.

David Ben alledgedly "exposes" a couple of magic tricks in a small lecture for laypeople and the "magic police" want his head. Bill Herz wrote a magic book for executives (but sold to the general public with a far larger circulation than David Ben will ever reach with his talks) where he gave away some great material and nary a word is heard.

James Randi did the same thing a few years ago with a book aimed at the general public. It sold some 50,000+ copies (my wife did the illustrations) and no one (to my knowledge) complained.

At no point did I state that was Ben did was "good." What I said was, his behavior was inconsequential and not worth the amount of sound and fury that has been generated here, especially since nothing can be done about it other than passing on the varied opinions of a handful of amateur and a few professional magicians.

I thank Siwel for the kind words about my presentation of the Miser's Dream and agree with him on much of his post. David Ben should know better, and yes, I would have been somewhat irritated had he exposed something that was part of my professional repetoire, but I have taught myself to become upset over things I can have some control or effect over. David Ben "exposing" isn't one of them.

I think it is important to understand that even with the widespread exposure by clowns like the Masked Magician, the number of people who saw those programs and are then in any magician's audience is relatively small. Further, as I've pointed out, people forget. Thinking that everyone in your audience is going to be fooled all the time is living a fantasy. Probably the worst individual to have in an audience is the jerk who is a frustrated amateur who "knows" what you're doing and is happy to announce to everyone exactly that. David Ben did not create that type of cretin. I've bumped into a few of them in 35 years of performing.

Should David Ben have exposed the Miser's Dream, I could have called him and yelled at him and that would have been about it. Regardless, none of us have any control over what David Ben does or doesn't do. No professional organization has any authority over his performance or ability to ply his craft, so I see no point is working myself up over what I see as an inconsequential matter.

Could Ben have been more thoughtful and more clever in his presentation? Yes.

Does his behavior merit the level of emotional rants produced on this thread? No.

As Jim Riser correctly points out, more damage is done by poorly prepared performers than all the David Bens in the world.

I'm going to watch the Rose Parade and enjoy my day.

[Guest]

I did look and the principle exposure thing wasn't that bad although I won't be recommending David for any awards at the Magic Castle for it.

I have now watched the presentation in it's entirety. I now withdraw my supposition that he could have easily have come up with another way of proving his point without exposure. The key word is "easily" It would indeed take some thought and effort.

I am now torn. The magician and artist in me is utterly horrified by such a detailed exposure and the businessman is saying "good on you, David"

The old conflict between art and money which is articulated thus "Art for art's sake and money for Christ's sake!"

The exposure is so thorough and calculated that I am afraid the artist and magician in me is winning. I don't like it one bit and for some reason it bugs me more than the masked magician ever did.

One thing occurs to me though. The performance of of the trick itself gets rather lukewarm reaction.And it is an easy audience. Yet the exposure goes over rather better. It tempts me to say that David should work on his performance skills since he seems to have thoroughly mastered his exposure ones.

I won't be "mean spirited" though. People would liken me to an exposer if I did that.

Incidentally I've got the Bill Herz book. Great, great book. Mind you I think that the general public will have read it far more than executives will.

For some reason I don't mind exposure in a magic book. It IS a magic book after all! It is supposed to have secrets in it.

I didn't know that a corporate speaker was supposed to give away secrets of another profession.

Mind you I seem to remember years and years ago that the Magic Circle huffed and puffed over Patrick Page giving away secrets in a book he wrote for the general public. Ironically I think that one of them was the Miser's dream! And he also does it very well indeed.

