Exposure (magic)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exposure in magic refers to the practice of making magical methods (the "secrets" of how magic tricks are performed) available to those who are not magicians. It is generally frowned upon as a type of spoiler that ruins the experience of magical performances for audiences.

Standards vary for who should be counted as insiders. Some define magicians as "those who have demonstrated some commitment to magic as a performance art". Others use the stricter "those who are members of a magic club or society". A more liberal criterion would be "Have the inner-workings of a magic creation been distributed to people who have not asked for that knowledge?" This is the difference between publishing a "secret" in a dictionary or on a magician's web site and publication on the back of a cereal box or on prime-time television.

Contents 1 Background 2 Arguments 2.1 Supporting exposure 2.2 Opposing exposure 3 Footnotes 4 See also

[edit] Background

Exposures are performed by both professional and amateur magicians and members of the public, and may be performed as part of stage shows or in other public media including the Internet. Penn & Teller and Val Valentino are both known for exposing the mechanics of magic tricks, though Penn and Teller's exposed tricks are largely their own, while Valentino (as the Masked Magician) has generated considerable controversy by exposing other people's tricks.

In contrast James Randi, an opponent of alleged psychic Uri Geller, has nevertheless refused to reveal some of his theories despite Geller's insistence that his stunts are supernatural not magic tricks. Even still Randi explored some of Geller's deception in the 1982 book The Magic of Uri Geller. In 2007 Randi exposed Geller's alleged paranormal claims, and explained "these revelations are not going to interfere in any way with the work of professionals who use the art of conjuring in order to entertain," and "the magicians will be astonished to see just how crude and inefficient most of these methods are, in comparison with what they use for their audiences."^[1]

Exposures as such should also be carefully distinguished from apparent exposures performed by magicians during an act; these 'exposures' invariably turn out to be illusions in their own right, usually compounded in mystery by their apparent similarity to a previous trick (or outright jokes — one example is a magician who claims the secret to unlinking rings is that "the rings have holes", and then points to the "hole" in the middle of each ring). Since a primary rule of magic is "never perform the same trick twice", if a magician appears to be doing so, a surprise ending will almost assuredly follow.

Magic shops frequently have an "all sales are final" policy on books and tricks, and do not allow browsing in the books sold in the shop.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Arguments

[edit] Supporting exposure

Reason	Argument	Counter Argument
Education	Advocates argue that new magicians will need to learn somewhere. Exposure on the internet and elsewhere enables newer magicians to develop skills and appreciate a wide range of magical methods so that they can learn to innovate themselves. This is especially important for genuinely interested new converts, who are often young and working on limited budgets.	Opponents argue that there are many accepted methods of teaching magic that are targeted purely at those who want to perform, rather than those who just want to know the secret: there are more books about magic than any other field of entertainment, there are magic clubs in almost every city in the world that will welcome new members.
Innovation	Advocates (including the Masked Magician) argue that exposure of old tricks forces magicians to innovate new ones and keeps the field moving.	Opponents argue that innovating new magic tricks is a difficult process, whereas exposing them is a very easy process, meaning that the rate of innovation could be overwhelmed. They also counter that instead of being encouraged to create new tricks, magicians may be discouraged by the possibility of future exposures. Furthermore, they argue that there is already a great deal of innovation in the magic field, with hundreds of books, pamphlets and magazine articles of new tricks or methods being published every year, so there is no need for exposure to encourage innovation.
Appreciation of skill	Advocates argue that exposure enables spectators to fully appreciate the range of different skills involved in performing different magic tricks. If the method for a trick is unknown to the audience, then they cannot know what skills are involved; furthermore, the outcome of every trick becomes the same ("hey, how'd he/she do that?") leading to the variety of tricks becoming meaningless.	Opponents argue that the entertaining with magic is not the same as entertaining with juggling - a good magician will cause amazement amongst the spectators notwithstanding that they do not know precisely how difficult (or not) the performance they have just seen is.

[edit] Opposing exposure

Reason	Argument	Counter Argument
Devaluation of tricks	Opponents argue that exposure devalues magic tricks by removing their potential to surprise or amaze audiences, or that the exposures are over-simplified to the degree that it promotes the idea that the whole art is nothing more than cheap tricks.	Advocates counter by pointing out that many magic tricks which have been exposed publicly in the past, such as the Chinese linking rings, have not depreciated in popularity for the same reason that great optical illusions stay appealing; furthermore, those magic acts that do include exposures, such as the Masked Magician, have proved most popular in recent years. Furthermore, they believe that many members of the public are indifferent to exposures and will not seek them out nor remember them for long periods.
Intellectual property	Opponents argue that exposure violates the intellectual property of the original creators of the trick. If the trick happens to contain a new scientific principle, as in the illusion Pepper's ghost, that scientific principle can be patented. Many magicians abide by a moral code which recognises that magical secrets cannot be protected by the law but nevertheless respects the innovator of any particular secret.	In most cases, IP law does not protect the rights of magic methods (see Copyright of magic methods), although some magicians may behave as if it does. Most tricks are built on sleight of hand and knowledge of psychological principles, which are are not patentable in the capacity that scientific methods and processes are.
Potential for disruption	Opponents argue that exposures provide ammunition for hecklers and saboteurs to attack magicians at the point of performance.	Advocates argue that these individuals will damage performances either way and that a good performer should be able to cope with this whatever the source.
New magicians	Opponents argue that exposure harms new magicians, since it is the simpler and cheaper tricks that new magicians depend on which are most likely to be exposed; it also encourages existing magicians to "bunker up" and avoid discussing methods with newcomers for fear that their works will be stolen and misrepresented.	Advocates claim that since they do not believe exposure to devalue tricks (see above), exposure aids new magicians by providing them with an easy and cheap source of new tricks.
Magic and criminality	The skills and secrets of a magician can be used to harm the public. Many of the secrets of magic came from the study of creative cheats and impostures that can still be powerful emotional persuaders when not used for entertainment purposes, but to prey upon others. Exposure may furnish those with a criminal intent the necessary knowledge to attempt such deception. Done with enough skill, these secrets will remain invisible even if audience members are exposed previously.	On the other hand, it can be argued that through exposure, members of the public can learn to be more keenly aware of the possibility of becoming victims of deception. Some argue that, even when exposed by magicians, such performances would still not be accepted as simple "illusions" by some, especially people who wrongly believe that their senses are accurate at all times and that they are, therefore, immune to deception. This argument has been made since the publication of the first book on magic, Reginald Scot's The Discoverie of Witchcraft in 1584.

[edit] Footnotes

[edit] See also

• Intellectual rights to magic methods
• List of magic tricks