Um no. It comes down to whether you identify it as magic or reality.

Just like those who go to a play understand by the fact that they know they are attending a play that nothing they see on the stage should be taken as real life experience and things to base their understanding of the real world on, those attending a magic show know that nothing they see should be taken
as real life experience or things to base their understanding of the real world on.



Wrong. See above. To repeat myself I don't care if you call your magic a manifestation of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as you make it clear that
what you are doing is a magic show. Not to do that though it to risk deluding people as to what is and isn't real in the world.



You don't believe in God?

I do, actually. Not that its terribly relevant to this discussion.

But I do know that God doesn't intervene directly and create the apparent miracles in magic shows. I assume you do, too.

I think you can use magic as an excellent tool of midrash, actually, if that is your calling. Midrash is a Judaic principle. Midrash are stories that never happened, but contain truths. They are closely linked to the idea of both fables and parables.

To do a vanish and by analogy explain the idea of ascension might be a great way to open the subject. To do a vanish and claim it to be a literal ascension is,in my view, unethical.



Nope. Totally wrong. See above.



Well, I had two semesters of graduate art seminar in college and during that time, though it was often approached, no one could settle on a definition of art. So pardon me if I'm not overly impressed by academic definitions of aesthetics or art. In general they are circular.

The most common one I've heard is 'art is that which evokes an aesthetic experience.' I'm pretty sure I'd have an aesthetic experience looking in Dahmer's refrigerator. (It would be much like the one I had the first time I saw Guernicka' I expect. Though maybe a little more intense.)



Agreed.



Well I understand opinions are divided on P&T, but that's besides the point.

What you are really getting at here is the question of whether or not being conned requires the transfer of worldly goods. I'm not sure that it does. Haven't you ever felt conned and abused by someone on a purely emotional level? If not, I'm very happy for you but most people don't live such charmed lives.

Now, I may have over-stated in the heat of over-emotion (for which I've already apologized a few times) in that I don't really think a magician who lets his or her audiance think they are a mystic but asks nothing form them is on the same level of con-man as one who gets them to do things for them (whatever they may be) by deluding them. However I DO feel that a magician who lets people believe such things will set his audience up to be taken by others who DO. And I think that's an unethical thing to do to your audience.

I think magicians may some times underestimate the power they have over their audience members' perceptions. Entire social movements have been spurred by one misunderstood magic trick in the past and I don't think people are really any wiser today.



I'm a big believer in personal responsibility. But I believe that includes responsability for how your actions effect others, and I also know the power of
belief systems to influence people's actions. When I met my wife she was actively afraid of tarot cards. It took me quite awhile to get her to realize they were just pasteboard and no more. And she is NOT a stupid person. She was valedictorian from
UCSC and is pulling an A-minus average in graduate school.

As I say, I think its easy to underestimate the violence we can do to people's belief systems with our art. The same things that make it so compelling CAN also make it dangerous. But its an easy danger to avoid-- we simply tell people that what we are doing IS an art of deception. And we do that most succinctly by telling them we are magicians.



Well I like to think I'm not a "zealot" about much of anything. But I will admit to having carried the belief that we should be upfront and honest about what the art is for quite awhile.

And I'd be happy to spend the time with your mentalists and con-men. In return, I'd invite you to spend time with my wife in various spiritual circles and see what the power of a belief system, can do, good and bad, in people's lives. This has only made my own conviction on this subject stronger.

Cyberquat, I love the fact that you reference Derren Brown as ethical because of his disclaimers, so I will ask you this.

Which do you think is more dangerous:

Alex's Videos of tongue in cheek paranormal demonstrations or Derren Brown playing russian roulette and claiming to read vocal tones and body language to do so?

Andy

I haven't see the Russian roulette routine so I can't comment on that BUT

He clearly declares he is a magician and part of his act is pure magical deception at the beginning of his show. After that, to me anything is fair game in patter as far as the ethics of deception go.

Now how *wise* it is to do a Russian Roulette trick and what dangers this might put his audience in are another story. But in the end any trick with feigned physical danger probably has some of these issues.

So SEPARATE from the issue at hand, yes I might have some *different* ethical qualms with that routine depending very much on how it was presented.

I gave this entire issue a lot of thought walking home last night and to me this is the nub of the issue:

A few people have stated that "the job of the magician is to deceive people for entertainment purposes." I do not believe this is either ethical or correct. I believe the job of the magician is to help people to *temporarily* deceive *themselves* for entertainment purposes.

