Magic in BoingBoing

[Brad Henderson]

people do not get intetested in magic by being shown the secret to a trick. People get interested in magic by experiencing magic. Learning the secrets, if anything, pushes people away from magic. If you want to grow the number of magicians (again, a choice we can reasonable question) showing them HOW is likely not the best introduction. HOW is always disappointing.

[Richard Kaufman]

That's why magic shops sell you the trick first, before revealing the secret. Imagine the amount of buyer's remorse over the years!

[Brad Henderson]

so - why then would we expect articles and sites that teach tricks to lead to people maintaining an interest in magic?

[Richard Kaufman]

Because not all methods disappoint. That's the way magic dealers think.

[Gordon Meyer]

I think it's fair to describe those who stick with magic after they are exposed to it as being 'called to it'. No need to get all religious about it. But I feel like that obscured my point. Call it what you want (pun intended), I feel no obligation to encourage others to learn magic. So saying that BoingBoing is doing a good thing by showing people how to learn to do magic just genuinely puzzles me. We're not missionaries, after all. (Uh-oh, another religiously loaded reference! I better duck.)

[Brad Henderson]

compare the fantasy of that which people think learning magic is to the reality to which they are being exposed - it is ALWAYS a let down.

[P.T.Widdle]

saying that BoingBoing is doing a good thing by showing people how to learn to do magic just genuinely puzzles me. We're not missionaries, after all.

What makes the Boing Boing audience any less deserving of being turned on to magic than say, The Masters of Illusion's TV audience, or any other place you might deem to be the proper place to discover magic? Who says the next Dai Vernon isn't a BoingBoing reader?

BoingBoing is presenting several ways for people to get turned on to magic; sometimes they're just showing a simple pocket trick and providing the link to where you can buy it. Sometimes it's through history (magic posters article). In the case of the Dancing Cane, the hook is for Maker projects people. I can see someone making the cane, playing around with it in a mirror, maybe showing it to a couple of people, and then maybe that leads to them trying to make something more complex, like a Square Circle, or even something of their own invention. Perhaps that person just makes it for their child, who knows.

Again, the website is not USA Today, but it's also not some obscure blog. It's a nice cultural fit for presenting magic to people with the sensibilities who might want to give it a try. I think BoingBoing is a refreshing change of both location and presentation for getting turned on to magic, in addition to the traditional options (I'm not completely sure what those are are anyway).

[Brad Henderson]

the issue isn't venue. the issue is, does exposing the secrets of magic to people indiscriminately make people more interested in magic, and if so in what way? and then, do we need more people interested in that way?

[P.T.Widdle]

If you look at their magic posts, I wouldn't call it indiscriminate exposure, but I know that is a disputed point here.

Who says the best and most authentic way to turn someone on to magic is for them to see magic performed, preferably live? And then what? Do we expect that person to then seek out a magic book at a library? Go on YouTube? Find a magic mentor a magic shop? What path is the sanctioned way to learning magic?

And what about the person who builds that Dancing Cane, and then goes on to become a magic inventor? Are they any less of a magician than a kid who sees a live magic show first?

[Bill Mullins]

If you look at their magic posts, I wouldn't call it indiscriminate exposure, but I know that is a disputed point here.

But the ones that do expose, do so indiscriminately.

And what about the person who builds that Dancing Cane, and then goes on to become a magic inventor? Are they any less of a magician than a kid who sees a live magic show first?

That's 1/10th of 1 percent of the people who read the post, and no one here is worrying about those few. It's the vast majority of the readers, who now know more about invisible thread and magic wax than they did, and who have just been told that magic is not a performing art but a gimmmick that anyone can build and then do. Which isn't true.

[Richard Kaufman]

I think it bears repeating that anyone who sees the trick performed knows that there is a thread connecting the cane to the performer. So what exactly are they exposing? Something that is already known by almost any sentient human. Therefore they are exposing nothing.

[performer]

I figured out the secret to the Dancing Cane even before I took up magic! I have always thought the secret was terribly obvious. Interestingly enough an entrepreneur (I think from New Zealand or some such foreign place) adapted into a pitch toy product, even had the nerve to patent it, and sold it in department stores all over the world and made a fortune. The thread was thick nylon and there was no attempt to hide it as it was not sold as a trick but a toy.