[Guest]

I am a little bit confused. I occasionally check on the forums and never post but this blatant poor attack is mind boggling.
He is accused of exposing these tricks? I saw a 30 minute performance using 2 tricks. Pretty good in my books. He performed for a very professional audience and I imagine got paid very well. He mentioned some of the possible things that can be done. The explanations were adequate to know the happening but I did not see an exposure of a top change as accused just that Mr. Ben "Switched them." He said by timing he could have cards stopped on. I certainly can not stop at the same card 3 times without a break or mark of sorts. But that audience feels it is possible. Hmmm I don't feel he has done anything wrong.
He explained 2 items vaguely to get a point across. Good for him! He got paid well to do it!
I am pretty sure most members here have been to a magic lecture. The lecturer got paid to perform and explain the tricks they performed to a group. I don't understand what differentiates this from a lecture. Oh wait! Those people aren't magicians! My mistake! But hang on a second, I don't recall seeing many magicians at these lectures. I mean lots of hobbyists and dabblers but few if any real magicians! So is it just as bad to accuse a lecturer of exposure?
Well if this is the case I will be very angry and recruit a mob for the next magic lecture I go to!
Tom B, erh G. Tom G. Sorry!
Thank you for opening the door! I saw a great key note speaker although already owning a copy of Mr. Ben's book I did not learn any new magic but I certainly picked up on other wonderful information! Thanks goes out to Mr Ben for promoting magic and performing it flawlessly! I didn't see a thing wrong with his technique! Kudos!
Bob Parker

[Guest]

Good for him! He got paid well to do it!
Bob Parker [/QB]

I'm not sure how relevant his fee for this particular performance would be, but since it was a speakers bureau showcase, the fee would have been nothing. In fact, most likely Mr. Ben paid for the opportunity to deliver his presentation.

--Christopher Carter

[Guest]

Payment does not have to come from the dollar. Although you are right and I did overlook that detail! Thanks for the observation!
-Bob

[Steve Hook]

Bob:

A "blatant poor attack" [sic] may be off the mark. You could have softened the blow with an "in my opinion". And also, isn't "attack" a bit perjorative?

In fact, there's little question that David Ben did expose the workings of several principles of card magic (and a couple of tricks).

What has been argued by the Ben supporters is that the exposure was not worth the "uproar", if you can call it that.

Conversely, a good number of the people posting strongly disapprove of what Ben did.

There has been little written by either side, including your strident post, nor probably this reply of mine, which has persuaded the other to reverse its opinion.

Looks like the whole episode is at a deadend.

Steve

[Guest]

What David Ben did was violate a basic tenet of the magic fraternity. You don't give away the secrets
I'm not the thought police, I don't equivocate exposure with child molesting. And statistically we are sure to have some of those in the fraternity
He may be a charming and talented fella, but truthfully I didn't get either of those from the video
Nothing he did was illegal. He is simply one of the growing number of Villaci's in the magic world
I can only make decisions for me. I won't buy his books. I will vociferously reccomend hiring him as a performer or lecturer
If enough people do it, it might slow down exposure. I'm old, my magic career is pretty much over. So what he did or does barely affects me
But I feel an obligation to defend a code that has treated me so well
from
Ford

[Bob Baker]

Before dismissing Mr. Ben's exposure as "inconsequential," one might ask the question "inconsequential to whom?" Certainly not to any performer who regularly uses the TOD. We've already heard from one full-time professional who feels he has been affected.

Is the exposure "consequential" in the overall scheme of the universe? Of course not. Will Mr. Ben's exposure have dire consequences for magic? Doubtful. It's just one more example of a secret being given away to people who did not ask for it.

We see this all the time, and therein lies the problem. Little by little, or with the internet lots by lots, the mystery of magic is being chipped away.

Examples abound. Earlier this year New York Magazine did a wonderful article about mentalist Gerard Senehi. One of his featured effects is the floating, self-lighting cigarette. The reporter was dumbfounded by his performance. Until she Googled "floating cigarette" and with two clicks purchased the secret. Mystery gone.

Another full-time professional recently had an audience member tell him that a partciular effect was achieved by "one of those tiny pencils you clip to your thumb." In fact, it wasn't. But no matter, for that spectator the mystery was gone.

While I agree that most people who see a trick exposed will not remember the exact working, they don't have to. The exceutives who see Mr. Ben lecture may not remember exactly how TOD works, but if they ever see it performed again, all they have to think is, "Oh, yeah. I've seen this before. It's a trick deck." Mystery gone.

