|
EXPOSURE
The word alone is enough to begin a heated debate among any group of magicians. What constitutes exposure? What is the difference between exposure and teaching? Is all exposure bad? I could go on ....
I think it's safe to assume that exposure isn't going to
put an end to magic. People have been exposing magic to the general
public for generations; yet magic is stronger today than any other time in history. In fact, as I write
this, there have been no less than four prime-time magic related speciaIs on national television within a six-day period. Apparently, the public enjoys being deceived.
And yet the exposure continues.
I have been extremely verbal in my opinions against exposure. In fact, there have been times when I probably went overboard. I once wrote an angry letter to Bill Larsen because I saw a TV show taped at the Magic Castle that exposed the change bag. The change bag! Clearly, I was a bit over sensitive.
The only reason I bring this all up is because several people who are apparently looking out for my well-being have shown considerable concern over the article you are reading. You see, they felt that maybe, just maybe, I would come off looking like an exposure sympathizer. As one friend put it: "Mark, you've made your living off magic for years! You can't justify something you know is wrong!"
Well, I hope I don't sound as if I'm justifying exposure. However, sometimes the simplest things are the hardest to see. And the simple fact occurred to me that people expose magic for a reason. It seems to me that, if we can begin to understand why so much exposure takes place, we are in a better position to stop it.
I believe that the reason is not just money. That's too obvious. Let's look at some recent examples of exposure and take an in-depth look at the most recent occurrence.
Franz Harary was approached to expose a popular illusion. He appeared on the show; but, rather than expose something that hundreds of magicians use to make a living, he instead chose an illusion that, while using a common principle, would probably not be recognized by the
public if seen again.
Did Harary expose magic? Sure. Did it hurt anyone? Probably not much. Can we believe his reasons for doing it? I hope so.
Then there was the special in which several pros exposed a variety of effects. The cut-and-restored handkerchief and the Asrah principle stand out in my mind. This one really got under my skin; I was ticked off at the Pendragons for some time. Other people were incensed for different reasons. Some felt that the worst infraction was the fact that something was divulged that didn't belong to the exposer! It made me wonder if principles and concepts really "belong" to anyone, but that's a topic for another time.
And who can forget the recent special in which Mac King did drop-ins in which he "taught" tricks. It all looked pretty harmless to me, but he was, in fact, exposing magic secrets, and many people were upset.
Did Mac do it just for the "big bucks"? I doubt it. He explained his actions in an extensive article in Magic, and I don't recall money heading his list of reasons.
Which brings me to the latest infraction, that which appeared on ABC Television on May 9. The special was titled "Secrets of the World's Greatest Escape Artists." This special introduced its viewers to Anthony, Daredevil Escape Artist. He happens to be a close friend of mine, and I simply call him Tony.
This association allowed me a rare opportunity: I could very freely ask the big question "WHY?" Why would anyone expose magic on national television? ! think his very frank answer to me will interest most readers.
I first found out the details of the exposure in question the Sunday prior to the airing of the show. I met Tony for breakfast, and he explained what would be airing. He had just finished taping the special in Las Vegas about two weeks earlier, and even he had not yet seen the finished product. But he did tell me about the exposure.
For those of you who have not seen the show, or heard about it, I am referring to a very blatant exposd of a gimmicked straitjacket. A jacket of the type available from outlets such as Tannen's was shown next to a more legitimate version. Then (horror of horrors) the gimmicked jacket was placed on a spectator from the audience, who
was able to escape without too much of a problem.
Before I continue, you should know that Tony is a very talented artist who has studied his craft for years. He has a healthy respect for magicians and magic. Knowing him as I do, I am confident that he would not expose magic out of spite or some sort of jealousy. (Why should he? He already had a network special.) No, there had to be a better reason. So again, "Why?"
He told me that his intention was not to simply expose magic for the sake of exposure. He did not, for example, tip the zig-zag. Nor did he set out to hurt the magicians who use straitjackets. In fact, he felt that he was not on the attack, but rather on the defensive.
He has studied locks, escapes, releases, and the like for years. He knows more about escapes than most people alive today. He takes pride in that, just as you or I take pride in our mastery of magic.
Coming from that mindset, he felt betrayed to see such a powerful effect as the straitjacket being abused. Magicians were escaping from so-called "regulation" jackets in 15 or 20 seconds. Comic magicians were playing it for laughs, turning a serious and dramatic element of his craft into a sad joke. In time, what he was doing looked weak by comparison; it lacked the dignity that it should hold to the public. And that hurt his means of making a living in much the same way that we now accuse him of doing to magicians.
How could he bring that effect back to its once lofty position in the few minutes allotted to the segment on TV? We all saw how. And I must admit, even though I hate to see such a trick exposed, it did what it was supposed to. And I suspect that it jolted a few magicians into re-evaluating their presentations.
I then asked him about handcuffs. "People want to know why I can't jump into the water wearing seven pairs of handcuffs, he replied. "Because mine are real! By the time I'd get the fourth pair off, I'd be dying." Using REAL handcuffs?! Who'da thunk it?
On my drive home, I began to think about mentalism. As magicians, we feel that it's wrong to claim "real" psychic powers. Some of us suggest disclaimers during programs of mentalism. After all, we are not real psychics, so it would be wrong to claim we are. We go so far as to applaud our peers when they debunk a fraudulent psychic.
Yet where is the indignation when it's an escape that's being claimed as "real"? Is that situation not comparable? After all, not all claims of the paranormal are designed as financial rip-offs; yet we oppose them just as strongly. Should we hold so-called escape artists to the same level of ethical accountability?
Some will say I'm grasping at straws. And maybe I am; remember, I'm not writing this to convince you (or myself), but rather to make us think. Because we must be able to understand a problem before we can solve it.
I hope we begin to understand, because I expect that exposure will be with us as long as magic itself.
|
|
