Cyperqat I watched your demonstration of Tenyo's See Through Card on Stereo's blog site. It was a decent demonstration of this classic Tenyo prop. However I must admit I am a little confused. You have argued repeatedly that you do not feel Ghost lamp will be effective as the spectator will immediately assume the bulb is gaffed. What is the spectator thinking when you remove a strange clear folder that somehow reveals their card?

My not providing an ounce of justification for the folder surely they must assume it is a cute, puzzling novelty. I am not slamming your performance of the effect simply questioning if you feel it was an example of mystifying or amusing a spectator?

If we lined up 20 spectators and placed the See Through Card folder and the ghost lamp on a table and asked "Which one is a magician's prop?", I am sure the majority would say the folder. That is why unlike most Tenyo props I feel that Ghost Lamp at least has a fighting chance of creating some mystery with some framing around it.

Cheers,

John

The answer is two fold:

First, as Barry points out, the focus of the mystery is not on the folder. Rather, it is on the prediction. The folder is just used for a bit of added "punch" and to add drama. In fact, the see-through card part of the illusion doesn't even happen until after the card has been named and spectator thinks the illusion is over.

IF I simply pulled the folder out and said "look, I can combine the spots!" it would definitely be a weaker presentation.

Secondly, lots of things light up. Action at a distance is not a great mystery in today's world of $15.00 radio control toys. I have a pass in my pocket that unlocks my office door as I approach. I have lights outside my house that turn on when I approach as well. So there is nothing wondrous about a light bulb that turns on without an obvious cord and switch.

But printed spots don't migrate from one piece of plastic to another in everyday life. So that IS an astonishment moment. In that sense its an "aha" moment as I alluded to earlier. And I agreed with Barry that IF one could come up with an "aha" moment use for the ghost lamp it might fly better in my eyes. However, it is still a weaker aha moment because in of itself it is not astonishing. That is the core of my argument.

On the subject of props, the Ghost Lamp BECOMES a prop as soon as you make it the center of attention and show it doing anything unusual. You cannot avoid that. Focusing on whether it is an obvious prop or not is missing the actual issue. The issue is not that its an obvious prop. that's a magician's way of thinking. Real spectators don't care what is and isn't a "prop" so long as it does something astonishing.

The issue is that its obvious *technology* doing something everyone knows technology can do. And there is nothing astonishing in that. And that's why even as an "aha" it would be a weaker one.

I hope that helps.

JK

Thanks Cypergqat you confirmed my thoughts regarding your "reasoning".

Every point you use to justify the obvious magician prop "See Through Card" could be used to jutsify the Ghost Lamp. Don't kid yourself, the See Through card is an obvious prop doing the magic. If you wanted to "astonish" the spectator you would simply read her mind to reveal the selection.

I totally disagree JM. You seem to have totally ignored the technology and astonishment issue. Which IS the issue I raise.

But I'm not here to convince you. I think my opinion is solid and grounded. I think the reactions of my wife and Barry's 11 yr old confirm it.

And you are certainly free to have another opinion.

I totally agree with you, Cyberqat. I feel most people have no interest in tricks that involve a prop that obviously contains (or could contain) some "hidden technology". And by the way, I think this is the reason a lot of iPhone "APP tricks" don't work.

I think technology can be used to elevate good magic, but should not be the basis of the trick. An (old) example of how to do it right imo would be the Orange Tree Automata.

I'm shocked you totally disagree <g>

I think the real issue you are raising is trying to create "astonishment" and you believe that the ghost lamp will weaken the astonishment as the spectator will automatically assume the lamp is gaffed and hence no astonishment. Perhaps, but I am willing to bet otherwise and we can and have argued that ad nasuam.

Given your desire to create astonishment ( an admirable goal) I am am suprised that you feel a prop such as the See Through Card would add to that objective. I believe most would argue (and I am sure you will disagree) that introducing an obvious magicians "prop" such as that diminishes the ability to truly astonish. Amuse yes, astonish no. I will play your demo this evening for my wife and gage her reaction... perhaps I will be astonished by her reaction.

John

Nope, I don't agree that introducing an obvious prop dilutes astonishment.