I disagree with the notion that Mr. Ben's being an fine and respected performer who contributes much to magic gives him a pass on exposing a trick which is not his to expose. Let's consider this hypothetical example:

I happen to own Key-R-Rect. I decide that it would be a good way to teach business executives that there can be many "keys" to solving a particular business problem. [An admittedly banal illustration, but one which will suffice for purposes of this discussion.] So I show them how the trick works.

Now, one of those executives decides one day to take in a performance by one of our most respected mentalists for an evening of knowing and not knowing. And the exec sees this mentalist's signature performance piece involving one particular key opening a lock. The executive remembers, "trick lock." Mystery gone.

Was my exposure inconsequential to this mentalist? I would think not.

When we expose, we don't just hurt magic. We hurt our fellow performers. I don't consider either of those "inconsequential."

Bob

[Brad Henderson]

To address one facet of this argument, the word "professional" has many connotations. However, as a term of art, it has some specific meanings. It is those meanings which inform David Alexander's definition of the word, and he is correct. Though it may sound arrogant, certain careers are deemed "professions" by this nomenclature, while others aren't. This is not to say that one cannot make their living in a "job" or "career" but by this specific definition, they are not "professions".

While I do not have the text books from which I learned this distinction, some of the differences include a test or criterion in order to practice in that field, as well as a board of governance to control participation of members once admitted into that field.

Teaching is considered a profession. Doctors and lawyers as well. Magicians, regardless of the percentage of one's income resulting from performance, are not.

Again, you may not care to agree that this is a fair thing to say, but there does exist a working definition of "professional" which, in the real world apart from our bickering, embodies the meaning as put forth by David Alexander.

[MagicAL]

I am amazed and quite shocked by how many magicians seem to support this exposure.

I wonder how many of you would be supportive of David Ben's exposure if you were a CORPORATE MENTALIST working in the SAME CITY that David Ben works in.

It's easy to sit back and support this when you are not directly effected by the exposure. In fact, I wonder how many of the David supporters are professional mentalists who earn their living with commercial plots like the "Tossed Out Deck."

It strikes me as fairly ironic that a person who is hired as a CREATIVE THINKING EXPERT / MAGICIAN can not use his own, so called, CREATIVE THINKING skills to find a more creative way to make a point, other than exposing the secrets of his craft!

It is also interesting that Mr. Ben chooses to expose an effect that he does not use professionally.

How about giving away one of the secrets from his big theatre show....that strikes me as fair exposure.

Yes, how about this as a rule:
"IF YOU WANT TO EXPOSE MAGIC...THEN EXPOSE MAGIC THAT YOU PERSONALLY USE TO MAKE A LIVING WITH."

The art of magic should be used to accentuate a point, not be the point!

My 2 cents

P.S. I mean no ill will toward David Ben as a person. I think he is intelligent in his approach and presentation of magic in general...but this kind of exposure is not acceptable nor is the general acceptance of it from fellow magicians. This attitude is just breeding more masked magicians!

[Robert Allen]

Regarding inconsequentiality....

The infraction being discussed here is sort of like a cop speeding just for the hell of it, because he can. Sure seems wrong to me on that basis and that basis alone.

I don't see how the opposing party in this discussion can't see this point. If it were millions of dollars there's plenty of people who would probably at least say "well, you know, for that much money, I too would be tempted." But it WASN'T for that much money. And it wasn't necessary. He just did it because it was convenient to him. That is what I object to.

[Bob Coyne]

I agree with David Alexander that the damage done by David Ben's exposure is minimal. But I'm surprised to see some others arguing that there was *nothing* wrong with it.

Magic is a shared body of intellectual property. When intellectual property is licensed, there are usually restrictions on how it can be used. For example, I can license a software library to use as a component to build some other software product, but I can't redistribute or reveal the source code of that same library. It's the same with magic -- we're free to use what we've learned to perform magic (and share with other magicians to some extent). But we're not generally free to give away the secrets to laymen.

