Magic Community in TOTAL SILENCE as Youtube Magician EXPOSES Hundreds of Magic Tricks

[Brad Henderson]

Peter,

Tom summed it up quite nicely. The magic experience you once had is dead. You have now just a memory of it.

Compare that to anyone who doesn’t know the method, the magic experience lives and grows inside of them to this day

You seem to think that appreciation of technique is an equal replacement.

It isn’t.

You also keep dodging the question: if that XX is doing is so artistic and ethical, why didn’t he ask any of the people from whose work he is profiting to participate ? If educating the masses is his goal, then why not solicit the help of the actual expert?

[Peter Ross]

No, no one can take that memory from you but never again for the rest of your life will you be able to experience that feeling again in real time when you see the effect performed.

What do mean when I see the effect performed again? I'm never going to see it performed again, whether I know the secret or not. Nor should repeated viewings of an artistic performance (regardless of the performer) be a measure of my recolecton of the original experience. If that were the case then no one should ever see a movie more than once, lest they give up the experience of seeing it in "real-time" again, and dilute the memory of the first viewing. No matter how many times I see Star Wars (episode IV), it's never going to dilute my memories of seeing it the first time when I was ten.

The best you will ever have is a fading memory of an emotion you felt decades ago.

All anyone who sees magic (or any other performance) has after decades is "a fading memory of an emotion," regardless of whether the method becomes known to them.

You have lost something.

You are not in a position to make that call. Only I am.

[Tom Moore]

You’re not in a position to make that call, only the audience is....

[Jack Shalom]

Most of the people on this board watch a magic performance of one kind or another almost every day.

So clearly magic performances can be "consumed" in many ways.

No one is forcing anyone to go to XX's site; so that is a free choice about how that audience member wishes to enjoy the previous night's performance.

It may not be what the performer may have had in mind for them, but it's not entirely up to the performer.

Sometimes I want to know; sometimes I don't.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Okay let's play in the imagination. And play safe - no need for specific details. You get to keep your memories and imagination intact.

Find a pleasant time where and when you first saw a magic trick performed. Something where you knew there must be a trick but no clue as to where or exactly what it is. No clues - just the experience of the effect as presented. Do you have one such memory? Holding that in place for comparison - imagine the possibility of someone else seeing that trick performed. Do you believe this other person could have an experience like the one you remember? If so - hold that memory of what you saw performed in place but move that imaginary person around a little and explore how their experience might change.

Do you think it is as likely that they would have a similar experience to yours if they had seen the trick done on TV the day before?
How about if they are watching from a different angle or lighting situation, and see the mechanics during performance?
How about if they have seen someone set the thing up, rehearsed and practiced using test equipment?

* potentially rough playtime alert *
some folks like riding roller coasters. If you're someone who likes to take the roller coaster ...
Imagine sitting in the car before the ride starts.
Do you imagine the experience of sitting in that same car would be the same if you also knew the ride would not start?
Let's say the ride did as usual and you enjoyed it.
Imagine after enjoying the ride you were offered the car and accepted - the car now all cleaned up and in your den or workroom.
Do you imagine sitting in the car at home would feel the same as when you were in the roller coaster during the ride as it rolled along the track?
* okay - done playing for now *

[Brad Henderson]

Jack,

The problem with your position is it ignores the nature of the internet and YouTube specifically.

When you watch a magic video you are suggested other similar videos which automatically load

So the person who like watching the performance of magic will often have an exposure video put right in front of them - it’s not a case of them seeking it out or looking for a specific experience

[Brad Henderson]

Peter,


When you saw Blackstone the first time you had an experience that included an appreciation of the theatrical abilities of the performer AND a magical experience of the impossible.

Now that you know you ONLY have the appreciation of theatrical abilities.

The magic experience is gone.

You HAVE lost something. You have lost the part of the experience which is unique to the magic art.

The person who saw blackstone and doesn’t know does not JUST have a memory of how they feel. Quite the contrary. Every time they think of that moment that experience of magic is active, Alive and it grows.

Every time they tell the story they reencounter the magic experience. The magic is still present. Actively so.

For you - not anymore.

You HAVE lost something. And to claim otherwise is baseless.

Now tell us this - you’re doing your lovely little show (maybe two tricks into it) and someone asks after one of the tricks, “how did you do that?’

What do you do?

Does it matter is there are other people in the audience? What if there is another group that will be coming as soon as the first show raps?

What if that person is a reporter or a known gossip?

What do you do?

Or what if I put up a YouTube video showing how all the props work, how to build them, and use your name in my SEO so whenever anyone googles you they see your act exposed in full?

You think that will help or hinder your audiences experiences at future shows?

[Peter Ross]

When I saw Blackstone float the lightbulb, I was fooled. The magical experience occurred for me. That can never be reversed. It happened.

What you are really saying is that a present state of being fooled is objectively a better state to be in than that of having been fooled. I don't agree with that. I think it's subjective. While the goal of having someone be fooled forever is a laudable one, it does not represent an objectively and qualitatively better experience than having been fooled. It just doesn't.

