From: duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan)
Subject: Re: accomplices ethical?
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:31:10 GMT

This is, to me, a rather interesting point:  Is the use of unidentified mem-
bers of the magician's company in order to accomplish the effect considered
"ethical"? Perhaps an even better question would be:  When would the audience
feel "cheated" if they know about the use of such unidentified confederates?
And there is also the question of whetgher it matters or not if the assistants
are seen or not.  (In the latter case, of course, they are, clearly, "uniden-
tified.")

Matthew Phillips has said:

>                                                     Is using a 
>mirror unethical? Using strings? Hidden doors? No...these are all
>secrets of the trade.

Also noting, in discussing some Copperfield illusions, that "camera angles"
are similar "secrets of the trade."

>                                if they had used a camera angle more
>to the right as in the beginning of the trick, one would be less than 
>amazed... but this is also true of any of the tricks, as with the right
>camera angle, almost any of them would be exposed.


And Mike Steiner has said:

>What is the difference between a gaffed deck of cards and a gaffed audience
>in the long run?

Okay, I'll take a stab at these questions.  I think "the difference" is one
of perception of the magician's personal skill.  Whenever you use anything
but pure sleight to perform magic, the issue SHOULD be raised.  (I, by the
way, am not skilled at a large variety of sleights, and used gaffed stuff.)
However, when I watch a magician, I want to see how skillfully s/he uses
the tools of the trade.

Use of plants in the audience, behind the scenes staff, large mechanical
devices very often bother me because it is not clear what the magician is
really contributing to the effects other than being an efective "personality."
I certainly agree the latter is an important element of entertainment.  However,
if I suspect that this is about all they are contributing to the effect, then
I am gravely unimpressed.

Copperfield's last show left me feeling this way (for the most part) because
so much of what he did seemed to require minimal skill on his part as a magi-
cian compared to just an effective entertainment personality.

Mike Steiner has also said:

>Another point of view is that if you have an audience of 1,000 and 999 are
>plants, and if that one audience member is suitably entertained and mystified,
>then you have done magic.

Some might view this as having played a "trick" on somebody since most of the
audience will find great humor in having the deck stacked so heavily against
one (or a small group) of people.  Is this magic or is it "Candid Camera" with
a magic theme?!

>Yes, using a shill in the audience does seem like cheating, but that is only
>because we have been conditioned that way.

Perhaps discusing what has caused this "conditioning" would be important in
determining what it is about the use of animate, versus inanimate, secrets
which some find objectionable?  I hope I have suggested what I think about
this clearly enough.
-- 

Scott   (email) duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Internet)
             OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan (UUCP)
        (voice) 908-699-3910 (w)   609-452-9054 (h)
	(USMAIL) Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane  RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ  08854