It was a quick fad of about a year or two and then faded away making the guy very rich indeed.

[Brad Henderson]

so when the tens of thousands of people who have seen the cane performed over the years by ray anderson at eathers follies gasp when he lets go of the cane or ask each other how it's done at intermission - are you saying those people are in on it????

[Tom Moore]

Classic magician's logic there Brad, you loose 10 points.

Just because magicians do something to provoke a reaction and the audience then reacts doesn't mean that the audience is reacting to what the magician thinks they are re-acting to. Audiences gasp and are amazed by jugglers, i'd suggest that 99% of the audience reaction to a dancing cane is related to the "juggling" skill it displays rather than any mystery or wonder about how precisely it's held up.

[Richard Kaufman]

Brad, of course the audience gasps at the instant the magician lets go of the cane! That's a meaningless statement in this case because the trick doesn't end there--its just beginning. Then ten seconds later they think, oh, he's holding it by a thread.

[Brad Henderson]

the gasp is the first moment. I'm talking about the conversations during the intermission. People talk about the cane. They ask ''how did he do that?'. I have heard that said at EVERY performance I have seen at esthers and I have been there many many many times. Now, admittedly, Ray has one very interesting moment in tne routine that I've never seen anyone do and that might help, but I doubt it. I think one of the big issues is that people would rather keep the experience of the magic than know the secret. that of course is not true all the time, but if we give our audiences experiences more valuable to them than what knowing the secret would be, it is my experience that many will even fight to prevent someone from diluting that treasured experience

In principle, I agree with the idea that the cane should be painfully obvious to real people, but at the venue and with this magician the lay people discuss the trick and 'I don't know how he did it' is the common refrain - even more so I will add when I hear them talking about other tricks!!!!

[Brad Henderson]

all of the above, of course, is irrelevant to the question as to whether exposure ends up encouraging people to become magicians (assuming that is even a good thing) or positively inpacts the art in any other meaningful way

[P.T.Widdle]

all of the above, of course, is irrelevant to the question as to whether exposure ends up encouraging people to become magicians (assuming that is even a good thing) or positively impacts the art in any other meaningful way

That's too simplified. All the BoingBoing magic posts must be viewed as an ongoing collective. The site has a well-defined and consistent audience - an audience that has an interest in magic. So the dancing cane post does not exist in a vacuum. There are posts about magic history, up and coming magicians (Moritz Mueller), tricks to buy, etc.) All this among other posts that BoingBoing readers have come to expect and enjoy. Given that context, yes, I imagine some people might be encouraged to take up magic in one form or another.

Including a how-to-make video for an old-timer like Dancing Cane is just part of the overall magic experience provided on the site. This particular magic post shows people that you can sometimes make your own magic tricks. Cool!

It's a matter of seeing the forest for the trees.

[Brad Henderson]

so what we have is:

this post appeals to old timers who already know the trick. this post appeals to people who know how the trick works already because it's obvious. this post appeals to people who want to make a magic trick that everyone already knows or is obvious to anyone who sees it.

Yeah - sounds like an amazing recruitment strategy all around.

So - DO we want more people attempting to do magic? Is that something that's good for the art?

And if not, do posts that create the feeling of 'oh, so that's all it is' the best way to convince people that magic is an art worthy of respect?

We don't keep secrets to protect ourselves, after all, we keep them to protect our audiences.

[Jonathan Townsend]

so what we have is:

... secrets to protect ... our ...

market/dealers.

buy product

[P.T.Widdle]

You forgot, "this post appeals to Maker projects-type people." Maybe a dad who wants to do it as a project with his son? Do you want to condescend to them as well as being not worthy enough to learn magic?

What makes BoingBoing's readers not worthy of being turned on to magic? And why does it have to be a certain way? Please tell me what the ideal way is.

Is it:

1. See a live magic show
2. Get magic set for birthday
3. Go find magic book in library
4. Buy magic from magic shop
5. (optional) Subscribe to Genii

I think BoingBoing's readers lie well within the sensibilities of people who enjoy and respect magic, and might like taking up magic as a hobby (or more).