Ok, with magic there's no force of law behind it, but I think the principle is the same.

[Guest]

There is a lot of black and white opinion on whether exposure is good or bad but perhaps peoples definitions of exposure need clarifying.I have always taken exposure to mean the immediate revelation of how you just did a trick, a tendency that we all probably had as kids starting out. The problem being that , if you do an effect and then immediately reveal the explanation you cheapen the trick for the spectator and reduce magic in their eyes both as performed by yourself and then by others.

So the question is, using that definition of exposure, could this accusation be levied at David Ben, well I think not. I think in Ben's case the magic is actually secondary to the business points he is making and it simply isn't a case of him doing a trick then saying, look this is how I did it, aren't I clever.

You then can look at the likes of Penn and Teller and have to ask yourself, are they cheapening the magic or furthering the cause of magic with the exposure they do. And again I'd have to say no, this is a bit less black and white but I think they are definitely a force for moving magic on because exposure is not their sole or even major raison d'etre.

The masked magician however hits the button in all respects and that's the kind of exposure we should worry about.

[MagicAL]

Let's forget the intellectual argument as to whether this is exposure or not exposure.

Let's focus on the fact that a fellow magician is showing the workings of a commercial magic effect that is part of the bread and butter routines of other performers.

Why not give away the workings of a very accessible trick like the 21 card trick. I am using this trick as an example, there are many tricks that fall into this category of "widely exposed secrets"...but not enough so that lay people will be absolutely familiar with them.

These types of exposures do not hurt the income of performers trying to earn a living through magic. They can be used just as succinctly to make the points that David Ben is trying to make in his speech.

When is comes to stage presentations for the working professional Mentalist/Magician, there are very few strong, commercial plots that pack as huge a punch as does the TOD with only a minimum of props to carry. In the mind of a working professional this item is considered a gem.

Imagine starting a creative thinking workshop for children, where the magician would go into schools and reveal the inner workings of the Bunny Production Box to make a point about creative thinking. This would kill the shows of 3/4's of the children's show performers. This may be an exaggerated point but I think it's a valid one.

Again, as I mentioned in a previous post, as a general rule of thumb: "If you feel you must expose a big secret of magic then expose only magic that you personally use to make a living with." My point here is that the exposures never seem to hurt the performer doing the exposing...maybe it's time to feel the impact of your bullet before you shoot at someone else!

As a magic society, why don't we come up with a book of generally exposed magic tricks and then pick and choose from this book when it comes time to expose a trick or two.
I know this last statement might sound a little immature but at least it moves towards a solution rather than the continued intellectualization of the problem with no solutions.

I'd love to hear about other people's possible solutions for this ever growing problem.

Thanks

[Guest]

Exposure of working material only? Well if that is the case I can assure you Everywhere and Nowhere is a part of Mr. Ben's repetoire and I would not be surprised the Tossed out Deck is as well!
Penn and Teller seem to have been given the go ahead with there stuff. I am sure you have seen the routine where they expose, ditching, palming, switching, misdirection, retrieve, etc.
Now I don't know about anyone here but I could easily do the TOD and conclude with deck switch for an ordinary deck that is prompty given away or if I had a camera and screen spreading them face up on a table.
Bob Parker

[MagicAL]

Ya,

you are all correct...EXPOSURE IS GREAT!

I want to get a lot of media exposure for myself so tomorrow I'll go out and watch a few magic shows in my area and then I'll expose them to corporate groups in the guise of showing them the brilliance of lateral thinking.

Thanks for all your encouragement!

[Richard Kaufman]

Here's what I'm thinking of doing in light of this thread: making use of your real name mandatory and eliminating pseudonyms for all members of the Genii Forum.

[Larry Horowitz]

Richard,
Great Idea! It's about time.

Larry Horowitz

[Michael Edwards]

Ditto.