If you will allow me an example: A whole lot of people in the audience got a big kick out of watching David Copperfield fly. While he was doing it they could pretend that they really believed a man could fly. Afterward, they left with that memory which is a fun memory.

But no one over the age of maybe 6 or 7 left that theater and took the idea that David Copperfield could really fly into the real world. They knew he was a magician and they knew that therefor there was a trick to it. None of this impacted their enjoyment, however, of the illusion.

As magicians we are not deceivers, we are illusionists. We create illusions that people enjoy taking seriously. But I believe it is both unethical and unnecessary to try to purposefully deceive the audience. They do that themselves, within a safe zone they create for themselves that is the performance. All we do is help them along.

Cyber,

What you fail to factor is the role of intent. Not everything which produces a "reaction" is art. Seeing a mass grave is not art. Seeing a sunset is not art. Yes, they produce a feelingful response, but ART is a conveyed feelingful response resulting from the intent of an artist. Now, aleatoric art exists, and even though the elements of that art piece may be left to chance, the fact that the artist is using chance in order to convey the feelingful response is not chance. Likewise, an artist may choose to use an existing element - such as a mass grave - in a work, but it is their framing of it - their intent - which makes it art (should it succeed).

Dahmer, as far as we know, was not working in the media of body parts in order to share a feelingful response. He was a psycho who killed people. Now, IF that was his media, and he considered this ART then as an artist I would defend him. But as a human being he should rightly be locked away for committing murder - which is a crime. The crime outweighs the art.

Now, what if he only pretended to commit murder. What if he salvaged the parts from science labs, creating a manifesto as the murdering artist, and left these pieces staged in an attempt to produce a feelingful response - well, that WOULD be art. And as long as the pieces were obtained legally, I would have no problem with it as there is no criminal element. Nor would I have problem with him leading people to believe he hacked up those bodies. And I would be impressed if he followed his vision through to the end and was jailed - or committed suicide - knowing he had committed no crime.

Now, one might think THIS to be the ramblings of a mad man. I don't think anyone would do this. But there is a difference between a murders "leavings" making you sick and someone who is trying to create a theatrical experience. For years, Richardi just left the remains of the buzz saw on the floor and said nothing of it.

Now, about this idea that we should not lead people to believe in things that aren't true - on the theory 11 forum a young man proudly exclaimed that he saw no use for school because he knew that successful people in business did not need it and as long as he stayed focus and believed positive thoughts he would be successful.

He based this on the movie Happyness. A movie claiming to be based on a true story. As far as I know, telling stories that lead people to believe in stupid things is not a crime. So, unlike Dahmer, the artist need not fear being locked away.

Should we take these producers to task? Clearly their message has influenced someone to abandon education. Their message (modified from reality) is the cause. Should that movie have been disclaimered to protect this young man? I mean, it was seen in a THEATER and performed by Will Smith - is that not the same as seeing a magic trick in a magic show?

What about stories where people pray and good things happen? What about being the plucky underdog and coming out on top?

What it boils down to is: "I don't want people claiming that things I don't believe in are real."

If someone used magic to illustrate a religious teaching, that would be fine with you as long as they did not walk away believing that the trick was the miracle. But you are still using your skills to lead people to believe in something which - for many of us - is not only false, but perhaps the greatest perpetrator of evil the world has known.

It seems that if we are looking at end results, then both should be equally ***ed, no?

Some magicians REALLY do believe that there are energies in the world that can be manipulated. Some magicians REALLY do believe there is an old man in the sky who cares what they want. And I am sure some magicians really DO believe that they can choose their words in a careful way to actually get people to make a certain choice.

Just because you only believe in one of the three is no reason that they can't choose the ones they want to believe in too, right?

Brad

And why should anyone else care about what you choose to ask others to respect that you say you believe are real?

Parse that carefully - and then ...

Exactly!

Now I can sleep tonight. Thanks Brad! Next can you define G_D for us? Just so we can finally put an end to all of these pesky wars that have been plaguing humanity for lo these many years. Your assistance is long overdue.

One of my favorite movies is "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence." The key to it is spoken by a reporter who says, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Many things have been stated about Houdini, but many aspects of what has become the biography of Houdini are repeated legends (some of which he created about himself). He even paid H.P. Lovecraft to write a bizarre short story about him.

