Cardtoon - magic exposure

[Joe Mckay]

I rediscovered Cardtoon recently when going over a bunch of old magic during the past few months.

It is one of those great tricks whose popularity blinded some of us (okay - maybe just me) to what an amazing concept it is. It is a remarkable piece of thinking and it's success as a marketed trick makes it hard to see it with a fresh pair of eyes.

Around the same time I rediscovered it - it was used on Britain's Got Talent here in the UK by a magician who I think went on to win the show.

The sad thing is the exposure of this trick on TV has now led to it being exposed in print in the newspapers. Such as here:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/21/we-now-know-how-magician-jamie-raven-did-his-awesome-britains-got-talent-card-trick-and-you-too-can-do-it-at-home-5160243/

A few years ago - I remember Michael Weber saying we had to get ready for a world where anybody could look up any trick in five seconds on their smartphone. As such - when performing magic - we have to add extra twists or think hard on how to throw off the spectator who will want to research the secret on the internet. It is sad for me to see this done with Cardtoon at the exact moment I fell in love with the trick again.

Andy had some thoughts on this topic recently on his blog:

http://www.thejerx.com/blog/2016/8/8/the-redacted

His advice for using the name of tricks already semi-public knowledge (like The Piano Trick) is one that really amused me. You show them a miracle and mention in passing the trick is called the Piano Trick. And when they go away and google it - they find hundreds of links teaching them a self-working card trick.

Anyway - I felt like posting on this topic since I am still a bit depressed that Cardtoon is almost becoming public knowledge. Who knows what smartphones will be like 10 years from now? It is quite worrying for the future of magic. I think if you perform an obscure trick from a book or magazine - then the secret should be safe. But the sad thing with that is a lot of the best ideas in magic are (understandably) the ones that are special enough to get released as standalone products.

[Anthony Vinson]

I stopped using the names of tricks a couple years back. If someone asks, "what's that called?", I generally offer one of two responses depending on my mood. The first, if I am feeling generous, is to cite the creator of the effect - "That's a John Bannon effect from one of his earlier books. I can't recall which." Sometimes I get goofy and say it's "John Bannon's variation on a Marlo effect first suggested by Hofzinser." If they Google Bannon's name and are willing to waste their time wading through countless amateurish tutorials, oh well.

The second response, delivered in a lighthearted tone but with obvious sarcasm, is, "That's called the ninja trick, as in "ninja business." (Don't know if the poor puns plays well across the water, but you get the idea.)

Either way my intent is to bat away the inquiry by clearly indicating that it's not something I am willing to share. I adopted strategy this after one of my nephew's friends immediately whipped out his cellphone and asked "the question" after I'd performed a card trick for them.

I love Andy's idea from The Jerx! I may just try it out. Wouldn't it be cool if we had a handful of spoof sites like that to direct people to? After all, we are a bunch of devious bastards.

[erdnasephile]

I deplore pointless exposure (and certainly sympathize with the frustration); however, the exposure of Cardtoon didn't hurt Dan Harlan on "Fool Us"




The great thing is that Dan's performance encapsulates the very best way to deal with exposure: turn the audiences' knowledge against them and do better magic!

[Jonathan Townsend]

There is such a difference between the audience of novelty hungry magic fans and the general audience of folks who want to be entertained and like magic.

Look at the date on Dan's book and the year he first offered the trick...

Glad you also like Dan's trick. The flip book animation is a winner of an optical principle ... make your own version and surprise us all.

[performer]

I used to think that keeping the name of the trick secret would protect the magician from googlers. I was wrong. It did not dawn on me that they type the description of the effect into the search engine and up it comes. The theory that laymen won't go to the trouble of looking it up is wrong. They WILL look it up if you have impressed them. Most magicians are safe since they never impress anyone but alas the few good ones are indeed at risk.

[J-Mac]

Sad to say, but as soon as someone puts their magic knowledge on the market for sale, it is exposed for all time. And there is no way around that. Just perform your magic well and entertain the heck out of your audiences and that is about the best you can do. But you're not going to stop the exposure as long as the secrets are being sold.

Jim McGowan

[Chas Nigh]

I have never been asked by a lay audience the the name of any trick. Sounds a little stupid to me.

[brianarudolph]

There is no protection from any half-determined google search. As performer notes, all they have to do is to type in a description of the trick and they'l find it.

That said, there's also no reason we should make it even easier for these gaggles of googles by calling our effects by their names as they are known within the profession to our audiences in the lay public.