Look at all the greats. Did you ever see Blackstone Junior perform? He had plenty of stuff on stage that not only looked like props but were painted up to accentuate that. Does a ZigZag astonish less because it is clearly a piece of magician's equipment? Does a sucker sliding die box suffer because no one has big 4-door boxes for an oversized die except a magician?

As I said, I believe this idea that props need to be completely in disguise is a bit of a magician's delusion (and peculiar to only some schools of illusionists.) I give the audience credit for some brains. If you are on a stage they know you've got props.

Things need to look like what they are supposed to be, which might be an innocent deck of cards or might be a ZigZag box depending on the illusion. But as long as the look supports the claims you make about the prop, that's all you need.

In the case of the See Through Card, all I claim is that its got a card prediction on it. And that's all that thus matters. Do they know there is a "trick" on some level? Ofcourse they do, assuming they are over the age of 6, they ALWAYS know there is a trick involved .

But I have never had anyone ask to handle the clear panels. I show it clear, put it away, and they are left satisfied with all their attention on the "impossible" the 5 spotted plastic card in their hand.

I ALSO think this is an interesting discussion, but a bit of a thread-jack. Its not the point I was talking about in starting this thread. The point was very specifically that wonders of technology by and large are not wondrous to a modern audience unless *heavily* disguised as something else.

If you wish to discuss further whether its necessary or important for props to look like everyday objects, you should start a new topic, please. I'll be happy to weigh in.

Not trying to high jack your thread just trying to understand your logic. In your mind it is OK for a spectaor to assume the prop did the magic as long as it is not technology related?

Interesting you brought up Harry Balckstone Jr. Yes I had the pleasure of seeing him several times. My favorite piece in the show (along with my friends) was the floating light bulb! Sure it could be dismissed as a battery operated bulb on a thread, but he infused it with a personality and it was one of the most emotional moments in the show. Not sure why you feel so strongly that a competent performer could not do the same on a smaller scale. As you stated above...

"But as long as the look supports the claims you make about the prop, that's all you need"

John

In order for astonishment to happen, the prop must do something which to the viewer is incongruent with their every day experience and defies their attempts to explain, yes?

In the case of the see-through card, the spots are transferred from the frame to the clear plastic plate. This is incongruent with how printed spots act and defies explanation (by most people.)

But with all the technological marvels around us today, something that is clearly technological has to do something VERY unusual to meet those goals. A lamp lighting is not incongruent with every day experience. A lamp lighting when something else is brought near isn't even incongruent with everyday experience. As I say, I have those at the front and back of my house, as many people do and certainly everyone has seen.

Electronic things being controlled remotely also is something you see every day at the mall.

Thus my wife's totally unastonished reaction. "Oh, its a trick bulb.: She couldn't tell you how to build one, but to her its no more astonishing then the door that opens automatically at the grocery store, which she also couldn't tell you how to build.

IMO this is the fundamental problem with magic that tips its hand as technology or even gets the spectator thinking about technology. Today common technology is just too powerful to leave much room for astonishment.

As for Blackstones bulb, which I agree was marvelous remember (a) he was performing that in an era before home computers cell phones, and so forth were common. Its was the end of the technologically illiterate age. and (b) that it lit wasn't a great surprise to anyone. That it FLEW was, and that's something people know today takes obvious propellers and/or noisy jet engines.

Again, it was incongruant with their experience. And thus astonishing.

Cyperqat you win... I give up. It was fun.

John

*bow*

I thank you for a stimulating discussion.

And you are quite the gentleman in laying down your king.

I salute you.


Posted: Oct 13, 2010 3:29pm
-------------------------------
So, this thread is pretty much over... but I just came across this and I think it's something that Barry and I would agree is a potentially effective use of technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6J5jxBznZM

It looks simple and mechanical and can even be examined. It doesn't bring up the idea of electricity or electronics in anyone's mind. I can still, as a techie, imagine some ways I'd pull this off but I think, if presented properly, the layman would be fooled. (Particularly with one suggestion I saw in a thread where you actually have them rest their fingers lightly on the plunger and make then think they somehow pushed it).