Wax philisiphical, hmm. Does that come from a philosopher with siphilis ?

Now that probably hasn't "been done to death". But "realy is silly".

(I agree with you otherwise).

DBlatt, Just curious. Since it seems people who say " magicians are all liars anyway" tend to believe anything and everything is permissible... How do you feel about Magicians that use camera tricks...to convince their audience ..at home... that they performed magic? Or a magician that uses stooges on a TV show, to make it look to people at home that something is way more fantastic than it really is? Example... putting on an Illusion with a very narrow angle, and the camera is at that precise angle...but there are stooges all around the illusionist going.." WoW...that is amazing!!!"

The implication being that... it was not angle sensitive, but that it could be performed totally surrounded.

I just wonder if it's Possible that since you feel magicians have no ethics, if you do not see an ethical problem here... because I do.

I am always reminded of the games we enact, when the issues of ethics come up. Take Football for example, when the game is being played there are rules that apply to the field and there are certainly ethics of which the players withold. However inside of this game, there are great efforts made for one team to deceive the other, in whatever fashion they can get away with. So is it ethical for all who have involved themselves in the game of football to go home and live their daily life in the same manner? Could it possibly be a very difficult thing to seperate the two? Should a person seperate their ethics in their magical reality with their daily life? Worthy thoughts and questions?
J.B.

You are presenting a dichotomy where I do not sense one. Just because deception is used, does not automatically imply that there were no ethics.

In magic just because I lie to a spec as I do something does not mean I am behaving unethically, and after the show when I go home, I do not behave unethically.

I fail to see where putting on a magic routine, where deception is used, can be considered unethical.

As I do not follow football, maybe another analogy would suffice? Or maybe you can jsut explain why you feel that using deception in a magic routine is unethical?

When Lawrence Olivier portrays Hamlet, Prince of Denmark... Although he is not danish...or a Prince... yes he is being deceptive to his audience... but His Character is also being deceptive to other characters in the play... Is Hamlet being unethical? Some would say yes... But...is Olivier being Unethical?? By Deceiving his audience?

If he isn't why is it unethical for a magician? Isn't the ultimate goal the same??? Entertainment?

How much does it really matter if one further degrades the art and craft of conjuring as long as one can laugh all the way to the bank?

Clarissa35f makes some good points. To some extent, ethics are tied to motive. If entertainment is the motive, the ethics of deception can be viewed quite differently than if deceipt is the motive...

Motive? Whose? Yours in observation or theirs which you can never truly know?

I think if the ultimate motive is unknown the only individual that can know if he behaved unethically, is the performer. If the person the performer lieid to derives value from the deception then I think one can say that the performer did not behave unethically.

Did the person that was deceived, feel that he or she gained more from the deception than he or she would have gained had he or she not been deceived?

I think that while it is impossible to ever truly know the motivation of the actor, we can determine if the act was in any way harmful.

Where the act did not lead to harm, and where the act was beneficial or profitable, if the deception was an intrinsic part of that act, I cannot say that the actor behaved unethically. I think only when we KNOW that the motivation was ulterior, or when the act in question is a harmful one, can we read into the ethics of the actor.

An interesting example of where an actor's actions may lead to harm... In The Prestige... the scene with Borden tieing the Knot... it led to a loss... ( trying to NOT expose for those that have not seen it.) Did Borden behave unethically? he did deceive. And that deception was the crux of the film. But can anyone honestly say he behaved unethically?

Thank you for elucidating a bit, I personally was just asking the questions, not trying to staple definitions to anything or anyone. Magic is a delicate subject to try and fit these definitions inside, and Clarrisa has a good point when saying its on an individual basis. From the very first moment you meet someone, if you have a deck of cards in your pocket, or are prepared to do some magic at a casual dinner party, so begins the deceptions. The intentions begin the game of ethics because we are trying to fool people in to believing we are even interesting enough to sit through a card trick.
J.B.

Jonathan:

"Motive? Whose? Yours in observation or theirs which you can never truly know?"

You are quite correct, I think, in which case there seems to be another choice: mine which you can never truly know. Hence it is a difficult matter to judge another's ethics...

Why should anyone be judging another's ethics? The only thing that really matters is the result of the action.

Assume for a second that someone has bad intent. And that he does something which in some way, shape or form, ends up being a benefit to people around him. Why judge his ethics one way or another? The Movie Leap of Faith with Steve Martin comes to mind, as does the novel "For Love of Evil" by Piers Anthony.

Is it possible to want to do something with evil intent, and yet for the results to be good? If the results are good, why bother judging the ethics of the actor?

JB... I do not believe that the deception gets to that point. Dception IN the effects yes. but you cannot Fool someone into thinking you are interesting.

You are either interesting....or you are not. That does pose an interesting situation what if you personally are boring, but put on a persona that is interesting? does that make YOU interesting to the people around you? So... Is there deception? After all, the people watching you find Interest in the persona you put on... they are interested. Does this mean that by pretending to be someone you are not... an interesting person with magical powers, as opposed to what you really are... a person pretending to be interesting, pretending to have magic powers, that you behaved unethically?