Maybe the magic fraternity needs to start publishing a glut of its own "exposure" videos all over the Internet ... For example, about halfway through the explanation of a card trick, talk about doing some knuckle-busting sleight from TEATCT. The sleight could even actually be real in TEATCT (if someone further googled it), but would be ineffectual/just plain useless at this point in practice. However, a little careful video editing could be made to make it seem like it worked. So even if the person thinks they've found out "how it's done" they're still left with the realization that they could never do it themselves - even though they had witnessed a bona fide magician do it (not the magician in the video but rather the magician who they saw perform it live somewhere.)

A big thing in education circles these days concerns the effect of the Internet on research, originality, creative thought and plagiarism. Emphasis is shift from "knowing something" to "knowing where/how to find the answer." This means that a new skill must be developed in today's students: the ability to distinguish credible from bad information. I say magicians can help with that - even if it's by giving them a lot more bad information to sift through. The causal googler will give up fairly quickly, especially given today's attention spans.

[I.M. Magician]

The thing is, years ago, there were enough magic shops around for anyone interested to walk into one and buy what they were interested in. Secrets were always readily available to anyone. The difference is that nowadays, they don't have to pay for the secrets by purchasing the tricks. Now they can go on the Internet and get it for free.

Does that ruin the art of magic? Yes and no. It won't diminish the interest people have in watching magic performed. The people who support the magic performances probably never look up the secrets on the Internet. They enjoy being fooled and don't want to ruin that I suppose.

Where it can be a problem is when a performance is disrupted by a heckler who yells out that they know how it's done. Of course, they may not know but yell out anyway for whatever reason.

[Joe Mckay]

All magicians were once laypeople.

Therefore there will always be a limit to how much a layperson enjoys magic. Since if they go crazy and become obsessed with magic (like we all once did) - they will stop being a layperson and become interested in learning how to become a magician.

As such - the reason most laypeople do not look up the secrets of magic is because they do not care enough to bother.

And the ones who do care enough - become magicians.

Sadly - the people who really enjoy magic the most get filtered out and become magicians. And those that remain are those laypeople with an indifference or at best - a mildly positive disposition towards magic.

Maybe this is why magic has never been taken seriously by the public? Since those who do take it seriously hop over the fence, and stop being laypeople and become magicians instead.

[erdnasephile]

Actually, it's probably easier than taking the time to do an Internet Search. The audience can simply use their ubiquitous smartphones to shoot video of a performance and pay it back in to glean secrets from the unwary.

However, that's really nothing new: poor magic has always been more educational than entertaining.

[performer]

Maybe this is why magic has never been taken seriously by the public? Since those who do take it seriously hop over the fence, and stop being laypeople and become magicians instead.

The reason that magic has never been taken seriously by the public is that most magicians are crap.
There. I figured it out for you. Wasn't hard was it?

[Frank Yuen]

There is such a difference between the audience of novelty hungry magic fans and the general audience of folks who want to be entertained and like magic.

Look at the date on Dan's book and the year he first offered the trick...

Glad you also like Dan's trick. The flip book animation is a winner of an optical principle ... make your own version and surprise us all.

Which book are you referring to? I'm only aware of a few lecture notes.

[Bill Duncan]

The reason that magic has never been taken seriously by the public is that most magicians are crap.
There. I figured it out for you. Wasn't hard was it?

I don't disagree with that, but I wonder why other performing arts are taken seriously? I mean, as we learned from Ted Sturgeon, ninety percent of everything is crap. Is it because of Maven's corollary to Sturgeon's Law?

[MagicbyAlfred]

Actually, I don't think most performing art forms, even outside of magic, are taken that seriously, except by the relatively small segment of the public that is passionate about the particular art form. Take opera, ballet, classical music and the theater, for example. While these performing art forms have been around since time immemorial, the overwhelming majority of people, particularly in the U.S., could care less about them. The same could be said about jazz and blues, even though they are truly indigenous American art forms, and notwithstanding the incredible virtuosity of the leading jazz artists.

[performer]

Alfred is correct in one sense. It is true that ballet, opera and other performing arts are enjoyed by a minority of the populace but at least they are RESPECTED! Magic does not have the same level of respect and yet it should since unlike the other activities mentioned most people love magic as kids. It is when they grow up the respect and love tends to wither and die. Harry Stanley once said to me, "magic is the lowest rung on the entertainment ladder". He also told me that at one time when Johnny Hart whom he managed wanted more money for something or other he told him, "Johnny, I don't make the rules. Magic doesn't get the same money as other types of acts" Something like that anyway.

The above is a generalisation of course and there are indeed exceptions. But it is the exceptions that make the rule in the first place.