Michael Edwards

[Steve V]

Magical seems to think David Ben put together his presentation in order to expose magic...interesting angle. I thought he put in the exposure, which it was, in order to augment his presentation.
Steve V (the V is for Vaughn if anyone is wondering, though I doubt anyone is)

[David Alexander]

I am appreciative that there are several Forum members whove read and understood what Ive written.

What I am surprised at is the lack of understanding about magic secrets, although the amateurs pre-occupation with the mechanical/procedural secrets does tend to dominate the discussion. Truth be told, there are a few real secrets in magic and David Ben has exposed none of them.

There are some few mechanical/procedural secrets that remain little known and not available: effects that are closely held by one or a few people and not shared with others or published; difficult-to-find manuscripts like some the late Al Mann produced which were limited by price and knowledge of their existence truly arcane; a few acts where the details are held by the performer and their confidants: Marvyn Roy, the late Tony Marks (until the book detailing his act was published), Cardini, Frakson, and several others.

Magic has changed radically over the last two decades. When I was growing up in magic there were two types of magic shops in the country: those open to the general public and a few that were, more or less, for the trade. Joe Bergs was a trade shop because it was a dumpy little place on the second floor of a somewhat decrepit building. By contrast, a couple of blocks away, on street level was Hollywood Magic, brightly lit, plenty of apparatus prominently displayed in its windows. The place was open and available to anyone who wanted to walk in. Everything was for sale to anyone who had the price.

Back then, Magic was special, the magic business were smaller since there were fewer amateurs to service, and mechanical secrets were more difficult to obtain because you had to make some effort: visit a shop or order via catalog. There were far fewer books and we did not have video tape or DVDs, or the flood of books and pamphlets that desktop publishing and laser printers has unleashed on the magic buying public. The Internet wasnt even a dream.

Magic was learned from a few sources: self-taught from books and pamphlets which took time and effort; learned from peers; and, if lucky, mentor instruction. There was a need to be well socialized and for the real inside stuff you had to know someone because a lot of it never appeared in books.

A number of authors wrote nonsense that didn't work in the real world, but they sold anyway.

The amount of material was limited because the market was small. Books, the principle source of instruction, were generally expensive. Greater Magic , $10 in 1938, equates to about $130 today (making Kaufmans reprint and expansion at $75 a real bargain). Loraynes Close-Up Card Magic at $10 in 1962 equates to a bit more than $60 today. A book might have a run of 500 and almost always less than 1,000 copies. Often, it took years to sell out an edition. Genii , the major magazine, never topped 10,000 in circulation even with Magic Castle association.

So the public (and amateur magic) was fed the fantasy that magic was done by secrets and that magicians guarded them jealously. In some cases it was true, but only because the dealers/manufacturers didn't have the information or the prop was too expensive to produce. The fantasy ignored the behavior of most dealers who happily supplied what they often claimed were the same effects the amateurs saw the professionals perform.

The point of all this background is that at one point the mechanical/procedural secrets of magic took time and effort, and often money, to obtain. They had to be sought out. The information, for the most part, wasnt secret, just hard, sometimes really difficult, to obtain.

Not so today. Thanks to computers and the digital revolution we are awash in secrets available via DVD, video tape, books and pamphlets, the distribution of this material made ubiquitous by the Internet, that marvelous electronic cesspool into which all things eventually fall.

Research into specific topics has been made even simpler because several well-known magicians have made encyclopedic compilations on several subjects (relentlessly culling material from others), eliminating the need for the student to search out the material himself. The dealers are happy to sell it all to you if you have sufficient coin and there are lots more dealers today than two decades ago.

We also see a phenomena previously unseen: discounted magic. The only "discounted" magic you could get a couple of decades ago was stuff that was used. Now, eBay and the Internet offer all sorts of things that are discounted in their original prices.

