Okay,
Bad Marhall McLuhan pun. Sorry.

What I really wanted to bring up/discuss is the ethics of Magicians claiming to be something other then Magicians. Claiming to actually possess some real spiritual or supernatural power.

Note that this is different from a patter which may reference such ideas as mind reading or precognition but is wrapped in the disclaimer that "This is a magic show. There are no supernatural things going on."

As I was "brought up" this is an absolute requirement of any ethical magician and is especially salient when dealing with mentalist or other "spooky" effects. It derives from a long history of con artists abusing the principles of our field to dupe people into false beliefs for their own benefit. If we do not make clear that what we do is NOT supernatural we can likely leave our audience with false beliefs that make the job of these con artists that much easier.

I believe this is still an important maxim today... but am I being a dinosaur? What do others think?

If you were an actor playing Hamlet on stage, would you start the play reminding spectators that you are not really Hamlet.

There is a difference between claiming that you are not Hamlet and not claiming that you are Hamlet.

In other words, don't disclaim unless you intend to claim. As the late Al Baker used to say "Don't run when nobody is chasing you."

... And let's face it, what is the potential confusion with supernatural powers when we do a sponge ball routine, a coin routine, a card routine, or perform a stage act with superb great illusions (sophisticated boxes).

When we handle ethical matter, let's not be the first victims of our illusions (and possibly the only one).

I'm not making this a personal remark and it really is a general thinking about some form of guilt that I had to get rid of for myself. Unless you do mentalism, you don't run any risk. The suspension of disbelief doesn't last much longer than when you go and see superman or batman, but the audience wants that suspension of disbelief.

Hmm. I guess I wasn't clear.

I'm talking about Magicians specifically stating that what they are doing is harnessing mystical forces, reading minds, etc., when it is not clearly within the context of a magical act.

I rather like Derren Brown's disclaimer that runs at the start of his TV show where he clearly states that what you will be watching is accomplished through the combination of showmanship, magical effects and psychological manipulation. The Amazing Kreskin used to make a similar disclaimer as I recall.

Since most mentalism routines involve creating the *illusion* of paranormal abilities its particularly important for them, I think, though its a good maxim for all Magicians.

As for the suspension of disbelief... it depends on whether the audiance IS knowingly suspending disbelief. When they walk into a magic show, that is what they are doing. But when someone says to them "let me show you a psychic power" and proceeds to apparently do so, the only suspension of disbelief that may be going on is the sub-conscious kind linked to religious faith... and that can last a life time.

I don't want to bring particular people's acts into the public discussion, but if you like I can PM you the YouTube video that made me think about this today and you can read the responses of the viewers. They are taking it *very* seriously.

Yes please PM these, I'm interested. There were, at the time (around 1975), similar discussions about Uri Geller powers and the Magic community was having very heated discussions on the topic of magician claims.

For your info, Uri Geller ended up buying his own BS and succeeded selling his talent to an oil company for finding oil fields... and he ended up with a massive court case (which made him broke). Justice is rarely instant but the past almost always catches up with crooks.

The best response to this type of performers is to show that Magic can supply much more impressive effects. On British television, after a clock stopping and metal bending show by Uri Geller, Fred Kaps was asked if he could do the same type of feat. He falsely admitted that he could not, but stated that he could do this: and the key that Uri Geller had just bent traveled all the way across the table that the guests and the host were sitting around. A huge sensation live on TV... (misdirection: he hooked an invisible thread in examining the bent prop after everyone else had looked at it. Then he replaced it in front of Uri Geller, and -following max Malini's advice- waited to benefit from time misdirection : nobody could remember that he even had access to the prop during the blind spot following the Uri Geller's effect).

I'd like to believe that karma will damage the unethical and irresponsible as much as they damage others in their lives.

It would be nice.

So it is ok for performer to state their tricks are the result of psychology, science, and other items and or pseudo sciences, but if it is the mystical, it is fraud and wrong?

Well, good thing I don't do tricks.

Tony

Sure, if they are. Derren Brown uses psychology and he states as much. His work is based on well known and understood principles of how the mind works.

But you miss my entire point. I cna claim in my patter that my demonstration is due to a manifestation of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster IF I first state that I am a magician. Then the audiance is warned that what comes next is patter, not reality.

That is the line between performer and con-man.