Part of the problem is that magic is too easy to learn, at least in the beginning. It is a massive and very well organised hobby and not as secret as it used to be. And there is a trivialisation of the art. Orson Welles gave somewhat of a clue as to why magic is not as respected among the populace as it should be here:
http://www.wellesnet.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=308

But the main reason that magic is not respected is that most magicians are crap. I have never heard of a crap opera singer or a crap ballet dancer although I suppose they must exist. The difference is the amount of work involved. Someone that wants to be a passable magician can learn it in weeks. The other disciplines mentioned take years. The lesser talents disappear because of all the hard work and sacrifice involved. It is very tough. There are no short cuts. With magic this is not the case. There are too many short cuts and the road to incompetence is quite pleasant.

I am being deadly serious when I say that I don't think I have seen 50 good magicians in my entire life. Or even 100 adequate ones. I have seen hundreds and even thousands of crappy ones though. People wonder why I am so aggressive and sarcastic to magicians. THAT is why! I can't bear it when they think they are good and they aren't. I can't bear it when they praise people who are equally as incompetent as themselves. I can't bear it when I have to be the little boy who sees that the emperor has no clothes. I can't bear it when I see my beloved art degraded by incompetence and the salt rubbed in the wound when they walk around under the delusion that they are wonderful and their peers encourage them in this false belief.

People say they don't understand me. There is no mystery. The above is the reason I am the way I am. Nothing complex about it at all.

[erdnasephile]

The reason that magic has never been taken seriously by the public is that most magicians are crap.
There. I figured it out for you. Wasn't hard was it?

I don't disagree with that, but I wonder why other performing arts are taken seriously? I mean, as we learned from Ted Sturgeon, ninety percent of everything is crap. Is it because of Maven's corollary to Sturgeon's Law?

I believe it's because the general public sees many more singers, actors, and dancers than they do magicians. Therefore, they inherently know that there is a broad range of talent in the former.

OTOH, the average person may only see relatively few magicians live during their lifetimes. If those few contacts are poor, that may poison the well so to speak and color that person's perceptions of magic--especially if they are an abused spectator (or witness spectator abuse).

It's somewhat similar to what I encounter around here. I occasionally run into people who have little contact with those of my ethnicity. Therefore, to them, I represent my race and what "they" are like. That's why my grandfather always told me: "You represent more than just yourself."

[Anthony Vinson]

Illusionist Greg Frewin appeared on a recent episode of P&T's Fool Us. Upon learning that he had failed to fool the dynamic duo he asked a critically important question, "But did I entertain you?" Therein, I think, lies the crux of the problem: many hobbyists never achieve the insight that magic is about entertaining more than it is fooling. They labor away in isolation for hours (okay, sometimes they don't) to "perfect" a trick, while paying little to no attention to showmanship. Deliberate practice of moves and effects may result in flawless execution of the mechanics, but without equal attention to things like scripting, blocking, framing, rehearsal and more rehearsal, all you're left with is a puzzle, or a mystery at best.

I think that illustrates the major difference between a hobbyist and an amateur. We amateurs actually love our craft and have studied to gain the necessary skills and insight beyond the mere mechanics. We practice for hours to ensure that our execution is as flawless as possible before performing in front of a general audience; we polish and rehearse our lines; we anticipate and prepare for contingencies... In short, we care about the craft, the art, the culture of magic. Many hobbyists, on the other hand, concentrate on tricks - "Did I fool you?!" - never considering the more important, "Did I entertain you?" half of the equation.

Is there anything we can do to change the dynamic? Doubtful. It's human nature. People tend to think they are better at things than they actually are. This includes singing, acting, dancing... And magic. Those who wish to improve will improve. Those who don't care, well, they don't bother.

[performer]

Out of curiosity what is the difference between a hobbyist and an amateur? This is a distinction I have not come across.

[Jonathan Townsend]

...Which book are you referring to? I'm only aware of a few lecture notes.

IIRC it was in a book and used the long/short card principle too.

[Joe Mckay]

I think Jonathan is thinking of a trick called Animator by David Harkey. It is a precursor to Cardtoon and appears in Simply Harkey.

I love David Harkey! I wish he would come back and release more magic.

[Anthony Vinson]

Out of curiosity what is the difference between a hobbyist and an amateur? This is a distinction I have not come across.

Well, for me the difference is as explained, with the amateur possessing a real love for the craft, while the hobbyist's pursuit is more casual; an amateur performs, while a hobbyist does tricks, oftentimes poorly.

Now that you ask the question I can see the line between the two is blurred and perhaps indistinct. But I believe the difference is critical. Of course hobbyists can become amateurs. And vice-versa.