Thanks to scanners, cheap DVD replication, and inexpensive printing, nearly everything that ever was in print is again available. A full run of The Sphinx in its original form would set you back $4,000 or so, if you could find someone willing to sell as full runs were rare. Now, a digital copy will run about 10% of that. More and more we see that which was arcane and difficult to obtain is now readily at hand. The arcane and occult have become commonplace.

While Im a bit sad about the proliferation of mechanical/procedural secrets, it is the reality of our time. Secrets simply arent as secret as they used to be or as the fantasy would have you believe.

Google Tossed Out Deck and youll have over 400 hits. I imagine that somewhere in all that some clown explains how the trick is done, but you dont need to sift through all that or even know the name of the trick. A call to a dealer and a description of the trick will result in acquisition in a matter of moments for less than $20. The dealer will not ask for credentials or make a check to determine if you are a magician. Why would he? His business is to sell magic.

Check eBay under magic and tricks (not the only headings for magic) and theres normally over 2,000 items up and available for purchase under that heading including a number of things that used to be very secret. Google online magic shop and youll have 18,000 hits. Many are repeat listings, but you get the idea.

One of the posters here becomes positively apoplectic when anything about cold reading is exposed, yet when that subject is Googled over 40,000 hits pop up. So the idea that the principles of cold reading are secret is nonsense. Theyre available for free for anyone with smidgen of curiosity and an Internet connection. Specific details and performance techniques may remain difficult to obtain, but theyre hardly secret as the works of Herb Dewey, Ian Rowland, and, yes, Ford Kross, regularly show up on eBay, for sale to the highest bidder.

The result of the digitization of Magic is that there are few mechanical/procedural secrets, just information that has decreasing levels of difficulty to obtain, most of it rather easy to find.

Unlike the writer that Bob Baker described, we are fortunate in that most people are too lazy or disinterested to bother to go to any effort to learn how a trick is done. Few will go to the trouble and expense to satisfy their curiosity to discover our secrets and fortunately for us, most dont want to know and when "exposed" nearly everyone will forget quickly.

David Ben has not exposed the real secrets of magic because they cant be exposed. They are not of sleight of hand or trick decks or mechanical boxes. They are of the mind. As Ive said, a competent professional could follow Bens presentation and do the Cassandra Deck or a dozen other card tricks and still fool (and entertain) the audience.

I'm not losing any sleep over David Ben's behavior.

[Michael Kamen]

We need to remember that the audience was neither there to see a magic show, nor a magic lecture.

. . .One thing occurs to me though. The performance of the trick itself gets rather lukewarm reaction. And it is an easy audience. Yet the exposure goes over rather better. It tempts me to say that David should work on his performance skills since he seems to have thoroughly mastered his exposure ones. . .

As business people attending to improve their business skills, their reaction to a magic trick was bound to be muted. Their reaction to the methodological discussion was equally bound to be more exuberant since that is where the content of interest was for them.

[Steve Hook]

David:

"I am appreciative that there are several Forum members whove read and understood what Ive written."

Nice debate technique, but the fact is that:

1) you're still merely making an excuse for David Ben's exposing magic techniques to a layman audience who did not apparently go to the Internet or a magic store looking for same (and thank you, Michael, for verifying this in your latest post)

2) debate technique or not, you haven't swayed anyone on the other side to your point of view.

More of your technique has been to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is merely uneducated about what a magic secret is in this modern world of the Internet. Since your opponents are uneducated, while you are enlightened, then their opinion is wrong.

The stalemate remains.

Those who think exposing magic secrets to laymen is wrong still think so and aren't willing to make excuses for 1) who the exposer is, 2) how long they've been in magic, 3) how old they are, 4) who their audience is, 4) whether they make a living performing magic or not, 5) whether magic is a "profession" or not, 6) how many people will see the show, 7) how long a memory the audience has, 8) what the newly-remodeled definition of a trick might be, or 9) what the overall, self-servingly-defined "inconsequential" effect of the exposure might be.

That side continues to feel that exposure is wrong and it's fair to say that they are as close-minded and unwilling to change that opinion as the pro-exposure or "exposure doesn't really harm anyone" side, the side you are on.