(By the way "psuedo science" is a terrible word that generally translates in the common lexicon to "anything I don't personally think is scientific." We can get into another whole argument about that if you want.)

Derren Brown uses magician's trickery and "patters" about other explanations, your belief that they are true is evidence of something...

As for performance art, not all art needs disclaimers, which is what your point boils down to.

And as said performer (going back to the second posting of yours) I say it is not all nonsense, and your not believing in some things goes no further than to explain your view point, nothing about the true state of the world or what is beyond it. I accept you have that belief system, accept that I do not.

Tony

I'm anti-disclaimer myself.

Then again, if I saw a mob in the middle of taking down a guy with 3 card monte, I'd happily watch it and say nothing.

So maybe my ethical viewpoint is a bit shakey.

Andrew, you're my new hero!

Obviously, a person who is defrauding someone or emotionally manipulating someone by means of conjuring tricks is A Bad Person, and hopefully will suffer consequences, both legal and "karmical", for their actions.

But in the context of a performance (and the word "performance" is a pretty broad term in and of itself...) I see no real reason to include a "disclaimer" unless it advances the thematic goals of the performer -and in many cases it will not.

The argument "If you don't disclaimerize it, you're making people more likely to get defrauded in the future" simply does not hold water for me. My answer to that one is: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Why should I participate in an activity that, in my opinion, simply makes the world a less, not more, magical place.

I prefer living in a world where you might meet an elf on the way downtown in the morning, where befriending a toad insures your shoes will always stay freshly shined, and where folks are in awe (and perhaps a little afraid) of wizards...

These things never happen in a disclaimered world.

Should there be rules dictating someone's original artistic expression?

"In Soviet Russia someone's original artistic expression dictates rules to you!"

I thinkw eare in violent agrewement here actually, or rpetty close. becvause I have no problem with anythign tyhat is said "in the cobntext of a performance." Rock and rollers have themed themselves as devil worshipeprs and that's cool with me... because its in a context that any reasonable person shoudl realize IS just ann act.

But the context of a "demonstration" is very different from the context of a "performance." When magicians style themselves as "demonstrating mystical energies" rather then entertaining, that's where I feel the ethical line is drawn.

Note that I'm not alone in this. Such luminaries as Houdini and the Amazing Randi have devoted significant effort to exposing such "demonstrations."



So your not saying it doesn't hold water. Your just saying you don't care.

To be honest I think that's an ethical limitation on your part. I think the ethical practice of ANY profession *requires* the professional to care about what harm they may do to others in the process. Not only is this the proper thing to do, but failure to do so hurts the image and reputation of the entire profession. If the Magic community is a community then your ethical circle aught to *at least* extend to your fellow magicians.

In addition to being an Magician, I am also an engineer. I think we cam all think of historical examples of horrific damage done when engineers chose to turn a blind eye to the harm their work was doing to others.



Do you really? Do you really make daily decisions based on an i-ching or horroscope? Do you throw salt regularly over your shoulder and do the myriad other superstitious things ignorant people do?

I'd guess not. You are part of a privileged elite as a magician. You get to "see behind the curtain" and as a result know with more certainty then most people what is real and what is not. You know how people fool themselves and how others fool them.

As part of this anointed priesthood you have a responsibility to NOT delude others into beliefs you know are false and would never treat as true in your own life. It is our pleasure and priviledge to help people *pretend* that suggest a world exists for a short period of time. In that regard we are like the movie maker who let the audience pretend a man can fall 10 stories and get up and run away. But the last thing the movie maker should want or encourage is the idea that what someone sees in a movie applies to every day life. When people get those ideas tragedies happen (I can go into a few in detail if you wish.)

Do you want your magic to be the cause of such a tradgedy?



Ofcourse he does. And as I said he says that at the front of his show.

But he ALSO uses a good deal of psychology. Read his book. he lays it all out.



No. My point is art that leads the viewer to false beliefs if not disclaimed needs a disclaimer. Please do not put words in my mouth. I am quite capable of doing that for myself.

I don't walk away from Starry night with any specific beleifs exceptn that van Gough was a brilliant and perhaps tormented soul.



You actually believe in "psychic energy"? despite all you know as a magician?

I applaud your ability to keep a sense of wonder in your life but question your knowledge of history and ability to extrapolate. I also suggest a book for you written by an outstanding member of our community:

http://www.amazon.com/Flim-Flam-Psychics......5&sr=8-1



Of course there should be.