The only scenario which can take the fooling (and therefore the magical experience) away is knowing the secret before the trick is performed. And no one is advocating for that. Certainly not XX. He clearly labels his videos as 'reveals' and they always show the performance first. People get fooled (that cannot be taken away from them), then they learn the secret.

And I don't by the argument that deciding to see a secret ruins future magic experiences. That's a subjective judgment.

Your scenario of my performance being interrupted by spectators asking how it is done is just silly. That's just audience management. I'm not advocating for revealing methods - I'm just saying it's an artistically legitimate option for a performer. Just like it's an artistically legitimate decision for a spectator to learn them if they want (per Jack's point).


As far as legalities and ethics, as I mentioned before, I don't condone anyone using unauthorized video footage of a performer (on TV for example). But note, if the performance is in public, like a street performer, then it doesn't apply. Additionally, I feel that once a trick is put on the market, where hundreds or thousands of copies are sold, the purchaser of the trick has a right to make money off of that same trick (in YouTube views for example) in any way they see fit (with certain performance exceptions indicated by the seller - like no TV performance rights, etc.)

[Jonathan Townsend]

As of Berne it was agreed that artworks are not to be copied without appropriate permissions. One could read the text in bold below as direction against teaching other people's tricks.

The minimum standards of protection relate to the works and rights to be protected

As to works, protection must include "every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever the mode or form of its expression" (Article 2(1) of the Convention).

Subject to certain allowed reservations, limitations or exceptions, the following are among the rights that must be recognized as exclusive rights of authorization:

the right to translate,
the right to make adaptations and arrangements of the work,
the right to perform in public dramatic, dramatico-musical and musical works,
the right to recite literary works in public,
the right to communicate to the public the performance of such works,
the right to broadcast (with the possibility that a Contracting State may provide for a mere right to equitable remuneration instead of a right of authorization),
the right to make reproductions in any manner or form (with the possibility that a Contracting State may permit, in certain special cases, reproduction without authorization, provided that the reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author; and the possibility that a Contracting State may provide, in the case of sound recordings of musical works, for a right to equitable remuneration),
the right to use the work as a basis for an audiovisual work, and the right to reproduce, distribute, perform in public or communicate to the public that audiovisual work.

Copyright exceptions and limitations

The Berne Convention includes a number of specific copyright exceptions, scattered in several provisions due to the historical reason of Berne negotiations. For example, Article 10(2) permits Berne members to provide for a "teaching exception" within their copyright statutes. The exception is limited to a use for illustration of the subject matter taught and it must be related to teaching activities.[10]

In addition to specific exceptions, the Berne Convention establishes the "three-step test" in Article 9(2), which establishes a framework for member nations to develop their own national exceptions. The three-step test establishes three requirements: that the legislation be limited to certain (1) special cases; (2) that the exception does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, and (c) that the exception does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

[Brad Henderson]

Peter - you have lost something.

That is undeniable.

Whether that’s better or worse depends on if you want to engage in the products magicians artform, or if you want to destroy them.

Now I ask again, Someone asks in the middle of your show how a trick is done - do you tell them?

After all, it’s better for them to know, right?

Right?

[Richard Kaufman]

The United States does not subscribe to the Berne Convention.

[Bill Mullins]

The United States does not subscribe to the Berne Convention.

Are you sure about that?

[Richard Kaufman]

Oops, but, "By ratifying the Berne Convention, the United States Congress signaled that it was taking a "minimalist approach to compliance" (emphasis original).[5] Indeed, regarding both moral rights and formalities, the Implementation Act was limited; in short, the "major concession was that the United States finally, reluctantly, did away with copyright formalities".[6] Furthermore, some copyright formalities, like requiring that a copy of the work be "deposited" at the Library of Congress, were preserved.[5]"

[Peter Ross]

Peter - you have lost something.
That is undeniable.

I am no longer fooled. That's correct. I was once fooled. That is also correct.

Now I ask again, Someone asks in the middle of your show how a trick is done - do you tell them?
After all, it’s better for them to know, right?
Right?

This is how you want to intellectually corner me?

I think we would all agree that if a spectator asked: "How did you do that?" in the middle of a show, we would either consider that a rhetorical statement or being rude.

I never said it's always better to know, only that it may be better sometimes for some people.

[Peter Ross]

I'm off on vacation tomorrow so I won't be adding anything more to this thread (Are those sighs of relief I hear?). Looking back on this conversation I think I've made and defended all the points I wanted to make, while I've also been given plenty to think about. I respect the different opinions of others here and feel content knowing that all of us love magic in the end.

[Brad Henderson]

Peter

You have lost more than no longer being fooled. The feeling of magic for that trick is now dead.

The problem is you are - like most magicians - focusing on the wrong thing.

It’s not about the fooling, it’s about the feeling.

The fooling is a means to that end. And when the fooling no longer occurs, the magic feeling disappears.

That is undeniable.

Now - it’s unfair to try to rewrite my question and then run away. If you can posit an imaginary person who sees an exposure video and becomes a better appreciator of magic, or a contributor who changes the art, I can set up a situation to consider that actually occurs.

A spectator wants to know how the trick he just saw you performed works.

Do you tell him?

In the middle of the show OR after?