And I don't believe the Dancing Cane post conveys "oh, that's all there is." On the contrary, I think it shows people the cleverness of what a simple method can accomplish, and it does it not just as a tip in method, but as a home maker project. That's nothing disrespectful to the art (especially in context with all the other magic posts).

[Brad Henderson]

again - I ask - do we really want or need more people interested in performing magic and if so is showing them how to do a trick the way to go about it?

it's not about deigning.

it's not about worthiness.

it's about really knowing what you want (more people in magic) and realizing this may not be an intelligent way to go about it.

Did more people become interested in performing magic after watching the masked magician or David Blaine?

did the teach a trick segment in wgw ever Inspire someone to learn magic, or was it the performances which did that?

[Richard Kaufman]

YES, we really need more people interested in magic.

[Bill Mullins]

It depends on what you get out of magic, and whether more people in magic give you more (or better) of that.

I enjoy researching magic history. More people involved in magic doesn't really add to that.

I have friends that I've made from my magic interests. So, to the extent it is a social activity, I want at least a few people involved. But some big magic recruitment drive doesn't really add to that.

If I were a magic manufacturer, or publisher, or dealer, or lecturer (anyone selling magic products to magicians), then yes I'd want more people involved.

If I was a working pro, then more people in magic might represent competition. Or they might generate interest which makes for more and bigger audiences.

But I agree with Brad -- asking if "we need more people in magic" is worth asking. If the answer is yes, then exploring how to get them is the next step.

As far as Boingboing goes, it may draw a few people in. But it exposes to many more. I wonder if Jim Steinmeyer is happy they revealed the nine-card problem?

[Richard Kaufman]

Did Boing Boing mention that Jim created the nine-card problem when they explained it?

[P.T.Widdle]

"It boggles my mind that Mr. Steinmeyer could invent such a trick!"
http://boingboing.net/2013/01/21/foolpr ... -kids.html

I ask once again, please enlighten me as to the accepted/preferred path to be turned on to magic.
Because reading BoingBoing long enough, and seeing their varied, respectful and interesting posts about magic doesn't seem to be such a bad way to me.

"Here's a great self-working card trick to teach your kids. If they are old enough to spell, they will love performing it for their friends." What on earth is the matter with that?

Brad, please drop the Masked Magician comparison to what BoingBoing has been doing. It's ridiculous.

[Jonathan Townsend]

"Here's a great self-working card trick to teach your kids. If they are old enough to spell, they will love performing it for their friends." What on earth is the matter with that?... It's ridiculous.

That text slips from doing tricks to teaching kids and then to the perspective of kids performing tricks... Also an awkward application of "contagion".

Pick what side of proscenium arch you will... and enjoy what you do ...whether it's making magic for others, getting the backstage mechanics working or enjoying the gift of magic as presented.

perspective slipping is ... good for riddles and ad copy. can you guess what you've been sold?

[performer]

I would prefer less people to be interested in magic. Far less. The whole art has been trivialised beyond measure by all this easy access to information and I do not approve. There are enough awful "magicians" as it is without breeding any more.

I never minded televison exposure such as the Masked Magician as by the time a few days had passed the exposure has faded from mind and the secret was forgotten. I believe internet exposure has far more permanency in the mind.

Mind you having said that I do remember an occasion when the Masked Magician spoiled the David Ben Conjurer show for at least one person some years ago. I was picking up some printing from my printer who informed me that she had seen the Conjurer show the night before with her family. Naturally, I asked how much she had enjoyed it and she told me it had been spoiled for her because the Masked Magician had been on TV the night before and exposed one of the tricks in David's show. It was just bad luck that the TV show was on the night before. I think if she had gone to David's showa a week later the memory of the secret would have faded from mind.

I was never an anti magic exposure fanatic. I am afraid I have changed my tune to a degree with all this awful internet access to information.

Magic is supposed to be a secret art. Our secrets should not be bandied about like trading cards. I would far prefer less magicians. Far, far less.

[P.T.Widdle]

Jonathan, I think I might know what you're taking about this time, but please do not cut and paste my quotes out of context that way. "It's ridiculous" was referring to the masked magician comparison, nothing to do with the description of the trick.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Jonathan, I think I might know what you're taking about this time, but please do not cut and paste my quotes out of context that way. "It's ridiculous" was referring to the masked magician comparison, nothing to do with the description of the trick.