Interesting.

So, Clarissa35f, if I understand you, ethics is a useless an unnecessary term or endeavor, because the only thing to consider, and therefore the only thing that matters, is the result. I cannot agree.

History is full of honorable attempts with disasterous results. Many could be listed, but to what benefit? To say that all that really matters is the result, is to say the ethics do not matter. Sad...

Not quite what I was saying. What I mean is, that sometimes you cannot determine the ethics of the actor. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The result of the action has to be considered. A Good person does something that ends up bringing on great harm...can we say he behaved unethically? If a bad person does something that he believed would be of benefit to himself, and cared little for others, but that act ends up having unexpectedly good consequences.. what then?

I Just feel that what the ethics of the actor are or are not may be hard to determine. Ethics is not Morality. Morality is imposed from without. Ethics is applied from within.

What my religion considers immoral, we can all talk about. Since it is imposed by that religion. Ethics, since they come from within cannot be imposed. Only the actor knows if he behaved ethically by his own measure.

How would you determine the ethicality of someone else's actions? Does that even make any kind of sense?

I think the only thing one can say is that " based on my ideals, My system of ethics, what so and so did, if I had done the same under those circumstances would have been unethical.... for me."

Going back to the original post.....
Stooges for everything, imagine then you are performing for an audience of one.
I don't think your audience, who by the nature of the post is a stooge, will be too impressed with the "magic?".
Stooges overall can add a considerable amount of impact to the magic, when used properly. Don't overlook using one now and then, many have with great success.

An interesting distinction that you are making. Maybe it's even helpful. But it misrepresents the true etymology of the words.

The English word "ethics" is based on a Greek word which was traditionally neutral--it meant something like "manners". The English word "morals" is based on the Latin root meaning exactly the same thing. In other words, just as Jupiter is the Roman Zeus, "morals" are the Roman "ethics".

By neutral I mean: one can have good ethics or bad ethics. Being "ethical" was--until recently--linguistic nonsense. Today being "moral" or being "ethical" seems to mean being "good", though what "good" is remains hotly disputed.

So your distinction between internally and externally driven behaviors might be helpful, but these are NOT respectfully synonymous with the words ethics and morals. Or maybe they are: maybe they have come to mean exactly what you say they do; but this is unknown to me. Right now I'm pretty certain that your definitions are somewhat idiosyncratic. I'm sorry if this is not the case.

I'm not trying to be difficult here. It's just that in the Right or Wrong forum there is a CONSTANT throwing about of undefined terms and unreferenced ideas, which makes it difficult for people to communicate about these things effectively. It's a LOT easier to discuss these things with a bunch of egg-headed, arrogant, stuffy, boring, egotistical and lofty professors of philosophy: at least they define their terms and make references to Aristotle and Kant, so everyone knows where they stand.

Talking about this stuff here is like talking with a bunch of magicians.

You mean like...talking to people that are used to showing you one thing, and then have it turn into something else? lol

If there is one constant about discussing anything with magicians is that the sleight of hand becomes a habit, and becomes sleight of mind. Misdirection is key, as is presentation... you look one way, and they turn around and show you something else that may be surprising.

The One constant about magicians is...there is no constant. All is in flux. Sometimes. And sometimes it's not.

A stooge, or stooges, are often an easy, and obvious explanation for certain mental effects. It's not easy to use them without someone recognizing at least the possibility of a stooge being used, and for certain effects, it's often not easy to prove that they aren't used, whether they are, or not.

I've read many posts where a person insisted that an effect was accomplished using a stooge, when knowledge of common methods would have convinced them that it was unlikely a stooge was used.

Methods to eliminate the use of stooges are sometimes seen as transparent too, since those often require some level of trust. Even throwing a frisbee into a section of the audience is not sufficient, an explanation will present itself to those who think. That explanation might be wrong, but it still will ruin the effect.

Note, a performer who provides no proof that a stooge is not used, might be able to use a stooge by gaining trust, however, the depth of that trust must correspond to the strength of the effect. Also, this will not work for all people. As an aside, I believe certain mentalists advertise in such a way that only people already inclined to trust the performer are likely to attend their performances, and the "trust" method can still work for these performers. In general, I consider that method weak.

One routine that uses a stooge comes to mind. It is published, and the man who published it has published dozens of other routines, and this is the only routine where he chose to use a stooge. The routine is cleverly designed to eliminate the idea that a stooge could be possibly be used. He does this using a multi-phase routine, where the effect is repeated using different methods, and the same two participants help him each time. One of them is a stooge.

Often, there are better methods to achieve a similar effect as a particular effect that can be created using a stooge. The effect using another method might be a bit weaker for some people than when a stooge is used, i.e. not create the same level of conviction in those people that a stooge might, however, it will create a much higher level of conviction than using a stooge for those who question the experience.