Houdini, early in his career, worked at a fake medium. This was reported in the Canadian museum on his life.
He didn't start exposing fake mediums until his career was waning. It had nothing to do with wanting to find a real medium. That was just a myth. It was as big a myth as his supposed expose of the medium Margery. Houdini's assistant later revealed that Houdini planted fake evidence on her (see Rinn's book).

Hmm. Houdini started his road to fame as a magician, moved on to be an escape artist, then exposed fake mediums.
Randi started as a magician, moved on to be an escape artist, then exposed fake psychics.
Coincidence? I doubt it.

BTW, just as Houdini was a fake medium early in his career, Randi wrote fake astrology predictions early in his career. To the best of my knowledge, he never apologized to the hundreds, perhaps thousands of people he deceived. He didn't have a disclaimer that he was making it all up at the start of his columns.

The human mind is a remarkable thing. It can cause healing when medical science can't. Giving encouragement to someone who is ailing--even if you think they won't get better--can improve that person's life and may actually help the person's mind heal himself or herself--excuse me, be followed by a spontaneous remission. So would it be wrong to say encouraging things to that person? I don't think so.

Cyberqat, you wrote, "But I look at "phenomena" like Jon Edwards and it infuriates me. He was playing with *very* deep emotions in people just to line his own pocket. I can't cite any cases but I would be willing to bet $100 or so that a detailed investigation of his subjects lives afterward would show at least one case of significant harm."

I don't like Edwards because I think he is, at best, a second-rate cold reader (and, from what I understand, has people doing "work" before his shows, too, in order to feed him information). And yes, you're right. He does play with very "deep" emotions. He feeds them ideas that give them hope and peace and closure. How has that harmed anyone? Of course, you have absolutely no evidence that he's harmed someone, but you have created in your own mind a belief that he has done so. Not only that, but you have spread that unproven belief here. How are you different that Edwards?

Of course, you seem angry with him because he gives people hope and peace and closure "...just to line his own pocket." How terrible! Why, he's a capitalist! And since you seem to be against capitalism that makes you a communist!

No, I don't think you're really a communist, just a pastafarian.

Cybeerqat, you also wrote, "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."

Actually, when Kreskin began, he used to say that he was 90% real, and 10% illusion. Later, that changed to 50-50 and finally 10% real and 90% illusion before he finally stated that he only does illusions and what he does is not real. My guess is that he got tired of responding to nasty comments from magicians who didn't like his schtick so his disclaimer kept evolving.

DB's so-called disclaimer isn't that at all! It's actually a clever bit of misdirection. As Tony Iacoviello wrote, "Derren Brown uses magician's trickery and "patters" about other explanations..." That implies to me that Tony in a knowledgeable magician who can see what's really going on. I moderate a forum for hypnotists and we often get IROBs (I Read One Book) who think they know everything about NLP and come up with the most amazing fantasy of how NLP and/or hypnosis could be used to achieve his effects. I have gotten both bored and tired from explaining that the use of "psychological manipulation" and NLP is just misdirection. They get so upset that they literally demand that I give away DB's secrets! I tell them that as a magician I will not do that, but they could go on a certain well-known auction site and find people who are more than willing to sell the magic tricks they are looking for.

If it's the performers intention to teach about serious matters by presenting false evidence, then it's wrong. It's still wrong even if what's being taught is true.

It is generally not possible to present evidence if the audience is aware that deception is being used.

Some people have changed their beliefs when presented with a convincing demonstration, i.e. the idea that people don't change their beliefs is not always true. Certain beliefs will affect people's future choices.

I have seen a few mentalists that I thought should have created some context to let people know they were going to be deceived.

A magician could have the same issue performing in some parts of the world. In general, magicians don't have to worry, the context of being a "magician" is a built-in disclaimer.

Many mentalists already have a disclaimer built in to their character, or what they call themselves, or the name of their business, or what they say during their show.

I suspect that the performers who teach about serious matters by intentionally presenting false evidence know that what they're doing is wrong.

Here's a simple metric: if later, after the performance, your audience were to find out that they had been deceived, if most of the audience became angry or upset at you, then you're doing wrong.

Hendoo,

The definition I presented is a concise statement of that made by Langer and those of that school. I subscribe to it because I have yet to find a definition of art which contradicts it. Would you care to offer one?

Thanks. You assistance is eagerly awaited.

Brad