|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
collective foundry Inner circle 1404 Posts |
Regarding Flying, I feel patent wise the reason Why Johnny only mentioned FOY, as its the only modern example of anything close to it. People wanting FLYING would be confused between the two but behind the scenes are day and night workings. I'm not positive that Thurston, Keller, DeKolta ever put in a patent that we can find - although I would not be surprised if there was - I feel the reason they were not mentioned is the apparatus is and was so new and different that it COULD be patented and protected. I've seen the workings its way different way way way different than Thurston & Dekolta / Kellar. Unlike citing when one writes a book of magic , I don't think one is required to do so on modern patents -although again , folks in the know would know the history of this effect and not question it (not saying you are)
Johnny Gauhan is among people I can count on one hand that are historical go to's on magic and Illusion. Not only a creative genius but an encyclopedia of historical related items on the subject. If anyone could evolve the effect he would have been . . And did so quite successfully. (and again - that was only the beginning of the story) (far as development went) Your asking the right questions. I'd be concerned if you had not. My advice (among starting dedicated topics on such items) acquire as much magic historical items on the subject that you can. Myself I purchased the entire Jim Steinmeyer Collection. Picked up the rare stuff (among the Thurston Workbooks) some books will cost 50/60, others will cost a thousand or more Depending on availability. I studied the masters. Don Wayne, David Mendoza, Bill Smith, Johnny Gauhan, Willie Kennedy, many of the effects I've designed and built in some ways reflect their styles with my own Ryan C. Reed twist. Study the Giants of the shoulders we stand on. ( Newton) Then of course the illusion books. Mark Parker, JC SUM, Rand Woodbury, Milan Forzetting, Paul Osborne, Steinmeyer, Levitations and Suspensions, Many others: I will be selling one soon in Digital form and limited edition hardcover & Softcover, Above though is where I'd start, I consider these Writers some of the best. (I did not purposefully leave anyone out its just who came to mind first) In regards to IBM code of ethics “3) Recognize and respect for rights of the creators, inventors, authors, and owners of magic concepts, presentations, effects and literature, and their rights to have exclusive use of, or to grant permission for the use by others of such creations.” What this means is exactly as it says. It means that just because it looks cool to you does not mean (and my god there are so many idiots out there doing it) take the same performance, music and build of something (that someone has already gone through the hundreds or thousands of man hours to perfect) and call it as your own. It means to respect the owner by means of collaboration, permission and request. If someone invented a new approach and or effect naturally they'd have the right to moderate its conditions. |
|||||||||
profl New user 57 Posts |
Ryan C. Reed, you are absolutely correct when you wrote that I NEVER QUESTIONED the Gaughan patient, viz: “I don't think one is required to do so on modern patents -although again , folks in the know would know the history of this effect and not question it (not saying you are)” I simply used the patent, after you interjected Flying into the discussion, as one of two examples of how difficult it is for me, a know nothing, to know something.
You write, “I feel the reason they were not mentioned is the apparatus is and was so new and different that it COULD be patented and protected.” If anything was inaccurate, I prefer to believe it simply was an unintentional oversight rather than, as you imply in your post, a deliberate exclusion when Gaughan’s patent application states that its invention is unique in the use of multiple fine wires rather than a thick cable: Quote:
In the prior art levitation systems it is obviously necessary to provide a supporting cable for supporting the performer that is strong enough to safely transport the performer above the stage. Such a cable is of necessity relatively large in diameter and, therefore, easily seen by the audience. This, of course, negates the illusion intended to be presented. Additionally, when a single cable is used to levitate the performer, precision maneuvering and orientation of the performer is most difficult, frequently making the performer's movements appear clumsy and unrealistic. In response to your “I don't think one is required to do so [reveal all] on modern patents,” the answer is: “Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the [Patent] Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.” (37 C.F.R. 1.56) The disclosure applies not only to prior patents but also to all non-patent prior art. I do not own or have access to any of the books you list, but I'm looking to buy if anyone is selling. I know nothing of cables or of multiple wires used in levitation except what I read in he Gaughan patent and had no reason to have a second thought on how the invention “uniquely overcomes the drawbacks of the prior art systems by providing an apparatus in which the performer is supported by a plurality of very fine, spaced apart wires that are substantially invisible to the audience,” until your postings. If fine wires were used previously in levitation, and I do know if they were or if they were not, I am sure its omission was simply an oversight in contrast to the implications of your testimony that “Johnny Gauhan [sic] is among people I can count on one hand that are historical go to's on magic and Illusion.” PLEASE LEAVE ME OUT OF FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS!. If you must please do it privately, not publicly. Richard(USA) |
|||||||||
collective foundry Inner circle 1404 Posts |
(anyone else confused by this last post??) Richard - I never "implied" anything about Johnny Gauhan's patent file I was simply answering your questions and comments from the previous post you made. On Flying: If you need to understand its differences just contact the creator and ask him. (His phone number is easily obtainable) or read a book on the subject. I've taken a great amount of my time and energy to try to intelligently respond to your questions - (although its been WAY off topic ) and giving you the information you seek. I really don't understand your last post as It makes no legible sense to me. You've been asked kindly to start a new post if you have off topic discussion. . .
