|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
John Nesbit Inner circle United States 1423 Posts 
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-05 02:18, Nicholas J. Johnson wrote: Again, so what is the point here ? Michael Ammar did say, "Show No Mercy" ! Gene Anderson (both magicians) said, "Go for the throat" ! Like entity just stated, it is about the Mystery. How does "ethics" apply here? |
|||||||||
Ryan Reeves New user 75 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-05 12:52, plasticdestiny wrote: Well, they kinda do at certain points, at the beginning with the Entertainment disclaimer, and then a few times before/after commercials where they say something along the lines of "this takes years of training to do safely, and even we sometimes get hurt, don't try this at home." |
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Inner circle Carcanis 9928 Posts
|
Ethics Smethics!
Habius Corpus! Where is Arnon???
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
Jim-Callahan V.I.P. 5018 Posts
|
Oh Arnon, sure would love what happened to me today legally.
(I think it deserves it's own thread however). -Jim
“I can make Satan’s devils dance like fine gentlemen across the stage of reality”.
|
|||||||||
|
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-05 13:55, Doctor REvil wrote: ...Because in the past we have been lumped in with thieves, pickpockets, cheats, frauds (in the legal sense), and third-rate carnival amusements. Slowly over many years, some performers have attempted to elevate mentalism to a more modern and respectable form of theatrical entertainment. Ammar and Gene Anderson were talking about going all out to create the moment of Magic WITHIN the theatrical presentation. They were NOT saying: "Make the audience believe in your supernatural powers on and off stage". - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
|
Dr Spektor Inner circle Carcanis 9928 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-05 16:03, Jim-Callahan wrote: Such a tease! Ok - start the thread!!!!!
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
andyfisher Veteran user Norwich, UK 319 Posts
|
Hi Entity - I'd like to try to address your question -
'Why do you believe that if you shape and influence someone's beliefs, you have no responsibility for what they believe? We can absolutely cause someone to believe something that is not true.' I believe that everything we say and do may or may or may not be taken on by others and used by them to shape their reality - I do not believe we have no responsibility - look back at my post and you will find no reference to the limits of responsibility - that seems to be your interpretation of my statement - 'we can shape and influence them certainly but we cannot make someone believe anything - it's an inside job!' To clarify then - I believe we have an absolute responsibility to avoid offense and harm to those who choose to seek us out in order to be entertained. However, I do not believe that we can cause someone to believe something that is not true - we can create the conditions in which it is more likely that they will adopt a false belief but, my point is that the ultimate chooser of what is and is not believed can never be us - belief is an individual choice - ironically your post proves my point beautifully! I made a statement - you CHOSE to believe that I was abdicating my ethical responsibility - in reality I was attempting to convey the fact that there is a point where our responsibility ends and the audience's must begin. This is the 'Fast Food on Trial' debate but with a different face - Macdonalds DOES have a responsibility for the range of foods it makes available to the public but noone from that company has ever force fed me a Bigmac - if I have indulged in their products, it is because I have chosen to eat it. The adverts may be enticing, Ronald may have pretended to be my best friend but I ate the burger - my obesity is my responsibility!!! The thread here has a context - some believe that mentalists have a moral and ethical responsibility to make it clear that what they are doing is pure entertainment. Others feel that to do so is to destroy the theatrical context while still others are comfortable adopting the persona of a genuine psychic both on and off stage- there are extreme views at either end of this spectrum - I hold neither of these polarised views. If asked outright, I will (and have) made it quite clear that what I do is achieved using the techniques of sleight of hand and psychology - those who watch me perform come expecting to be entertained rather than inducted into a belief system. Some may come believing in paranormal abilities, some will be ardent sceptics - it doesn't matter because my premise is to entertain - rather than to convince them of the reality or otherwise of what they are seeing and experiencing. So to sum up - there are 2 questions here - 1)do I have a responsibility to those I entertain? - absolutely. I execute that responsibility dutifully by being respectful, by ensuring that none of my audience come to harm whilst in my care and I respect their autonomy and capacity as thinking individuals. I do not claim to have any abilities beyond those scientifically proven to exist and I remain mindful of my responsibility to them to retain some sense of mystery by not explicitly stating that I am a magician by any other name - all theatre is a lie - the suspension of disbelief is a prerequisite of being entertained. 2) Am I responsible for what they believe? (very different question)- no! I may influence their belief forming process, but what we each choose to believe will always remain their own responsibility - and what we choose to do as a result of those beliefs is also our own responsibility - to say otherwise is to deny the foundation of free will. I once held a door open for a lady in a store - she verbally attacked me - pointing out that I was simply reinforcing the underlying patriarchal structures that had oppressed her gender since the Dark Ages! The woman stormed off and while I stood there still in shock, the next lady passed through the door and stated ' oh - it's so good to see that gallantry isn't dead - thank you young man!' - so was I an oppressor or a gentleman? I was neither - I was myself and others found meaning in my actions that matched their own belief systems. Now, I know that as a mentalist I am presenting a theatrical frame in which I play the role of the 'psychic/psychological entertainer' and so the waters are a little muddier than holding open a door - but the point remains - people do not come as blank slates ready to be written upon - they are already full of beliefs - their upbringing, education, exposure to other theatrical forms etc will all determine how I will be received. I am not there to educate them, to inoculate them against erroneous beliefs they may have acquired before meeting me. I am not there to cross examine their notions of what is or is not possible. I am there to enrich the moments we spend together by presenting a series of puzzles and routines that will leave them with questions rather than answers and we'll have a lot of laughs along the way. My opening line to my stage show is - 'Welcome to an evening of sensory stimulation and mental mastication...which isn't half as kinky as it sounds but should still be a whole lot of fun!' I offer food for thought - They do the chewing, and noone is forced to swallow!! |