Given the broad range in modern art, Jeffrey Dalmer's arrangement of body parts in his refrigerator could easily be considered "artistic expression." In point of fact, as an expression of his 'soul' I think it probably was, at least to some dgeree.

I don't think that should be a defense for his actions... do you?

If Socrates were around to ask, I'm fairly confident he would say something like:

Cowboys should be good at working with horses.

Carpenters should be good at building things.

Science teachers should be good at explaining science.

Is it a magician's job to work with horses?

Is it a magician's job to build things?

Is it a magician's job to explain science?


What are magicians for?


So much for Socrates. I think it is a magician's job to entertain with deception, not to reinforce the public education system.

It is a magicians job to entertain with deception that the audience knows is deception.

It is not a magician's job to deceive people into false beleifs. This is a con-man's job.

This is an important distinction.

I really didn't want to make this about anyone in particular but since Tony above has demonstrated in other threads that he is, in fact, a shill for the con artist whose you tube video made me feel this well known ethical concept in magic need to be discussed again I have little compunction now about doing so and it may help the discussion from being led off course as it has threatened to do a number of times.

So, here is a concrete example to discuss:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4SEQAU0cjU

Look at the responses and you can clearly see the danger inherent in such ill advised and unethical behavior.

P.S. I don't think Socrates had anything to say about cowboys. A little time problem there. I COULD say "I think Einstein would way that the job of a magician is to entertain but not to confuse" but it wouldn't mean anything. Ditto your invocation of Socrates above.

So a magician is a magician, and a con-man is a con-man. A con-man is not a magician. Where is the problem?

Wait! I'll look at the video you posted (I haven't seen it yet) and maybe I'll have a different perspective.

[edit]

OK, I checked out the video. I don't see the problem at all. Any half-way intelligent, semi-educated person knows that it's a trick. Right? And the other people--the half-semi-unintelligent-uneducated--are the target of our public education system. Right?

And calling Tony a shill was in bad taste.

And my invocation of Socrates was appropriate. If you don't understand why, there is a great big hole in your own education. Maybe you are one of the half-semi-un-un people. I don't think so. But don't go challenging me about Socrates just yet. You might have the IQ and the creds to declare me an idiot--people have, right here at the Café!--but wait a bit. Let's get cuddly and have a beer together and get to know each other, and when the afterglow is over then you call me an idiot and tell me my invocation of Socrates didn't fit.

(Holy Lassos! Socrates knew more about cowboys than you think. Plato wrote an entire dialog about Cowboys--"Hippodameus" (which comes alphabetically after "Georgias", in case you want to look it up on Wikipedia or something)--and proved himself to be something of an expert.)


I forgot:

have a beer:

:stout:

Name's Jeff. Pleased to meet you.

I forgot:

have a beer:

:stout:

Name's Jeff. Pleased to meet you.

Wrong. Look at the responses.



Any half-way educated person should be able to count. Does that make it okay for short-change artists to take their money?

As magicians we are quite skilled in making people believe things they *should* know are impossible. When we do not let the audience know that is what we are doing, we cross a very dangerous line.



Maybe. Although the timing of their posts on this subject sure make one wonder.

In any event you are correct that is mere supposition and I *will* apologize for making more of that much.

There are eight.

The first is from Alexandre.

The second is meaningless.

The third is from Eddie Garland, who we all know here at the Café.

The fourth is someone who thinks it might be real. (That's ONE.)

The fifth is Alexandre again.

The sixth post comes from someone with your name. (Though it's not a real name. It would sure be a lot easier making friends if you gave me a real name.)

The seventh post comes from an anti-skeptic perspective. Weak support, but we'll count it. (That's TWO.)

The eighth and last post says it's just entertainment.

So that's TWO POSTS of potential believers.

Your case is weak, my new unnamed friend.

Jeff Kesselman (so as not to be confused with Stoney)
Having read your posts here, and on the other thread where you attempt to expose an entertainers methodology in an open forum thread (which is a violation of Café policy) at the same time stating you are against exposure, I realize that if is useless discussing anything with you. You either are being intentionally duplicitous, or have other issues.

And to set the record straight, I am no one’s “shill” and please do not bother with an apology, your track record of posting here at the café makes anything you say subject to disbelief.

Tony Iacoviello