[performer]

Thank you for the clarification. I suppose with that definition Vernon and Marlo were amateurs while someone who goes into a magic shop, buys a trick and plays with it for a couple of weeks then buys another one would be a hobbyist. Or a doctor who takes up magic but has no time to practice it would be a hobbyist.

Interesting distinction and I thank you for it.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Joe McKay Wrote: "Anyway - I felt like posting on this topic since I am still a bit depressed that Cardtoon is almost becoming public knowledge. Who knows what smartphones will be like 10 years from now? It is quite worrying for the future of magic. I think if you perform an obscure trick from a book or magazine - then the secret should be safe. But the sad thing with that is a lot of the best ideas in magic are (understandably) the ones that are special enough to get released as standalone products."

I understand, and to some extent share Joe's concerns and frustrations. However, i do not allow myself to become overly concerned, as this is the hand "we have been dealt," so to speak, and so we must play it as best we can. I started giving magic shows in Brooklyn at age 7 at school functions, and parties hosted by my parents/family members and their friends. One of the mainstays of my act was the magic milk pitcher, a stand-alone marketed item. And anyone who wanted to (if they chose) could go to any number of (the now ever-diminishing) brick and mortar magic stores and acquire that trick and its secret. Interestingly, I never had anyone say to me, "I know how that is done," or "I have that trick," even many years later when I continued to do the trick at an age when people would not be concerned about offending my young and tender sensibilities.

Of course with the tidal wave of technology, most specifically the Internet/YouTube, the ease of accessibility to secrets has been exponentially heightened. But in my professional work as a (primarily) close-up magician, I very, very rarely have had anyone say, "I know how that is done," or "I saw how that was done on YouTube." This is the case even for priceless secrets that would be incredibly easy to unearth, such as the ID or T - -um - -. Certainly, it is bound to happen now and then when you encounter an over-zealous spectator who is bound and determined to find out. But that just shows how much you blew him/her away at the time.

In truth, the overwhelming majority of spectators aren't looking up secrets, and they do not know how the effects I do (or you do) are accomplished. If magic is presented in an entertaining fashion, most will be content to sit back and enjoy, and not even want to know. So I don't think magic is being threatened on any urgent level. I have been doing Cardtoon for years, and to this day, no one has said, "I know how you do that." And nobody, at least in my audiences, has indicated they do know how it is done. The trick is just so damn clever and entertaining that it is virtually guaranteed to play huge, and IMHO, will continue to blow minds for years to come...So no worries, Joe.

Additionally, there are many tricks and routines that absolutely kill tucked away in books that will never be seen by layman, or appear on YouTube. Unearthing and polishing such gems will help us avoid being what Eugene Burger has coined, "the Generic Magician," who is doing what everyone else is doing. And, there is always the option of inventing new effects with our cards, coins or whatever prop(s) we choose, as many of our brethren have done, a challenging endeavor, but one that could be fun and rewarding.

[Jeff Haas]

Also, don't forget the huge amount of content, or just "stuff", that is pouring out of all media all the time now. There is just too much TV, too many movies, books, music, plus your friends and acquaintances sharing things on social media... Magic is going to get lost in the shuffle, even something distinctive like CardToon.

If you're really worried, put it away for six months. The world will have moved on by then.

[Bill Duncan]

Out of curiosity what is the difference between a hobbyist and an amateur? This is a distinction I have not come across.

An amateur gets paid for the occasional show, while a hobbyist might simply be a collector, or show the tricks he collects to a few friends or at the magic club. To extend Mark's doctor example, he might have time to practice (which he enjoys as a recreation), but not enough time to do the work of rehearsal for shows.

[performer]

I suppose it depends on how occasional the show is. If it is very occasional then perhaps he gets into another category, that of the semi-pro. As for doctor magicians I have never seen a good one yet. They just don't have time to be good. I mentioned Dr Daley once to an hobbyist doctor magician and he said Daley was a surgeon and they have more time to practice than regular doctors.

The more I think about it the more blurred the distinction becomes. Vernon was a serious amateur but he often referred to magic as a hobby.

And just to complicate matters there is another category altogether. Hardly amateur but hardly professional and certainly not a hobbyist. Here we have people who make a living out of magic but do not perform such as magic dealers, manufacturers, illusion builders, magic magazine editors and book publishers. I suspect they get the least fun out of them all. Have you ever seen a cheerful person who fits in one of those categories? As soon as money enters the picture all the fun goes out the window.

Many professionals look down on amateurs. Not me. I envy them. They get more fun out of magic than the pros. And this new category that seems to have sprung up here-that of hobbyists-get the most fun than anyone else. It seems the more incompetent you are the more fun you get. Members of the Magic Cafe must be very happy people.

