Exposure

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.

Background

Exposures are performed by both professional and amateur magicians as well as members of the public. Some have been performed as part of stage shows or in other public media including the Internet. More recently, exposure of magic has taken place on the internet, certain video sharing interfaces, discussion forums, and blogs being the main sources at exposing illusions.

One notable case of intentional exposure was when Val Valentino, as the Masked Magician starred in the Fox series Breaking the Magician's Code in 1997-98. Valentino exposed several tricks on network television. He was ostracized from the magic community and received heavy criticism from magicians. Valentino was ostracized from the community for going against the joint International Brotherhood of Magicians and Society of American Magicians ethics statement.

 In the 1970s James Randi received criticism as well as support in exposing the methods of alleged psychic Uri Geller. Geller insists that his stunts, such as spoon bending are supernatural and not magic tricks. Consequently, Randi feels it is important to expose that type of trickery. While Randi has refused to reveal some of his in depth theories on Geller, he has explained simple methods of trickery that Geller uses. Most famously, Randi explored some of Geller's deception in the 1982 book The Magic of Uri Geller (later renamed The Truth about Uri Geller). In the book he devoted a chapter titled "The Magician's Attitude and How It Changed" about the initial criticism he received in exposing Geller's methods. Randi noted years after the publication he received apologies from many of the magicians who criticized him.In 1974 magician Sam Dalal wrote a letter in support of Randi to The Magigram, explaining:

"I perform the "spirit slates" trick, but I wouldn't charge 5 pounds to produce a message from someone's dead mother! And I charge for deceit, but not for the deceit itself, only the ENTERTAINMENT I provide through it. The day I start selling something I can't deliver . . . like "psychic healing" and the messages from "Little Green Men" . . . and hope to be taken in earnest all the time -- I hope somewhere there will be HOUDINI, a RANDI, or a BONGO with the moral courage and decency to stop me!.

Randi has continued his mission in exposing psychics who claim their performances are divine. 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." In contrast, Penn & Teller performances often include themselves exposing their own tricks for purposes of entertainment. Penn Jillette has said that while the duo show the audience how a trick is done, it is often done so quickly or with different mechanics, that while the audience learns it is a trick, they cannot follow. As a result, the duo will repeat the trick fooling the audience even after the audience knows how its done.

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.

 

Arguments

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.
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. For example, it may be harder to produce one card than several but the latter is more impressive.

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 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 impostors 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.

 

 source: wikipedia.org

 
Editor's Note:

     Hindi lang sa pamamagitan ng TV maipapakita ang isang Magic Exposure. Sa panahon ngayon eh laganap na ito at siyang nagiging malaking problema na kinakaharap ng mga Magicians. Maging sa internet, sa Youtube particularly, marami kang makikita na mga
nagpeperform ng Magic at pagkatapos nun eh ieexposed na nila. Isa itong malaking issue na dapat bigyan ng malaking importansya. Karangalan ng mga Magicians ang nakataya dito, hindi lang sa pagiging Magician kundi pati na rin sa sarili nito. Bilang pagliliwanag, hindi dapat maging ganito ang exposure ng mga ibang tao. Hindi ang TV o maging ang internet ang tama at wastong lugar para sa ganitong bagay. Hindi sila karapat-dapat magbulgar ng ganito! Ang pagbubulgar ay sa loob lamang ng samahan ng mga nagpeperform ng Magic. Hindi ba nila kayang manahimik na lang? hindi ba sila natutuwa kapag namamagican sila? Tayo pare-pareho ay masaya kapag merong nagpeperform ng magic sa harap natin! Walang ibang nais ang mga Magician kundi ang magpasaya at magbigay ng ngiti sa mga tao. Na dapat kapulutan nila ito ng pag-asa at aral na pwede nilang gamitin! paano? kasi kung nagagawa namin ang mga imposibleng bagay o sitwasyon, ibig lang naming ipakita na "KUNG MAGTITIWALA KA SA KAKAYAHAN MO, MAGAGAWA MO LAHAT MAGING ANG IMPOSIBLE."
Sabi nga ni Walt Disney, "It's kind of fun to do the impossible."

 source: wikipedia.org