I've gone back and re-read at least some of your long posts and in my opinion you are simply making excuses for what David Ben is doing. I assume your excuses would apply to anyone else who does this, as well.

So excuse away. I'm not swayed by your arguments, nor you by mine, so the impasse remains.

If anyone out there is still even clicking on this topic, and you don't have an opinion on this, I'll just make an appeal from this side of the fence for magicians to not give away secrets to laymen.

You will have found the reverse, passionately explained opinion from a number of other writers here.

Choose as best you can and in any event have a happy 2005!

Steve H

[Michael Kamen]

Originally posted by Steve Hook:
. . .Those who think exposing magic secrets to laymen is wrong still think so . . .[/QB]

Uh, that would be everyone. The only thing you are still missing Steve is it may be:
a) positive, good exposure
b) benign, harmless exposure, or
c) negative, harful exposure.

As an exercise, try to find an example of each.

[Steve Hook]

Originally posted by Michael Kamen:


As an exercise, try to find an example of each.

Michael:

Arrogance does not become you.

Actually, I spent the day surfing and feel that I've had enough exercise.

Please, just go have a nice day and a great year. You must have missed the part about "we are at an impasse". You've stated your opinion and I've stated mine. Isn't that enough???

[Bill Palmer]

I'm not going to wade into this discussion on the level of whether David Ben is a scoundrel or a hero. My opinion on this really doesn't matter much, but I would like to address the use of the term "profession."

Some "professions" such as doctor, lawyer, engineer, architect and teacher (to a certain degree), require some kind of examination and certification by a governmental entity. The reasons behind this are actually fairly obvious. These are the professions that have life and death implications. I qualify the term "teacher," because college instructors require no certification for the most part. Nor do private teachers and/or tutors.

However, there are other groups that do use the term "professional," and have done so without criticism for decades. One example is "Professional Musician." For many years, I was a member of the "Houston Professional Musician's Union, American Federation of Musicians Local #65." This required no examination whatsoever. It required that you pay a certain amount of dues and refrain from playing with non-union performers. Many of the trade unions carry the term "professional" in this way. It establishes their validity. And it gives them bargaining power. None of the current magic societies has this kind of status.

The closest thing I can see to it is the Magic Circle of London, which does have graduated degrees of membership. But even then, according to one of my friends in London, sometimes a fellow gets his MIMC because his wife makes an excellent cucumber salad for the at homes.

BTW, what I got in return for paying my dues with Local #65 was a cheap burial policy and the right to play pool on the worst table in town, free of charge.

[Ross Johnson]

People who knowingly expose magical techniques during their public presentations may be entertaining, funny, glib, intelligent, even well paid. They are not however, MAGICIANS. It is all very simple; a true Magician keeps the secret.

[Michael Edwards]

Given the fervor of this discussion, I thought it might be of some interest to poll Forum participants on the underlying question. That poll can be found as a separate thread in this area.

[Guest]

It is unethical to expose anything that you don't own. You wish to exposue your own effect that you developed and are certain no one else has claim to - well then it is your business, and whether the rest in the community like it or not, have little to say but to protest.

But to expose someone else's work, or to search through public domain items to expose is just plain wrong - and just plain exposure whatever the context.

When those that expose to corporate executives or television expose their own material that will be a heyday - but in the meantime the unethical magi takes others material and reveals it. The fact that Mr. Ben got a better response to the exposure than to the performance of the effect must say something about him as a performer.

I have been involved in the corporate arena for 30 years - the 'secret' arena for 40. I have never felt the need to expose an effect to clarify a point to executives, associates or employees. It simply is not necessary.

To take someone else's work and do that is tantamount to theft. Appalling that anyone would support theft of material.

[Guest]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
I am appreciative that there are several Forum members whove read and understood what Ive written.

What I am surprised at is the lack of understanding about magic secrets, although the amateurs pre-occupation with the mechanical/procedural secrets does tend to dominate the discussion. Truth be told, there are a few real secrets in magic and David Ben has exposed none of them.