No personal insult intended. I'm Sorry.
I was presuming the reader would detect the "..." edit to see my editorial commentary. A different presupposition than the one in the post but same problem. Not so much better than imagining students and then imagining how it would go if they did as taught. My bad.

I believe it's more sensible to publicly comment about tricks, show tricks and invite others to consider buying tricks without discussing method.

[P.T.Widdle]

I believe it's more sensible to publicly comment about tricks, show tricks and invite others to consider buying tricks without discussing method.

So I guess you're not a fan of Penn & Teller's Cups and Balls, or Teller's Floating Ball.


PS - Okay RK or DS. Kid gloves with performer. I get it.

[performer]

You don't need kid gloves with me. I am perfectly capable of reprimanding the unworthy in the way they deserve. However, age has caught up with me and I am too tired to do it any more. Consider yourself fortunate.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I believe it's more sensible to publicly comment about tricks, show tricks and invite others to consider buying tricks without discussing method.

So I guess you're not a fan of Penn & Teller's Cups and Balls, or Teller's Floating Ball.

[...]

They present those items in a different frame than most others have or would likely attempt. And it's not as if they are out to show/tell or teach.

Long ago when P&T were in NYC performing across Broadway from Tannen's the reports about the routine were alarming. Then after watching the routine and watching audiences watching that routine it became obvious that the information does not stick, that the misdirection of two people working in concert with talking/juggling is effective. You can hear Penn say what's happening but not notice Teller doing the sleights because your attention goes back to Penn. Watch that ball move away from Teller then up and into juggling action. And he's talking. IMHO that routine does not put the Vernon routine at risk. And last I heard they are not selling their routine.

Teller's floating ball... saw it on TV - looks amazing. The animation works. The mechanics does not appear evident or even obvious in context. Whether or not Penn really cuts a thread at the end ??? it looks fine. Being told it's a thread is not the same as watching the routine when done using rope instead of IT.

[Brad Henderson]

you and others claim that people knowing How magic tricks works leads to them developing an interest in performing magic. IF that were true, then we would have expected large numbers of people to start learning magic following being shown how it is done - which was the masked magician's premise.

did that happen? I don't recall tnat happening. I do recall a large number of people starting to buy/perform magic after David Blaine's show, and that did NOTE explain how tricks were done.

You're a randi-phile, you know it's important to back up your claims. Show me that this belief you have is true.

[P.T.Widdle]

performer, on this forum it seems you have a guardian to filter shots taken at you, whether you like it or not. The shot I took was really so small, and I think you probably would have laughed, but alas, it never landed.

Brad, you can't seem to shake the idea of the masked magician being the symbol for any sort of exposure, no matter the form or the context. I never condoned the masked magician. Do you really believe what he did is the same as the Dancing Cane post? Are you that inflexible in your belief that exposure (shudder!) can lead to no good, no matter the form or context?

I like the formula BoingBoing has employed so far - a little bit of everything (posts about cool little pocket tricks, videos of magic being performed, magic books, magic history, and yes, a few well-chosen tricks explained for the novice to try or make).

Oh, and also spotlighting interesting commentary, like this just posted:

http://boingboing.net/2015/08/17/what-m ... sts-a.html

"On this episode of the You Are Not So Smart Podcast, we discuss the folk practitioners of cognitive science with magician and scam expert Brian Brushwood. In the conversation, we explore a wide-range of ideas from how card tricks can be a gateway to better critical thinking to why most psychics end up tricking themselves into believing in their own bullsh*t. We also discuss why people fall for scams of all sizes, how to avoid them, and why most magicians can spot a fraudster a mile away." (my emphasis)

[performer]

Brushwood is talking twaddle. Magicians are the EASIEST ones to scam! They CANNOT spot a con artist a mile away! They are innocent souls and easily duped. In fact more easily duped than normal people. I have seen them taken in by 3 card monte workers, no doubt because of their ego thinking they know what is going on. I know one innocent chap who was taken in by the Run Out in London. Of course the innocent souls here do not even know what the "Run Out" is which proves my assertion that magicians are very innocent in the ways of wickedness in the world.

