Let history be the judge. The "Saw in Half Trick" looks more of a magic trick. It was performed in theaters in front of many adults. Now look how much it became popular. It is all about the presentation. The strait jacket is realistic. If presented correctly, adults will like the act.

Imagine an adult magician performing inside of a theater dressed as a kid wearing a beanie on his head. And imagine him using colorful kid tricks. Imagine him being creative and cooky like Jay Sankey. Imagine the audience was all adults. That guy can become popular if he used the right presentation for being really funny, using the correct theme and bringing the adults back to their childhood times because he would be the first one doing it. Remember people want to see something different. I would not focus on how the audience sees the props when it comes to magic. I would focus on how the audience sees the magician presenting the magic with the props.

Just like cartoons. People thought cartoons were just for kids in the past. Producers put "The Simsons" on television for the adults. Look how many years those episodes have been running.

When it comes to mentalism, now we are looking at a different category. Mentalism was brought up to take a different turn from magic. Mentalism is more for adults. The props look realistic and natural.

In the modern world of magic, I think we are delusional if you don’t consider the looks of props we use. Mike touched on something here as well. The age of the audience also plays into this. For example, for my high school/college show my props are very organic looking. The reason for this is that my style and persona dictates that I need props that are not flashy, and disarming. I have found that youth in this age group, looks at a magician differently then when they are older and less guarded. At the age of youth, most likely the only magician they have seen has been at a birthday party when they were in their pre-teens. In order to capture their attention and dispel any pre-concaved notions about magicians, I keep my arsenal organic and true to my performance style. This works for me, and may not for others. There is no right or wrong as long as it works for you and your audience, but I do feel you need to think about it and know what works for you in this modern age of magic.

I feel, does it really matter if your prop looks like an every day article or a maic prop?

People have come to your show to be entertained, providing you do that, they will go away, hopefully, scratching their heads, with a smile on their face. I don't think the discussion over their cup of coffee when they get home will even touch on the props you have used.

Your presentation is what makes a good magic show. Not the props. Vanishing a lit cigarette via a thumb tip, can often impress a lay person more than say David Copperfield flying across the stage. They know David can't really fly, but where the hell did that lit cigarette go?

My thoughts.

Dave Boyd
magic Mountain's Mr. Magic

Dave, it does matter if you the performer prefer props that are more common place then not that is up to the performer I feel. You are right it is the presentation and talent of the performer that makes the show, however the looks of what you are presenting I feel does make a difference in dis-arming an audience. A TT is a gimmick I did not think we were talking gimmicks here only props the audience sees.

For example, you pull out a sward and stab a card. Yep everyone has a sward laying around right.. Maybe many many years ago but not today. Compare that to pulling out a rat trap and catching a card. What prop does today's audience relate better with, a sward or a rat trap.
You have a devils hank, all shinny and sparkles or you have something that looks like a dish towel or is just plan sold color. What prop is going to dis-arm the audience more. A red change bag on a stick or a baseball cap?

Again it comes down to the performer and what they require out of a prop. However to say there is no difference is simply not realistic to me as a performer.

I was in theater in college, the art department would always say, it looks like the real thing 10 feet away. One of the students from the art department would say, I want it too look real inches away. I thought he was mad for thinking this, but I was wrong. Today he is one of the most sought after stage designers. Sometimes the old way of thinking needs to make room for those who prefer something different.


Floyd

Floyd,

I think Dave's assertion was that it doesn't matter, so long as the performer can justify it. Although while he's on a good path of thinking, I'm not sure that he has a complete grasp of his side of the debate. I don't think he was laying out a rule that says ANY performer could use ANY prop, and have it work successfully within the framework of their own show. But, he does understand that the performer makes the prop.

Using one of your examples, swords may not be carried around by everyone, but everyone knows what they are and they are in fact fairly common within certain circles, even if we don't run in them. A bottle of Dom Perignon would be extremely commonplace to some people, but a bottle of Bud Lite might suit another performer, and a bottle of water for yet another.

Granted, those examples note items that do have a real world connection, but the same could still be said for the unusual props. What about a performer who would elect to use a bottle of witch's potion? Hardly commonplace, but hardly off the charts either.

Who is to say what is or isn't commonplace within the performer's world? This includes the fact that the performer's world may also be complete fantasy. Motion pictures rely on this fact all the time... and quite successfully, too. Fantasy and science fiction incorporate devices within the framework of their stories all the time that are unlike ANYTHING ever imagined.

The only thing that must be done is to present a foundation of logic that allows the audience to willingly go along for the ride. Look at Disney World. People get on devices that don't look like anything else on the planet. Their concerns are not that the apparatus is inconsistent with their own world. They do so for a more complete view of the bigger picture.

Why should a magic show be any different? Magic is complete fantasy, so logic would dictate that the rules concerning what is "normal" and what is not can be bent severely without breaking the character of the show.

The only real determining factor is whether or not the performer understands what he is doing, and if he is able to artfully communicate that to the audience. The only argument against non-magic looking props is not against the props themselves, but that some performers suck at using them.

~michael

We seem to continue to ignore the simple fact that the audience will see what's there and not what we think is there. They will see the whole entire picture: the performer, the persona, the props, the pacing, everything. And that's what they will base their response on.