Or what if that person comes up to you who has seen the blackstone lightbulb and asks you how it’s done?

They share how amazed that was and how they think of that as the most magical thing they’ve seen

Do you tell them how it’s done?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Amazing or Amazon.com?
https://www.amazon.com/vdp/218d6f85e532 ... byBjVSD5Oo
Huh?

[Jonathan Townsend]

No problems with exposure videos on Amazon.com? Maybe it's the full moon.

[Tom Stone]

The United States does not subscribe to the Berne Convention.

I know this is a longstanding and strong belief of yours, Richard.

But US actually became a part of the Berne treaty in 1988. Not only that, US have since then have come even closer to the copyright system the rest of the world have, by becoming a part of the TRIPS agreement in 1995, and the WIPO Copyright Treaty in 2002.

(Even the Marrakesh VIP Copyright Treaty was, oddly enough, signed by Trump in 2019. Guess he didn't realize VIP stood for "Visually Impaired Persons" )

So the position for creators in America have gradually become stronger since 1988. US isn't a part of the Rome Convention though, so I guess the situation is a bit worse for performers.

https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/
https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/

[Zig Zagger]

Let's get back to Mahdi Gilbert and his initial concern and criticism.

I have wrestled with this topic for quite a while, and here's my (admittedly lenghty) take (too lengthy for this post, actually. You may find the full version over at my blog http://www.zzzauber.com.)

Mahdi,

I respect you as a performer and your dedication, and I think I fully understand your concerns. You deeply care for magic, you see our beloved art in extreme danger through exposure and theft and you want (us) to fight back. I subscribe to all of that. However, we seem to differ significantly on the judgement of the degree of urgency and on reasonable paths to solutions. We may also disagree on what the "real" secret of magic worth protecting is. I will go into that in a minute.

But first, let me state that I feel a bit insulted by your undifferentiated claims that magicians would do nothing against stealing and exposure. Like many others, I am also a magician who does care and act (at least a bit, as you can read here). And I don't want to be driven out of magic by you for not fully sharing your beliefs about the importance of secrets. I could respond with the well-known quote that the definition of insanity (or foolishness) is "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." But unlike you in your rage, I am willing to accept dissenting views and concepts.

Here's my view on what's probably helpful and what isn't. To me, it's morally right and understandable, but finally useless and pointless

- to whine and complain about the world of exposure, copycats and thieves we are living in
- to set up alliances
- to write letters to media platforms, advertisers, politicians, regulators, trick pirates, and others
- to involve lawyers and waste money.

Don't get me wrong. It is an important and worthy cause, and we shouldn't let all of this happen without caring and speaking out against it. But I simply believe these noble actions won't change a thing about theft or exposure. Zero. Nada. None of these bastards will stop their actions, change their mindset, or question their business model. They won't even listen or respond. Thus, this path is a waste of time and energy, and a constant downer. I would rather stay positive and work on a new trick or develop my skill set further in that time and pursue other paths. Sadly, the world's not fair. Fame and money rule. Many people are crooks or trolls or idiots, outside and inside of magic. So be it. Yet life is great and full of opportunities. The same goes for magic.

So what might help instead?

My first point is this: Without taking any blame away from the crooks, we as magicians are partly responsible, too, for the mess we're in. So the problem is not only caused by "them," but also by "us." We need to understand that.

Think about it: For each secret to be exposed, shared, copied or even sold there needs to be a published trick, method, or presentation out there. It's that simple to me. The less magic we as magicians unload into the visible world of YouBurp and other platforms and media, the less can be stolen from us. Granted, this will never bring the damage down to zero, but it could reduce the scale in the future.

By publishing and selling tricks, we are not exactly protecting secrets, are we, Mahdi? No, we are willing to sell them to anybody for a profit (which is legitimate). We have every right to complain about the trick pirates stealing our products and our potential income, but we cannot blame them for uncovering the secret which we published. They don't care for the secret anyway; they care for the business model of selling stolen products cheaper than the originator.

So we may consider publishing less and less tricks and, in particular, videos, be it for free or as a download for a few dollars, it doesn't matter. How about learning to shut up and to share our best stuff, like in the past, only among the worthy, in private sessions or in small pamphlets or obscure offline magazines, but not on YouBurp, Fakebook and Instaharm?!

Along these lines, here are some more things we can do proactively, instead of whining and pointing fingers:

- Let's stop performing all the popular standard tricks that everyone else is also doing. It doesn't set you apart from the herd anyway. And you simply are more endangered through exposure the better the tricks are known.
- When you do use a classic trick, at least make it your own in presentation. The more you personalize it, the more you will disguise it and make it harder to identify the original trick and its secret.
- Go the extra mile. For example, don't use the dealers' standard magic coloring book that says "Magic Coloring Book" on the title when you are living and performing in a non-English speaking country, for God's sake. If you do, you simply deserve being chased by the rugrats and other debunkers!
- Even better: Try to come up with and perform your own material. If a trick has no name, no legacy, and no visibility on social media, it does not exist for exposure! (Except among your live audiences, but that challenge has always been there.) I think you can still fool enough people with a DL, just don't call it your "personal rendition of the time-honored Ambitious Card Trick".
- Which leads straight into the next point: Never ever mention the name of a trick or its creator in public. And if you do, make it all up. The fancier, the better!
- Reduce the challenge aspect in your performance. It's an old saying, but I think it still holds true: The better you are as a performer--likeable, entertaining, on the same side with your audience--, the more personal, poetic or edgy your shtick, the more the audience gets involved and wants you to succeed, and the more the secret/solution dilemma will be pushed into the background. (Yes, this will likely work better with your live audience than with online viewers.)
- Along these lines, stop pretending you have super-psychic powers and other crap like that. Most intelligent people won't believe you anyway, instead they'll think you're a jerk, and you will only nurture their effort to debunk you. And how right they are!
- Bring magic back to one on one, performer and spectator, teacher and pupil. Back into real life, the offline world and private sphere.
- Take a light Penn & Teller approach and do the "overall exposure" yourself in a clever way and profit from it (more on this in my blog).
- The most important point: Shun all people who disrespect magic and its creators, who expose, steal, copy and sell other people's intellectual properties and their secrets. Do not click or like or comment on their stuff or link to or forward their wrong doings. Do not encourage them. Do not interact. Do not even mention their sites or their names. And, of course, do not buy from them. If they pretend to be insiders, excommunicate them from your magic community. They are not part of it anyway. They are not worthy. Ignore them and forget them.

Now you may ask: "But most secrets are already out there and available, if you want to find out. Won't this kill magic in the end?"

Now here's a big point I feel we need to understand better. Yes, magic is a secret art. Painting isn't. Music isn't. Drama isn't. Literature isn't. Juggling isn't. Usually, you pretty much get what you see and hear before you. Not in magic. You get something, but to no small part from what you don't know and don't see. Without secrets, no magic performance and no magic experience. Maybe a scientific demonstration or a Show & Tell ("There's a funny toy company called Tenyo, and they produce pretty sneaky magic stuff for kids. I'll do it for you. Look how clever this little box works!"), but no magic. Agreed!

So?

Jim Steinmeyer once wrote the great line, "Magicians are guarding an empty safe." I interpret its meaning like this: We are jealously guarding our oh so precious secrets. Because we feel important and become "insiders", the more secrets we know. We brag about the other guy's secrets and use them as a currency and a signifier of our level of hierarchy in magic. But, in fact, that safe is pretty empty. Because there are hardly any real secrets left. Or because they are not even worth storing. (Fake Fingers? Mirror boxes? Trick decks? Threads? Come on!) Or because the true core of magic is not that mostly shabby, deplorable feke or fake prop.

But if it's not all about the secret--what is it?

Here's my take: Yes, magic is a secret art. But the secret is not the secret gaff or gimmick or move. To me, the core of magic--the real secret--is deception. And deception is multi-layered. It's a concept, not a tool. It's a painting, not a brush. It's an orchestration. A gaff isn't. Deception creates magic and wonder. The gaff is just one part of the deception, quite often a pretty small one, I'd say. Other parts are routining, presentational frame, performer's style and demeanor, script, stage action, music, lighting, audience interaction, and what not. And people will never grasp that fully by googling a trick or reading someone else's commentary on how it's done in the video. That's why knowing the secret gaff does not equal knowing the magic, neither on the magicians' nor on the spectators' side. Yet more magi seem obsessed with hoarding and guarding secrets than laymen would care to uncover them.

But that infinite number of exposure videos, available globally...?

In effect, I think exposure was much worse in Pinetti's time (remember Decremps!) when a street or stage performer's repertoire probably consisted of three to ten tricks in total--and they were all exposed! Yet they survived and marched on (remember Geller?), they reinvented and developed further. Today, the equation seems much more balanced to me. Yes, almost anything is available online, but everything else as well, and our attention spans and time budgets are very limited. Who would spend hours and hours over days and weeks, as a nonmagician, just to hunt down secret after secret? Maybe 1 in 10,000? 1 in a million? That ratio would not worry me.

Plus: People forget. We know that. The tricks, the urge to find out later, the secret. Hey, most of us can be fooled by tricks from books we thought we had studied. Because we forget. Because we don't pay attention. Because we don't recognize the same old trick in a new dress. I've forgotten the name, but once there was a pro who demonstrated with a golden TT that you could well be fooled even if you were "in on it"!

So magic is not in immediate danger of dying?

Not for me. Magic won't die from today's level of exposure. Bad tricks and overexposed tricks may die one day. I think that would actually be a good thing, or at least an adequate price to pay. But I feel even that won't happen. Why? Because there are just too many people out there, too many tricks and performers. Yes, there's a sucker born every minute and probably a coming thief, but at the same time there are also ten or a hundred or a thousand new spectators on the block. Believe me, not all of them will go hunting for the secret of each and every trick they will ever see in their lives. Not even half of them. Which comes to show again that we take that secret/exposure thing much more seriously than probably 95 or 99% of our audience. (But that's okay, because it shows that we think and care!)