The number of magicians who have been scammed by fly by night dealers like Snap Illusions and Hank Lee does not fill me with confidence that magicians "can spot a fraudster a mile away".

I well remember discussing this with Murray the Escapologist who once told me that "Randi is a big bluffer". Murray was a splendid scoundrel himself and I always appreciated him for it. He told me that magicians were very naive indeed in the ways of the world. I have found this to be very true indeed.

[Brad Henderson]

I've known Brushwood since he was 18.

He of course is entitled to his opinion. he, like you, believes that exposing how the invisible deck and other items to which he has no creative claim is 'good' for magic. He, like you, has no proof that it is. He, like you, is also a randi-Phile.

What's with you guys?

brian, like the masked magician, is using magic not to promote magic or critical thinking but hinself and his website.

Tell me, how is exposing while wearing a mask a bad context but exposing while behind a keyboard a good context? I agree that the contexts are different but you, my evidence free friend, have yet to define how they are different and prove how that difference makes one case lead to people getting interested in magic.

I mean, you clearly BELIEVE it does, just as all those psychic sitters believe their psychic is real - but you have not yet shown us any evidence beyond repeating your claim over and over.

If one of Geller's followers did that you would scoff.

[Jonathan Townsend]

@Brad - it would be simpler to address venal matters as less philosophical and more practical.

What benefits the community at large for today and in the next ten or so years? IMHO the tricksters who would amuse and the pranksters who would keep the shadows filled with mystery will be fine.

Asking "what is the good?" or "what is just?" ... would work better after introducing "theory of mind" - some possible "according to who" - to build up to what's in those two books.

Written in my cave,

JonA==An

[performer]

I find magic exposure in a book for beginners that can be found in a library or bookshop to be perfectly legitimate or to a degree even magic purchased in a magic shop. After all a bit of effort has been expended and money spent. Since the new magicians have to come from somewhere this is a good option as if they lose interest then the secrets will fade from their mind.

Selling svengali decks has often led to the customer taking up magic in a serious way too. Again money has been spent and the customer has to go to the effort of seeking out further knowledge.

I do not appreciate newspaper or television exposure since it is gratuitious exposure without any effort expended on the part of the person reading it. However, it probably doesn't do much harm since people will forget how it is all done anyway within a week.

For these reasons I have been fairly flexible in my attitude to exposure. But not with the internet. Here I have to draw the line. I don't even like the Dancing Cane but if it is really being exposed on this site (I haven't looked) I find this horrific. It really is a classic trick after all despite my lukewarm attitude to it. And many people have used it professionally and had success with it. I haven't read this thread properly but if it is true (maybe it isn't) that the invisible deck is being exposed on BoingBoing this is really sickening.

I haven't looked at the site properly so I don't know how horrified I am going to be. However, secrets bandied about on the internet for all to see is a very bad development which fills me with great queasiness. In the early part of this internet exposure I would take solace that laymen reading the internet would not know the name of the trick that they saw the magician do and would have trouble looking up the secret. That was until a layman who was so impressed with Paul Pacific performing Psychokinetic Touches looked it up on the internet by merely DESCRIBING what happened and of course the secret came up in all it's glory. The galling part was that this guy kept referring to the trick as Psychokinetic Touches.

The fact that he even knew the name of the trick was salt in the wound for me.

No. Internet exposure is VERY bad for magic. There will soon be no laymen left to entertain the way things are going. And I have always regarded magic performed for other magicians to be on a par with incest. And there seems to be rather a lot of people involved in this kind of incest and they even make a living from it. They are very bad magicians for the public but are considered heroes to other magicians for reasons which have always baffled me beyond measure.

[P.T.Widdle]

Brad, why is the onus on me to prove that a post on how to make a dancing cane (on a website with many other magic related posts) is gratuitous exposure and bad for magic? Why don't you prove to me that it is?

I've already explained the difference in contexts between what BoingBoing does and the masked magician. If you don't see a difference, that's your opinion.

Despite your hard-line stance, there is no rule saying that revealing a magic secret cannot be part of an overall experience of turning someone on to magic. Again I ask, what is the "right" way?