What have P&T exposed for educational purposes that they didn't invent specifically for the sole reason of exposing (ie TrapDoor and The Trick Truck thing)?Originally posted by Brian Marks:
I am a big P & T fan. They expose some stuff for educastional purposes
It is so easy to resolve this one.Originally posted by Craig Mitchell:
Its exposure - plain and simple.
The question remains whether its justifiable ?
And that's where the argument will always lie and I doubt will ever be resolved ...
They expose. Thats it, their exposure. What they expose is irrelevant. If people complaining about David Ben are so outraged, than why not more about P & T who expose every night?Originally posted by mrgoat:
What have P&T exposed for educational purposes that they didn't invent specifically for the sole reason of exposing (ie TrapDoor and The Trick Truck thing)? [/b]Originally posted by Brian Marks:
[b] I am a big P & T fan. They expose some stuff for educastional purposes
Both magic clubs and magic shops require a layman to show at least minimal interest in the craft (i.e., to make the effort to seek it out and then pay for the right to learn the secrets).Adding to the weight of the secrecy-at-all-cost mythos for many neophytes like Tom G., we have two entities: (1) magic clubs, and (2) magic dealers, both of whom seem to have "special interest" in perpetuating the mythos.
That's my two cents worth. What are your thoughts? [/QB]
Many magic writers that I read in my youth emphasized the importance of secrecy and imparted that concept in me through their books. For example, Jean Hugard, the respected magician and author of such classic works as "Royal Road to Card Magic" and "Expert Card Technique," wrote about the traditional stance that magic societies (circa 1944) took concerning exposure:Originally posted by David Alexander:
Sorry to disappoint, but knowing magic history as I do, there never was an "ethical standard" about exposure in the "good old days" that is "rapidly diminishing" today. People exposed back then....people expose today, only today, there's more communication available to the individual such as the Internet. Other than that, little has changed.
I watched the performance David Ben includes on his own website and witnessed him revealing the workings of David Hoy's Tossed Out Deck, a staple routine in many working performers' repertoires. It was not his routine to expose, and IMO the resultant exposure was unwarranted and inexcusable for a professional of his caliber.Originally posted by David Alexander:
Sorry, putting Ben's behavior in context of magic history, I can't get worked up what he did. As I said, it's inconsequential. [/qb]
The public-to-be-entertained does not benefit from those masses of hobbiests, nor from the proliferation of tricks to satisfy that market.Both magic clubs and magic shops require a layman to show at least minimal interest in the craft (i.e., to make the effort to seek it out and then pay for the right to learn the secrets).
A well-known mid-West dealer was trying to sell a thumb tip to an inexperienced amateur. The amateur, on seeing the tip (painted metal in those days) scoffed at anyone ever being fooled by the device.Originally posted by Jmirage:
To this day... I'm upset over Muhammed Ali's constant exposure of the thumb tip! I still use mines, but I know a lot of magicians that are afraid to make a scarf vanish for fear of some adult yelling out.... "Hey, he has a fake finger!"
I guess it's safe to say that we magicians our own worst enemy! Maybe it's the many illusions that we are surrounded by that makes us contradict ourselves.
"There is no REPEAT PERFORMANCE VALUE behind exposed tricks." - j.Mirage [/QB]
Not that I agree with Tom G., but Im not sure that he/she is trashing David Ben. Criticizing, yes; trashing, Im not so sure. Ive read Lisa Cousins posts many times and they are thoughtful. But I have to disagree with the notion that a newbie is not entitled to an opinion. This is a forum and the expression of opinions is what GF is for. As to revealing his/her identity, Tom G. seems open enough, and his/her e-mail address is not hidden. Further, I do not agree with the idea that a valuable contributor to magic (which is, I believe, Cousins opinion of David Ben) should not be subject to honest, albeit candid, criticism. If Tom G. never posts again, that is his/her prerogative.One of my Genii Forum pet peeves is people who register and then make their first post to trash somebody. It's even more offensive when the person does not reveal his own identity, and infinitely more so when the target is somebody who has raised the magical bar for so many of us.
I predict that Tom G. will post to this thread only, and never become a vital and interesting contributor to this on-line community. I also predict that David Ben will continue to sustain his very high level of magic and encourage the rest of us to do the same.
I've never killed another person. I think people shouldn't kill other people.Originally posted by Robert Allen:
I just don't get it. As children we learn basic rules. Things like "thou shalt not kill".
Which is it? Do we have to follow the rule to the letter, or just until the person you're considering showing it to has demonstrated that they have put in a bit of effort to earn the knowledge?Is it REALLY that freaking hard to follow such a basic rule, to the letter, at least until the person you're considering showing it to has demonstrated that they have put in a bit of effort to earn the knowledge?
Numerous people join numerous websites under false or cryptic names. While I don't prefer to do so myself, I don't see why it's considered unethical.Originally posted by Nick Sacco:
By the way, Tom G, I noticed that you joined this website under this false name on December 29th. Interesting how you find it easy to smear someone while remaining incognito...and, at the same time, talk about ehtics. Strange set of principles that you share with us.
IMO, writing and publishing a general magic book for the lay public or even magic community could hardly be considered exposure. However, when a magician purposefully reveals to lay audiences the concepts and working of a gimmick or ploy used by other working performers -- especially when that concept is not an original idea of the magician -- that is what I would call exposure.Originally posted by Nick Sacco:
[QB] Like it or not, exposure is a part of this artform, unless we all leaned from a secretive master without venturing into a library to read a book on magic by, oh let's say, Blackstone, Scarne, Bruce Elliot to name a few.
No doubt, poor performers do hurt magic and there are lots of bad performers. However, I would guess that most of them probably don't intentionally mean to demean the craft or expose through their wretched performances.Originally posted by Nick Sacco:
For the record, my belief is what hurts magic the most is not exposure but the poor performer and there are too many of them to count. David Ben is a consumate performer and gives back much more to the art then most.