|
|||||||||
paraguppie Elite user Forsyth Montana! 411 Posts |
Wow...The only post I can even agree with right now is the following...
"Paraguppie's post has been totally hijacked, seems to have gone from intelligent conversation and interesting observation to something else entirely." This is why I rarely post on here anymore. I simply wanted to pay a compliment to Taylor for his work on this prop, that's all, nothing more! But in true Café fashion a huge debate about NOTHING has been created from thin air. This happens just about anytime someone recieves a compliment on here. I find it amazing that a group of magi that claims to be a "brotherhood" is so cannibalistic. Taylor deserves kudos. I love this prop and can't wait to use it. I'll buy from him again, and that's the real message of my first post. Here is a guy in the magic world that I TRUST and will work with again. I hope you all can take THAT away from this mess. Keith
Check me out at www.magickeith.com
|
|||||||||
collective foundry Inner circle 1404 Posts |
Agreed. Cheers Keith. (and Taylor)
|
|||||||||
Hansel Inner circle Puerto Rico 2492 Posts |
I'm not an illusion guy but have plenty of knowledge on the subject ( I think )
In my opinion the T.Reed improvement take the illusion not one, not two, not three...hundreds of steps up the original version!
Follow Me...
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Hansels-Comedy-and-Magic-Show-929625643774678/ Youtube: HanselSP Twitter: @HanselSP Instagram: HanselSP |
|||||||||
profl New user 57 Posts |
I apologize, TaylorReed, for my sophomoric questioning of "gutting" Audience Dismember. I thank everyone for helping me to learn something. I was too wrapped up in the false notions that geniuses & artists create illusions, and that only years of study & analysis, expensive & elaborate factory-like workshops, the finest materials, and meticulous artistic ability could create an illusion for performance. All lessons I falsely learned on another topic.
It is clear to me now that the creators of Audience Dismember have a lot to learn about "substantial improvement" to it (Christopher Starr) & improving it "hundred of steps" more (Hansel). My false gods have clay feet & clearly a lot to learn about making great illusions. I'm not offering excuses for my false thinking, but I was influenced by some knowledge of antique and classic cars where any improvement over the original art would be a sacrilege for they are cherished for their beauty and not their speed. On first reading the post of Pakar Ilusi I didn't think (or I was thinking instead "off post"; sorry, but I'm hungry to learn): Quote:
I think the more important thing is how the effect plays to the Audience [than the illusion for it is only a prop, which] is really just a means to an end....[y]ou don't put it somewhere to be "looked at." (Pakar Ilusi) My reading last night of Percy Abbott, "There is no such thing as a bad [prop]" and Osborne "Look at Willard’s, Thurston’s, Houdini’s, Blackstone, Sr’s, or Dante's props…look close. In most cases up close you'll see bad wood, poorly painted, but what could do with their props entertained audiences for hours at a time," ignited Pakar Ilusi's post in my mind: Hey stupid, IT IS ABOUT MAGIC AND NOT THE PROP. Those Snappy illusions, if you can get delivery, have taken a quantum jump. The lesson I should have been learning is that the money you save by not buying high priced, high quality illusions is better spend on performance consultants, choreographers, lighting designers, music consultants, acting lessons, etc.: They all add more to the MAGIC than a mere prop. Richard(USA) |
|||||||||
JohnPizzi New user NJ 81 Posts |
Folks...here is my quick 2 cents.
Taylor gutted a Dismember for me and I have to say it went from a nice effect to a show-stopper. He is truly a professional who knows how to re create magic to a new height. I am happy to say he is giving in his ideas and A true pro as a performer,thinker and brother in Magic. I have the highest praise for a man like Taylor, and I am happy to have done business with him and hope to work out more ideas With him In the future. You can see a picture of his re creation on my Facebook page. Facebook.com/JohnPizzandAndy |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Grand illusion » » Taylor Reed Audience Dismember! (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 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 < |