I think the positions should be reversed. The amateurs should look down on the pros. The amateurs are often richer than the pros, and certainly less prone to insecurity and bragging. They seem less prone to all sorts of weird hang ups and tend to be less obnoxious than professionals. Alas they also tend to be more incompetent than professionals but you can't have everything, I suppose Still, it is the serious amateurs that contribute the most tricks, ideas and innovations to magic.

[Jack Shalom]

Magic is one of the very few endeavors I can think of where amateurs have made significant contributions to the field that professionals use.

Weekend DIY tinkerers/inventors?

Math prodigies?

Folk Artists?

Now I'm stuck.

[erdnasephile]

There are at least two notable physicians who are/were outstanding performers (Steve Bedwell, Billy McComb). There are many others who have made valuable contributions to magic (Robert Albo, Gene Matsuura, Raj Madhok, etc.). Physicians are like everyone else. You have the same 24 hours a day--your job is to prioritize how you wish to spend them. Some physicians are really terrible magicians, while others are pretty talented.

As Michael Weber has said before, one of the great things about magic is that it's a meritocracy--great magicians can come from ANYWHERE--you get judged on the quality of your work. As Mr. Lewis pointed out, two icons -- Vernon and Marlo-- were essentially amateurs. Other amateurs were some of the greatest sleight of hand guys of all time (Riser and Elmsley come immediately to mind). On the other hand, just getting the money in no way guarantees quality.

Bottom line for me is: while the important differences in priorities and perspective are rather evident between pros and amateurs (See Max Maven's famous Parallax column), it's the quality of magic that matters most, not what label you happen to sport.

PS: With all due respect, that hobbyist doctor who opined as to how much free time surgeons have versus "regular" doctors is rather ill-informed.

[erdnasephile]

I should clarify: I meant no disrespect to Drs. Bedwell and McComb--they are pros in every sense of the word. I was just making the point that being a physician and being a great magician are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I would concede, however, that if one is a full time doc (or any other profession) it does make it harder to find time to be good; however, if you've got enough talent and the will to succeed, I'll bet you'll find a way regardless.

[performer]

I don't know anything about Dr Bedwell. I do know that Dr McComb gave up doctoring so he could do magic instead. His main fame and evolution as a performer came after he gave up medicine. I don't think he ever treated a single patient. My own doctor used to go to medical school with him.

The doctor I spoke to said that surgeons have more time between operations whereas general practicioners are up to their eyes in work. I have never seen any of the doctors you mention perform. They are quite likely to be awful but then I think everyone is awful. Still, that does not stop them making valuable contributions to magic. All I can say is that I have never seen a good magician who is also a doctor. If they are it usually means they have given up medicine. It takes a lot of time to be a good magician. Just as much time as it takes to be a good doctor and you don't kill quite so many people.

On the other hand I have seen quite a few good lawyer magicians. They seem to have the gift of the gab which is FAR more important than the tricks unless you happen to be David Blaine. But on the other hand I have always said that 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

While on the subject of amateurs and professionals there is a somewhat academic book on the subject devoted to it. I suspect only the author and his mother have read it. It is entitled "The Magician: Career, Culture and Social Psychology in a Variety Art"
The author's name is Robert Stebbins. I do not believe him to be related to Si. The title of the book will give you an idea of how exciting it is to read.

[erdnasephile]

I see your point, Mr. Lewis. (although I still disagree with that doc--take it from me, people from other medical specialties always think every other specialist has it better than they. )

Oh, I just thought of another accomplished physician/magician, Dr. James Elliott (of LeRoy, Talma, and Bosco fame--as well as a very clever inventor of card tricks). To be fair, he did leave medicine temporarily to tour for a decade (but still continued to be active after he returned to medicine).

Your point about lawyers is interesting: Hollingworth, Weber, Kam, Bloch, Farmer...the list goes on. Surely they are as busy as docs, but currently there do seem to be a lot more really accomplished attorney/magicians than physician/magicians.

[performer]

Well, I suppose lawyers are more practised in deception than doctors so they take to magic more easily. Incidentally are you a doctor yourself? You are giving off vibes that you are.

Oddly enough I was reading about Dr Elliott yesterday. Vernon was talking about him and gave me the impression that he had given up medicine and that is why he had the time to practice card magic for 8 hours a day. Mind you, I think that if anyone practises sleight of hand for even 4 hours a day it is a very bad sign. It means they are working on the wrong thing.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Thinking:

Faro, Phil-Svengali, Blizzard and ... if you recall SiStebbins... may as well use the faces for the animation ... no extra credit for doing an odd backed kicker as you give them their card (long - regular).