|||||||||
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18792 Posts
|
What about those guys who do kids shows? ... I've never heard a disclaimer from one of them and in my estimation, kids, are much more pliable mentally than adults.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3567 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-05 02:18, Nicholas J. Johnson wrote: Someone put him on a hook? For God's sake let him down! Personally I don't think claiming to be real is all that bad. Let'em eat cake! The following manifesto was written by Tony "Doc" Shiels -There are a lot of folks on this forum who will curse his name when they read this, but somehow I don't think he will mind... ‘What strange things are brought to passe by natural magicke’ (Reginald Scot). I am an unforgivably wicked man, in the eyes of many ‘magicians’, because I am far too fond of magic. The exploits of someone like, say, Uri Geller are, to me, far more entertaining and enjoyable than the embarrassing posturings of the average ‘Great Bummo’ and his peachypoodles or dayglo-dyed doves. When it come to books, I would regard something like ‘SUPERNATURE’, by Lyall Watson, as being worth at least a dozen publications of the ‘FARO SHUFFLES ARE GOOD FOR YOU’ kind.. . and Blatty’s ‘THE EXORCIST’ is, in my opinion, vastly superior to any piece of literature, so far written, which features magic-as-illusion. Because I am so fond of magic, I like people to believe in it, to respect it, even to be slightly frightened by it; so I tend towards mentalism rather than ‘straight’ conjuring . . . and applaud, with affection, the crazy, defensive morality of someone like Madame Moyer, in the ‘Memoirs’ of Dan Mannix, when she says: ‘Those debunkers who claim all mind readers are lazy crooks ought to see the time we’ve spent steaming open envelopes, listening in for hours on party lines, and digging in garbage heaps for old letters.’ Conversely, l would offer a loud raspberry and the sign of ‘the horns' to such self-righteous witch-hunters as James Randi and William Rauscher who consider it ‘ethical’ (for a few pieces of silver) to shout from the rooftops that mentalists are fakes and liars. and a person is more likely to be satisfied by something in which he or she has a certain amount of faith . . . especially if the thing is personalized. People should be given their money’s worth, Because of this, a fairground fortune-teller would appear to give better value, in terms of pure mystical enjoyment, than the ubiquitous feather-flower merchant. However, most of our magical ‘brotherhood’ would put cold-readers and working ‘seers’ in the same pigeon-hole as pickpockets and highwaymen. The reason being that most ‘magicians’ are, basically, anti-magic. Magic is the art of producing surprising effects, either (according to my dictionary) ‘by means of the occult powers of nature, or by the application of natural causes, whose operation is secret’. Given a quick reading, that appears like a pair of separate and essentially different definitions; the first applying solely to the fairytale wizard-figure, and the second to the show-. biz trickster. But the word, ‘occult’, means ‘secret’, and ‘nature’ means that which is natural; so we have a single definition of magic, with just one all-important meaning: the art of producing surprising effects by secret means.....
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
|||||||||
|
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18792 Posts
|
That was AWESOME!!!!
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
|
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3567 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-05 22:06, gaddy wrote: For some reason my browser only shows half this article "The Case for Cozenage" byt Tony "Doc" Shiels. Here's the rest: Funny, my browser only displayed 1/2 of that artice- here's the rest: To hell with ‘method*, ‘effect’ is everything. That particular homily has been repeated time and again, over the years, by some of the wisest men in the business . . . Ted Annemann, Bruce Elliott, Al Koran, and many more. Perhaps repetition has blunted its power in the minds of many ‘magicians’. This would seem to be so, because, even though it contains the true essence of magical philosophy, its message is constantly and boringly ignored. A magical effect is surprising because it plays,havoc with the average spectator’s ideas of what is logically possible. In much the same way that recent scientific discoveries have dealt a body-blow to Newtonian physics, magic knocks the stuffing out of ‘safe’ normality. The ‘performer’ who is constantly reassuring his audience that ‘it’s only a simple trick’, whilst insulting everyones intelligence with his boringly ‘fun-packed’ grotesquery, should be stripped of the title, ‘magician’, and re-named ‘Twit’, or something similar but stronger. Personally, I think that most of the characters who call themselves magicians are light-years away from the real thing. Because I have this terrible liking for magic, any list of my favourite modern wonder-workers would include such assorted names as Ray Harryhausen, Herbie Brennan, Paul Huson, Georges Franju, Israel Regardie, Immanuel Velikovsky . . . and others of their kind; names which mean little or nothing to most dedicated take-a-cardsters. I love the idea of a mysterious mountain being made out of a mundane mole-hill, and I sincerely believe that the little old lady who sees signs and portents in the damp tea-leaves at the bottom of her cup is a more magical personality than the dinner-suited, amateur ‘entertainer’, with his gaudy props and gag-book patter. The old lady is an authentic part of the age-old thaumaturgical tradition, but the fellow with the conjuring tricks is just another third-rate ‘turn’. If you want to understand the true nature of the magician, study the tarot card that bears his name. He is Mercury . . . Hermes and huckster in one . . . Arlecchino . . . mountebank and magus . . . manipulating the cups and balls in a way that demands more than mere sleight of hand. He is the master of surprises, the archetypal cozenager and spirit of pure sorcery . . . the MAGICIAN.