When I was a kid starting out, and I built my props, I believed (boy, did I BELIEVE) that my props looked like Magic Equipment. Years later, I realized they looked like cheap crap made by a kid. That, plus my lack of understanding what I was doing, made my whole "act" (if you could call it that) look like it didn't even make it to Amateur Hour. I probably, single-handedly, contributed truckloads to the general idea that magic should not be taken seriously.

The prop needs to look appropriate to the performer, the show itself, and the overall presentational style. Just like in theater and the movies, the "story" (what you're saying to the audience, whether it's a real "story" or not) is what determines the physical look of the overall product. Aside from that, it's wide open.

Keeping it real, I have to argue that the biggest factor in the selection of magical props is not the story or the style of magic or the show or what the spectators want but rather what some Magician thinks is awesome to own and exciting to perform with and what objects they derive pleasure from presenting to the audience. Maybe even what objects they just like to sit on the shelf and look at and imagine that they could perform with some day. This is why certain magicians even right here on the Café are obsessed about beautiful chop cups (you know who you are) or Richard Hughes feather flowers or Todd Lassen gaff coins or Rick Roth book tests or whatever have you. I should know, I'm one of them. You guys are totally right about the show needing to determine the physical look of the overall product but that ain't what's driving prop selection.

Michael, I agree with what you have said, and strongly agree with your last statement but that can be said for magic looking props and non magic looking props alike. In the wrong hands anything can look bad, that is a given with any art.

It truly comes down to the performers prospective on what they use to entertain, and the type of audience they are performing for.

George, thanks for the story, it does bring back memories of my youth and the crap I made up. Lucky for me, I had a young professional mentor who loaned me his props for my first stage show at 13 and it included a top hat to catch the multiplying balls in, go figure.

Bill thanks for keeping it real..

Yes, of course... and that is the point of the OP, which I see as a justifiable rebuttal against those who would denounce the so-called "magic-looking props". Those who take up arms against such props are fighting the wrong battle.

[quote]On 2012-01-24 06:43, aceofharts wrote:
Dave, it does matter if you the performer prefer props that are more common place then not that is up to the performer I feel. You are right it is the presentation and talent of the performer that makes the show, however the looks of what you are presenting I feel does make a difference in dis-arming an audience. A TT is a gimmick I did not think we were talking gimmicks here only props the audience sees.

For example, you pull out a sward and stab a card. Yep everyone has a sward laying around right.. Maybe many many years ago but not today. Compare that to pulling out a rat trap and catching a card. What prop does today's audience relate better with, a sward or a rat trap.
You have a devils hank, all shinny and sparkles or you have something that looks like a dish towel or is just plan sold color. What prop is going to dis-arm the audience more. A red change bag on a stick or a baseball cap?

Floyd,
I don't disagree with using everyday objects as props in a show. Far from it. I have many kids shows, each depending on the age bracket I will be performing to. I also have adult shows. Each calls for their own items I perform. I wouldn't do say mindreading for pre-schools for example, any more than I would have Ringo, a puppet that keeps popping out of his box interupting me. But I would use a pair of duck boxes in each show. dissapearing from one box into the other on opposite sides of the stage. I would also use a Dove Pan in both types of shows, using differeent loads and patter. Probably 70% of my props would fall into every day objects.

But taking your premise of props needing to look every day items I would not be using either of the aove examples. OK half barrels, used for the duck boxes could be called everyday objects? but who has a couple hanging around their home. (So are they every day objects.) how about a Dove Pan, Sure it's a cooking pan, but how many people would have one like that in their cupboard? (every day object) So should they be dropped from the show, regards of how well they play?

My best year I gave 403 performances, most of them repeat bookings. My yardstick is do you achieve your purpose of entertaining the audience are just as importantly is the feed back to the booker such, that they wish to re-book you. Another important point is to have enough magic to be able to perform back at the same venue, for three years without repeating the same show.

Lastly I had a look at your site, liked some of your videos, I would suggest to those new to magic and for that matter many not so new to magic. Your handeling on the bandana video would give a steep learning curve on patter and how to get a lot out of little.

Now, your thumb cuffs card trick. Does that break your own rule? I wonder how many would see or even have heard of thumb cuffs, let along see them as evey day objects. Dies that take way from the magic? I think not. The same applies to their big brothers the shackles. No they are not every day objects, but boy, in the right hands they give your audience a great laugh, and a little mystery. Hense in my first post, Is it so important what you use as a prop. I feel too many magicians need to feed their ego, "Look how cleveer I am" (I do not include you in this statement)We are entertainers first, our only difference is we use magic as part of that entertainment. If this meens I use something that is not familier to the masses, so be it.

P/S The TT was only used as an example of how a simple thing can blow away a audience against a huge illusion. Gimmick, Gimmicket Prop, are we splitting hairs?

Dave, Magic Mountain's Mr. Magic.

Sorry about the typos in the above, my only excuse is its gone midnight here, and I need to go to bed.

In the above it should have read.

I wouldn't do say mindreading for pre-schools for example, any more than I would have Ringo, a puppet that keeps popping out of his box interupting me.(In an adult show)

Again sorry for the typos etc.

Good Night, I'm off to bed.
Dave