Hell, religion hasn't died and won't die just because of advances in science or growing skepticism. Same with superstition. I guess at least 30% of all supposedly educated, enlightened, intelligent people today believe in one sort of crap or the other. Sometimes even 60 or 70%. (Welcome to America!) Lucky numbers, psychic abilities, angels, moon water, witchcraft, flat earth, U.F.O.s, predetermination--you name it. How ridiculous is it that most airlines and most hotels in 2019 won't have a 13th floor or a 13th row of seating? And just the other day, a Catholic school in Nashville, Tennessee has banned the "Harry Potter" series because a reverend at the school claims that the "curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits." Yeah, right!
I find that utterly amazing. And yet, our magic thrives on the same human flaws and inconsistencies, only in an agreeable and hazard-free way!

So my point in a nutshell:

Let's relax, examine our own responsibilities and choose our actions wisely. Let's not waste time and energy on fighting windmills. It's futile and frustrating. Let's take up the challenge, transform it into positive energy and try harder and do better. Our magic deserves it. And she will pay back amply, both to ourselves and our audiences. Thank you, all you thieves and copycats and whistleblowers out there, for pushing us further! (Yet you remain despicable scum.)

Sorry for the long rant, by this felt very important to me, and I wanted to embed my reaction to Mahdi's points into a broader context. As always, feel free to agree or disagree, but be invited to mull over this important matter, too, and decide what YOU will actually DO!

[Jonathan Townsend]

...
So?

Jim Steinmeyer once wrote the great line, "Magicians are guarding an empty safe." ...

You were saying...?

[Zig Zagger]

I'm afraid I'm not getting your point...?

Your link refers to an empty lake, not an empty safe.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Um... that you're looking at the wrong safe to start?

We've had exponential growth of digital information presence in our culture. We carry more data in our phones than folks used to have in their libraries.

The magic shop is a business. As is the publishing industry. Our market where the product is effective-deception-when-performing has a few built in inefficiencies.

The art and its students are doing just fine. Look how much fine magic is shown on TV in recent years.

The idea is not to direct attention toward misbehavior so much as quietly direct efforts and resources toward better behavior.

*

[polemic]
Methods to manage "copyist" behavior and public displays of indecent exposure have already been discussed. Look for the word "bogon" and/or check the story in my signature. When you find something missing in a work - imagine you have found the site of a lost battle. The territory was ceded to "old trick" for this generation and the retreating army may have left a few surprises. You don't need to fail that way. It's not a wasteland so much as a mined field, littered with abandoned dialectic and failed rhetoric.

If we are in a market where the brand is "latest secret" and the ideal customer is someone who readily imagines performing before those even less well informed than themselves - what's the problem? Okay back to latest secrets written by a lawyer and published by a non-magicshop press with annotations by celebrities who recall seeing the tricks performed in deluxe edition with unusual endpapers and ...[/polemic!]

[Zig Zagger]

Um... that you're looking at the wrong safe to start?

We've had exponential growth of digital information presence in our culture. We carry more data in our phones than folks used to have in their libraries.

The magic shop is a business. As is the publishing industry. Our market where the product is effective-deception-when-performing has a few built in inefficiencies.

The art and its students are doing just fine. Look how much fine magic is shown on TV in recent years.

The idea is not to direct attention toward misbehavior so much as quietly direct efforts and resources toward better behavior.

I'm afraid you've lost me, Jonathan.

I'm very much in line with your points, and I feel I have covered a lot of it in my long post above. Unlike Mahdi, perhaps, I neither think that the secret of magic lies only in the tricks' secret nor do I believe that exposing secrets here and there will kill our art.

Maybe it would help to get Mahdi back on board here to continue the discussion.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I'm afraid you've lost me, Jonathan [snip] Maybe it would help to get Mahdi back on board here to continue the discussion.

Agreed with getting more input from Mahdi.

I get the feeling folks are arguing the needs of the market, the art, and scholarship should coincide. The needs of commerce (exclusive distribution channel for resources enforced by civil law and ethos...) are not the same as the needs of art (market for product) which are also different from the needs of scholarship (accurate data and accepted reasoning process). Three distinct perspectives.

We can probably agree that there's little benefit in telling someone who likes toys that they have to make their own toys. Similarly, demanding a publisher write their own texts may not lead to better books. We can likely agree it's not helpful to insist scholars make up their own references and citations, and then be creative about their conclusions when they write.

Mahdi's concern about "secrets" is a miniature of our current questions about property, identity, and privacy.

[Mahdi Gilbert]

Hi, feel free to ask me specific questions and I will do my best to answer. Also, I disagree with almost all of the statements made. One statement which I am considering is:

"Shun all people who disrespect magic and its creators, who expose, steal, copy and sell other people's intellectual properties and their secrets. Do not click or like or comment on their stuff or link to or forward their wrong doings. Do not encourage them. Do not interact. Do not even mention their sites or their names. And, of course, do not buy from them. If they pretend to be insiders, excommunicate them from your magic community. They are not part of it anyway. They are not worthy. Ignore them and forget them."

As it seems like the only thing to do at this point.

[PavelTheGreat]

I think exposure is challenge to creative mind. I am not afraid if someone expose secret of trick on YouTube. The purpose of performing illusion is to cover up secret. Just do this in different way. Is very simple to disguise secret. Change props, change story, change moves. Fear of exposure is for those who perform same old trick.