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
|||||||||
|
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-05 19:09, andyfisher wrote: As I quoted you in my original post, your statement was: Quote:
- we are never, in my opinion, responsible for another's beliefs - That would seem to me (albeit purely in my interpretation) to be setting limits of responsibility. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
erlandish Inner circle Vancouver, Canada 1254 Posts
|
If my audience contains an idiot who professes me to be the real deal, I don't feel it's my responsibility to ruin the fun for everybody else in pointing out that I'm not doing real magic. It's an awkward and ridiculous intrusion into the show. Frankly, if I'm doing a performance, I'm responsible for entertainment inside the theater, not education for outside of it.
|
|||||||||
yachanin Inner circle Cleveland, OH 2109 Posts
|
The manifesto... yawn.
Regards, Steve
"Impossible? Your audience will think so..." TM
Thought Association Card Triangulation Word Search Detective Christmas Eve Sights - Start A Family Tradition |
|||||||||
|
Logan Five Inner circle Northern California 1433 Posts
|
That's great stuff there Gaddy! I gotta put Doc on my reading list..
thanks for posting that..
Self concept is destiny..
|
|||||||||
|
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-05 19:09, andyfisher wrote: Agreed. I don't think that anyone here has suggested that it is the performer's RESPONSIBILITY to challenge people's beliefs that they had before they attended the performance (although it may be a personal, artistic choice to do so). I do, however, think that we bear a responsibility for what beliefs our performances instill anew in our audiences. While no one is a blank slate, as you so rightly point out, what WE add to their slate, in my opinion, IS our responsibility. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
|
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-06 00:44, erlandish wrote: Do you not do your utmost in your performances to convince the audience that what you do is "real"? At least for the duration of the performance? Why then would you classify someone as an "idiot" if they believe what you've been trying to convince them of by everything you've done in your performance? - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
|
erlandish Inner circle Vancouver, Canada 1254 Posts
|
I get the feeling that there's something fundamental that you're missing about my point, entity.
Our job is to create the perfect illusion of magic (or mentalism, or supernatural phenomenon, etc.). THAT'S OUR JOB. If we fail at this, then the best we give them is a flawed facsimile. Is it consistent with the perfect illusion of magic to undermine it during the performance with claims that it's not real? They want to see the illusion of a real magician doing real magic. Would a real magician doing real magic turn around in the middle of a show and say "By the way, it's not real and anybody can do this"? Would they? All of those convincers are there to give them that illusion. It makes for a great show. That's the point. Think of the converse. Rock Hudson does a movie wherein he's a real stud with the ladies. Is that ethically irresponsible that he gives such a great portrayal when in fact he's actually gay, that people leave knowing that he's not really the main character, but still thinking that he must be a ladies' man in real life? Of course not, because all of that IS IRRELEVANT TO THE SHOW. That's as good as I can explain it. |
|||||||||
|
andyfisher Veteran user Norwich, UK 319 Posts
|
Likewise Entity I feel you are missing a distinction in my posts between 'being responsible' and 'bearing responsibility' -
I am responsible (I take care of my audience and am respectful) I do not bear responsibility for their beliefs because they have free will - as Erlandish CLEARLY points out above - within the frame of a show, I hope to offer a convincing illusion - people's own unique backgrounds and belief systems may come to re-present that experience and that can never be within my realm of control - thus how can I bear responsibility? Out of interest - do YOU perform? If so, what do you say? Do you offer a disclaimer? What is it? |
|||||||||
|
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts
|
I understood your point fully. But you are propping up straw arguments that no one has made.
Has anyone here suggested that any performer turn around in the middle of a magic or mentalism performance and say: "By the way, it's not real and anyone can do this?" You seem to suggest that they have. To do such a thing would be amateurish and dull and not at all entertaining. What some here are discussing is whether or not it is responsible for a mentalist to create false beliefs through their work that extend beyond the performance. It's a legitimate question, and no one here has made absurd suggestions about shouting out that it's all tricks, as T. Shiels suggests in his writings. Now I'd like you to get back to MY point. Why would you see someone in your audience as an "idiot" for believing what you've been trying to convince him of with your entire performance? And if those who believe in your performance are idiots, why try to make them believe it's real? - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » A question of ethics... (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: May 5, 2008 06:22 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2026 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|