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

Ethics enter into magic a few different ways. One is professional ethics, which I don't think are what you are referring to. These are in the ethics statements of all major magic societies, and people who join agree to abide by these.

Other ethical beliefs relate to avoiding any harm to the audience. The sometimes relate to the form of the presentation.

Here are four types of presentations:

1. Presenting magic as a trick.
   
   
2. Presenting magic as real, but allowing people through a larger context to know it's a trick. For most magicians, that context is off of the stage, and even common knowledge.
   
   
3. Presenting magic as real, and intentionally hiding that any deceptive method is being used, but not making any claims outside the context of the "show" that the magic is real, and also never denying that it's not real.
   
   
4. Presenting magic as real, and intentionally hiding that any deceptive method is being used, and claiming in all settings, even social settings far removed from the stage, that the magic was real, and that no deceptive methods were used, with the intention of making as many people as possible believe the magic was real.
   

There are major ethical debates about presentation type 3, and especially presentation type 4. The subject has been pretty much beaten to death, especially in the "Penny for your thoughts" forum.

This is Interesting. I Just finished "The Glorious Deception" By Jim Steinmeyer.

It describes the life and career of Chinese Conjurer Chung Ling Soo. What was amazing about it was, that he seemed to live a life full of deceptions.

The most obvious level of deception was the effects her performed on stage. Of course he kept the method secret. But the fact is, that while he was famous for his " Oriental" magic, it was European magic with a touch of "Oriental" theme.

Then there was the fact that he was not Chinese at all. He was actually an American... and this was known to many magicians, Harry Houdini was a friend, and he had worked for both Alexander Herrman and Harry Kellar. He never denied that he was American.. But his stage persona had a way of coming off stage.

He always performed without any patter on stage, since he was supposedly a Chinese magician that did not speak English. When he granted interviews offstage he always used his Chinese interpreter, even though he spoke English... the Chinese interpreter supposedly interpreted what the reporter asked into Chinese for Soo, then interpreted what the performer said to the reporter into english. This in spite of the fact that his chinese interpreter was really Japanese, and neither he nor Soo spoke Chinese. He sometimes clamied he was half Chinese ... half Scot. And it is amazing that even though the Chinese people that saw him perform knew he was not Chinese they honored him anyway, because they liked that he did not pander to European stereotypes of Chinese people.

Then to go another level, was his personal life. The woman that he passed off as his " Chinese wife" on stage... whom everyone that believed him to be Chinese thought was really his wife, was not Chinese, but American...

But it goes deeper because even those that KNEW he was not half Chinese half Scot, and KNEW he was American....thought that the woman that he pretended was his Chinese wife was really his American wife. But she wasn't... Robinson ( Soo's real name) had a previous wife that he never divorced. They were Roman Catholic, and never got a divorce. The woman that he passed off as his American wife that pretended to be his Chinese wife, was not even his wife. And his wife lived with another man, that pretended to be a " friend" the children that he had with his real wife...well, there was reason to believe they were not really his, but belonged to this other man.

So even those that believed they really knew the truth were deceived.

I think this is a good example of deception carried to an extreme, and an example of a life that was full of deception because the performer ... seemed to be On-stage,,...even when he was off-stage... when was he ever off-stage? One begins to wonder.

Those that believed they knew the truth were also deceived. Was any of his act ethical? Was any of his life ethical? Where should he have drawn the line? What of the truth could he ethically keep to himself? What of the lie should he ethically have exposed? What of the lie could he ethically have kept to himself? If any? I think a lot about the ethics of magic can be explored by reading this book.

That is a great book, as is everything I've read by Jim Steinmeyer.

His act wasn't ethical, but not because he was playing a character. Another part of his deception was that Chung Ling Soo, i.e. William Robinson, was copying much of Ching Ling Foo's act. Chung Ling Soo challenged Ching Ling Foo with the media present, and Ching Ling Foo eventually had to go back to China to perform, because the British public considered him to be the one who was copying!

I won't write about what happens to William Robinson at the end, however, a phrase from an old sci-fi show comes to mind ... "Danger Will Robinson, Danger!" What happened to him wasn't good.

Because William Robinson did what he did, one reviewer (David Regal? - I forget) wrote that his ultimate fate seemed like divine intervention!

I finished the Book, but I won't comment on it for anyone that has not read it. I did find his life exciting.

I am reading Hiding the Elephant also by Steinmeyer. Those are the only 2 of his books I have...are there others? I Like his writing style.

Just curious, Steinmeyer says that " in order to understand magicians you need to understand their secrets." then he goes about exposing a few of those old effects. he feels that if the reader does not understand the secrets they will not understand what he writes about.

You think this is ethical? They were from the turn of the century. What can a magic historian expose? How long does he need to wait ? Should he only be limited to what is in the Public Domain??

When does Magic History become magic exposure?