[I.M. Magician]

Two things if you please.

First, I have been saying for many years that stealing/exposing magic secrets is the world’s second oldest profession(s) and there is little to nothing you can do about it. Maybe sad but true.

Second, I am wondering how your doggie is doing Mahdi? Hopefully, the fella is doing very well!

Quite frankly, the health and happiness of animals is way more important than magic secrets being stolen and/ or exposed. Just a reality check my friends.

I want to thank everyone for indulging me...

[Jonathan Townsend]

I think exposure is challenge to creative mind. I am not afraid if someone expose secret of trick on YouTube.

How does that work for you as you get critiqued as you perform?
Hey, nice getready for the tilt! Did you buy your shell from Todd or Jamie?

[PavelTheGreat]

I think exposure is challenge to creative mind. I am not afraid if someone expose secret of trick on YouTube.

How does that work for you as you get critiqued as you perform?
Hey, nice getready for the tilt! Did you buy your shell from Todd or Jamie?

I do not understand. I never perform trick as it is written in instructions. Always I take basic concept and re-work. With me it is all about the disguise. I wish nobody to recognise routine.

[Peter Ross]

Here is a translation of a video XX posted in response to the CNN article (link provided by Jack S. at the beginning of this thread).
In keeping with Richard's edict not to use his real name, I made the appropriate substitutions, although I think it's silly that his name must be censored (even Mahdi agrees with this):

------------------

Traditional Magic and Magic Revealed

Hi everyone, I’m XX. A few days ago, on the 11th, an interview of mine was published on CNN. It’s an honor to be published on American cable news. The main part of the article was about traditional magic, changes in magic, and my views on these things.

You all know that previously I revealed a magic secret. It was a traditional Chinese magic trick called San Xian Gui Dong (The 3 Immortals Return to the Cave). It was viewed by many people. I’m sure you all saw it. Actually, the interview can be divided into the following few points.

Let’s talk about the first point. The question is whether we should reveal magic secrets. Older traditional magicians believe that magic should be passed on through the generations and given to their disciples, without revealing the secrets to others. The article also interviewed another traditional magician. This person said that once you reveal the secret of a magic trick, then you deprive the viewer of the appreciation and wonder of the magic. But I think everyone has the right to know how magic is performed because magic is originally fake.

The second point, whether I like magic or not. I appreciate magic. I use magic to make videos and earn some money to support myself. So, it has changed my life a lot. Magic is a tool for me to earn money. If I didn’t have magic, then I wouldn’t be talking to you right now. My living expenses are covered by my fans watching my YouTube videos, so I thank all who watch my videos.

The third point, if I reveal magic secrets, I will be the enemy of all magicians. Why? Once I attended a magic performance. Some of my friends who went with me were astonished. But I had already revealed the trick in a video in which I taught the magic trick. When I saw the audience ask how the magician did the trick, the magician looking proud (arrogant) said, “I cannot tell you. I’m a magician, I have special powers.” When I heard this, I thought he was pretentious. I thought it wasn’t cool. These friends then asked me for the trick. I told them how to do it. They then did the trick for others who enjoyed it. I’m happy that I could share this magic with friends, making them happy, and then help them perform it for others who were happy to see it. Sharing this knowledge has value and is useful.

But from the point of view of the magician, I’m a clown, and he’ll say bad things about me. But magicians and I are like oil and water. You can simply call me a revealer. I’ll go my way and they go their way. If you feel I shouldn’t reveal your magic, then you should perform magic that I cannot reveal. But that’s not possible since all magic has its flaws/loopholes. Also, they too sell their magic online. I have spent a lot of time, practice, and money learning their magic, so what you see from me is real and comes from my learning it. I’m willing to share it with you all. I haven’t stolen it from anyone. I mentioned this in the article.

Also, many fans ask me if I perform magic. I get invitations, but I refuse them all. Why? I don’t like performing magic. Some people think I reveal magic because I’m not handsome enough to perform, or my skills are lacking, or I don’t get invitations, but it’s not true. Everyone can see my skills on my videos. I just don’t feel like performing. I focus on magic in my YouTube videos and my income is based on their popularity. If less people watch in the future then I will shut down my YouTube channel, but it’s stable now.

Lastly, concerning my personal opinion about magic, I think all magic is fake. A magician should tell you from the beginning of his performance that it is fake. Why is it called magic? If it were real, then it would be a superpower. I’m just telling you the real situation regarding magic. If you don’t want to know the real situation, then don’t watch my videos, or leave comments after watching. You’re free to do what you want. It’s not about right or wrong.

In the future, I will reveal more magic in my videos, things you cannot see elsewhere. The reason I’m posting this video is because I’m happy to have the interview posted on CNN. Because of YouTube I can share my knowledge of magic with people all over the world. I hope you have gotten something from this. I’m XX, see you next time.

[Brad Henderson]

“ But I think everyone has the right to know how magic is performed because magic is originally fake. ”

Can I stop reading here? Because his premise simply does not stem from the condition he claims to be true.

“ Magic is a tool for me to earn money.”