(snipped)

David Ben has not exposed the real secrets of magic because they cant be exposed. They are not of sleight of hand or trick decks or mechanical boxes. They are of the mind. As Ive said, a competent professional could follow Bens presentation and do the Cassandra Deck or a dozen other card tricks and still fool (and entertain) the audience.

I'm not losing any sleep over David Ben's behavior.

I find this equally shocking - he didn't expose my genre so it's okay. Whichever genre - manipulations, mechanical boxes, 'the mind' black art, principles, methods, procedures, rules --- none are okayu to expose.

I don't think it is okay to pagerize the 'bill of rights' or george wahsington or lincoln's comments - and if I can't claim those as my own how can I in good conscioence claim any of the magical arts to be mine to expose, mistreat or misrepresent. I can not. The rules that existed before I got into it, the principles, the methods, forged by magis before us with the understanding that thier works be kept private - how can we betray them? How can we betray or community by disregarding the works of others prior to aour arrival on the scene. I find it the height of egotistical - self aggrandizement to take anyones works and make them subject in any way they were not intended. To expose is to steal.

Any genre exposed is an act of theft.

[David Alexander]

Like a few others, Steve Hook decides that he will explain what I have written, characterizing my words, spinning them to his own end to facilitate his own position.

I thought myself quite clear, but for Steve, Ill repeat: I was pleased that several Forum members read and understood what Id written. They didnt take me out of context or re-write and explain what I had said. They read what I wrote and understood it. I appreciate it and that was all.

But there are people like you, Steve, who, without knowing anything about me, decide to provide my reasoning and to explain my motivations for writing what I did and how I did it. Ya gotta a lotta balls, Steve.

I suggest you contact The Amazing Randi as he has a $1 million for people like you who claim to read minds and hearts at a distance. Hes waiting for your call to demonstrate the skill you claim here. No...wait a minute...you show no skill at all because you are WRONG! What I wrote was not a debating technique. It was just a statement of fact and my appreciation for being understood. What you supplied was a nonsensical spin to further your agenda.

I am not excusing what David Ben did, regardless of how you wish to characterize it. I have repeatedly stated that, in the greater scheme of things, what Ben did is inconsequential, which not, as you might imagine, implys or suggests that I am providing him an excuse for what he did. Apparently, if I dont want his head on a pike, Im not on the side of the pure and just, like you think you are.

I understand why he did what he did the context of his presentation and disagree with how he did it. As Ive said before, which you either skipped over or decided wasnt important for your retort, that Ben could have been cleverer in writing his presentation, much like you being more thorough in reading and taking the time to understand what I had written.

You end with a sleazy technique in characterizing my position as pro exposure, which it isnt.

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.

[Steve Hook]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
Like a few others, Steve Hook decides that he will explain what I have written...
I thought myself quite clear, but for Steve, Ill repeat

David:

Please don't bother. No one has misunderstood your words or spun your opinion.

You keep saying the same thing over and over, then you keep backpedaling and denying and attacking.

Your posts are easily the most condescending and arrogant ever posted at the Forum.

Go ahead and say whatever you want, whatever satisfies your inner child, whatever makes you feel safe and secure, and whatever flies in the face of both realities (the real one AND the one you keep reconstructing to make yourself look good to....yourself!)

Nothing I can add could further elucidate the position I and others have taken against exposure of magic secrets.

You have left the issue behind and now are trying for a pissing match. How appropriate! Enjoy yourself......alone.

It's football time. While I'm watching the game, why not write your final attack. You can have the last word! You win! Yippee :sleep:

I'm against exposure and you, despite your word-wrangling protestations, are for allowing it. Shoot, I missed the kickoff.....now's the perfect time for your aberrant and egotistical attack on me. Go for it!

You are a most interesting person. If you're ever going to be in Florida, please let me know. I'd love to meet up with you.

Till then, I remain

Yours truly,

Steve H