Again, not a lot of high minded thinking here. He is Using magic without regard to how his actions affect that from which he is profiting. Pretty much true for every exposer, yes?

“ I thought he was pretentious. I thought it wasn’t cool. These friends then asked me for the trick. I told them how to do it.”

So, he’s doing it because he thinks it’s cool. He doesn’t want to be uncool.

This passes for a defense?!?!?


“ You can simply call me a revealer. I’ll go my way and they go their way. If you feel I shouldn’t reveal your magic, then you should perform magic that I cannot reveal. But that’s not possible since all magic has its flaws/loopholes. Also, they too sell their magic online. I have spent a lot of time, practice, and money learning their magic, so what you see from me is real and comes from my learning it. I’m willing to share it with you all. I haven’t stolen it from anyone. I mentioned this in the article.”

Do I even need to comment on this? He’s a taker and a user. He cares only about himself.

This you want to defend?


“ Lastly, concerning my personal opinion about magic, I think all magic is fake. A magician should tell you from the beginning of his performance that it is fake. Why is it called magic?”

So in addition to being a self serving ass who doesn’t care about the ramifications of his actions, he doesn’t even understand the art he is exploiting. No wonder he doesn’t care about magic, beyond appealing solely to an audiences basest instincts (he’s running a peep show) he has no understanding of what it is or what can be done with it. Perhaps he lacks the intellectual or emotional capabilities to have a magic experience.

“ Because of YouTube I can share my knowledge of magic with people all over the world. I hope you have gotten something from this.”

He has no knowledge of magic. He admits it himself. He has knowledge of methods, not even secrets. And we have gotten something from this. Any high minded defense ever offered his actions have been rendered worthless.

[performer]

Oh my God! After reading that crap I wish his name HAD been revealed! I would be able to put a psychic hex on him then. Alas magic is doomed.............

I would still not approve but I would at least understand it if he just came out with it and said the reason he was doing it was to make money. Greed is a motive I can always understand. But spare me the justification. Just say you want the money and be done with it. I find the rest of the insincere crap more sickening than the exposure.

[Peter Ross]

There is a built-in antagonism that blinds any thoughtful consideration of what XX is saying. It's part of magic dogma; it's in its DNA. Just look at the Magic Circle - they still will not let even P&T be members (although they have no problem profiting off of lectures from them).

XX is young, ambitious, cocky, arrogant, and has ideas that offend long-standing mores and sensibilities of the community. Artistically speaking, are individuals like XX not what has pushed other arts forward?

The absolute refusal within Magic to allow non-performers any consideration, appreciation or interest in anything beyond the one side of the coin (the effect) results in a certain kind of stagnation of the art. Traditional Magic (for lack of a better term) cannot imagine any scenario where an individual might want to know about magic methods without committing him/herself to being a performer or student of the art.
I think it's embarrassing frankly that magicians are both offended and frightened by XX. Lighten up!

“I think everyone has the right to know how magic is performed because magic is originally fake. ”

This is obviously a statement based on how XX has experienced magicians in China - there is more of a history of them claiming to have real powers than here in the West (a point that has been brought up by others before here in this forum). So it is XX trying to take magic from the "occultists" and give it to the people. When viewed in this context, his statement reveals a lot about his motivations. Yes, XX thought it was "uncool" for a magician to claim that he has special powers. He wants magic to begin and end as secular art.

XX's Youtube channel is one window into the art of magic - it's not for everybody, but neither are card tricks, Vegas magicians, mentalism, or sponge balls. Just like magic once turned their noses up at Cardistry but now have come to appreciate it, maybe it's time for magic to do the same for people who enjoy methods in addition to effects.

[Smurf]

Traditional Magic (for lack of a better term) cannot imagine any scenario where an individual might want to know about magic methods without committing him/herself to being a performer or student of the art.

This is astoundingly inacurrate. In fact I think most traditionalists run into this type of curiosity about methods far more than they every run into those with a desire to become students of the art. I can't recall how many times observers have asked, "How is that done?" They don't ask because they are interested in becoming students of the art of magic. They are just looking for the explanation.

I have at times found some who want to be more than learners of methods. A friend and I once led a junior magician's club in the back of a retail magic store to offer guidance and advice to those who were at the early stages in their magical studies. The club folded within 2-years and I don't remember any of them continuing to come to the shop so I doubt they continued their studies on their own. We all know that some do stick with it and many take a break and come back to it later in life.

John

[Peter Ross]

Traditional Magic (for lack of a better term) cannot imagine any scenario where an individual might want to know about magic methods without committing him/herself to being a performer or student of the art.

This is astoundingly inacurrate.

You're correct, John. I just phrased it wrong. What I really mean is,

Traditional Magic (for lack of a better term) cannot imagine any scenario where it would accommodate an individual wanting to know about magic methods without them first committing to being a performer or student of the art.

I think that makes a different point - the one I originally wanted to make but failed to properly write. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Jackpot]

There is a built-in antagonism that blinds any thoughtful consideration of what XX is saying.

The antagonism is not built-in. It is based on his statements and stated goals.

Artistically speaking, are individuals like XX not what has pushed other arts forward?

No, individuals like him are not what pushes art forward. How does XX's monetizing other people's creations push magic forward? It only pushes his earnings forward. It does not push art forward. If individuals like him pushed art forward the contributions of art forgers would be considered more valuable than the original works of art.

The absolute refusal within Magic to allow non-performers any consideration, appreciation or interest in anything beyond the one side of the coin (the effect) results in a certain kind of stagnation of the art. Traditional Magic (for lack of a better term) cannot imagine any scenario where an individual might want to know about magic methods without committing him/herself to being a performer or student of the art.

Non-performers have contributed greatly to our art. Your statement shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of the history of magic. Your time would be better spent learning about the history of magic and some of its greatest creators rather than spending your time defending an uncreative opportunist. If your only reason to know something is to know the secret than you are only a "magic gossip". Gossips don't improve anything.

XX's Youtube channel is one window into the art of magic - it's not for everybody, but neither are card tricks, Vegas magicians, mentalism, or sponge balls.

Agreed. But the quality of the window is a very poor. The glass he uses is filled with flaws. The problem is that XX offers nothing other that which he has misappropriated.

“I think everyone has the right to know how magic is performed because magic is originally fake. ”

XX does not understand art or the art of magic.

Just like magic once turned their noses up at Cardistry but now have come to appreciate it, maybe it's time for magic to do the same for people who enjoy methods in addition to effects.

Members of the magic community have always appreciated people who enjoy methods in addition to effects. For centuries magic books have been purchased, perused and enjoyed by magic enthusiasts. People who love magic know far more tricks and methods than they could perform in a life time.

He wants magic to begin and end as secular art.

He doesn't care if it begins or ends as a secular art. He only cares that he profits from it. If it stops making money from it he states that he'll move on. The only reason he's staying with it is that it's making him money.

Lighten up!

And don't forget to wake up.

If XX had actually created something and then said, "Now that I have shown you my illusion let me now explain how I accomplished it." I could agree with you. But that is not what he offers. He only offers that which he has taken from others. He does not offer anything, but he only takes away from that which already exists.

[Brad Henderson]

Peter.

I have no antagonism towards the revelation of methods. I can think of many artists who have done so wisely and carefully so that the magic experience was heightened and even preserved.

I do have an issue in closing off people to the magic experience as opposed to opening them to it - and the manner in which this guy reveals secrets isn’t to better magic but to line his own pocket. His words.

And no, people like him ARENT the ones pushing magic further along - at least not in any positive direction - beyond giving away secrets this guy hasn’t done anything. Just because an idea is new. Doesn’t mean it’s good.

Just because someone is young doesn’t mean he will do something positive. Manson was young, ambitious, cocky, arrogant, and had ideas that offend long-standing mores and sensibilities of the community.

And your claims about what magicians allow and won’t allow is pure straw man. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And this notion that he’s doing a social good by taking magic away from ‘occultists’ by exposing a dancing cane is ludicrous.

On so many levels.

At worst, if it were true and not just a desperate defense on your part, it reveals him to be even more ignorant about magic - real AND fake - than he already has.

He spoke his truth. He is a revealer of secrets to line his bank account. He isn’t empowering people To have deeper magic experiences. He is working a ticket to prevent magicians from being able to give them. (If I can figure out your trick I will reveal them - his words).

He isn’t trying to empower people to become great magicians - he doesn’t know what magic is himself.

He is a parasite.

Stop defending the leeches.

[performer]

I wonder how much money he makes? Maybe I should change sides if the price is right. One does have one's priorities you know..........

[Peter Ross]

Brad, there are most definitely "rules" that magicians have regarding the revelation of methods; You state yourself that revelations should be done "wisely and carefully." According to whom? I assume you include P&T as doing so wisely and carefully, but alas, not according to the Magic Circle, arguably the most esteemed magic institution in the world. They will not allow these legendary magicians to become members. Think about that. If P&T, performers of the most popular magic show in Vegas, with multiple seasons of a hit TV show, cannot reveal methods "wisely and carefully," then who can? The answer, according to the Magic Circle, is no one. Not even David Devant. This attitude pervades throughout magic.

And the claim that magic books published for the lay public are examples of the magic community's appreciation of people who enjoy methods, as well as effects, is laughable, considering the scorn heaped upon those authors by "real" magicians over the years. As we have seen on this thread and others regarding methods and the public, there are many who view any kind of access to methods, big or small, as sacrilege (I'm looking at you, performer).

XX correctly states that anything sold, published or performed (on TV) is fair game for public sharing, critique, or analysis in whatever form that may take, as long as it is not libelous. It's true in other arts. It should be true in magic.

The hardheaded "protection" of the other side of the magic coin (methods) extends even to public speculation, as I have experienced firsthand. Speculation of method can only be done in co-called approved forums. This encompasses anything performed public or private, commercially sold or published. Are these not rules?

XX clearly states that he believes he is sharing magic with other people, by way of analysis of commercially sold or televised effects. He is not stealing anything. He is not Charles Manson nor an art forger (two astoundingly ridiculous comparisons). If one looks upon XX as a "leech" or "parasite" then one must feel prety insecure about magic as an art form, and their own place within it.