New Tenyo Elite! Zig Zag Cig in Wood!

[Jonathan Townsend]

If the too obvious theory correctly leads an average audience to suspect the props (to wonder how intricate are the internals of a cube-a-libre or Tenyo item? ) then there's something wanting as far as magic goes. Somehow items like Harbin's zigzag and Jarret's boxes (Steinmeyers items these days?) seem to work.

If the audience can follow and report the effect yet have no clue about the method (guessing sleight of hand after seeing the scotch and soda trick for example) then it's likely a magic item.

However beautifully made is it really deceptive? Do the props fade into background behind the magical effect?

No matter how "entertaining" we need to distinguish the dancer, comic or juggler who use magic shop props from the magician in that the audience registers the magic items, ie the tricks work.

Still very impressive craftsmanship and design. Not sure about magic though.

Whether a magic shop offers juggling clubs, UNO packs or doll house furniture is outside the issue here.

[Tom Stone]

If a non-magician can buy it at a toy store it's a toy.

I think we're going to need a precise definition of non-magician and toy store. When you're done with those:

1) What is it if a magician can buy it at a toy store?
2) What is it if a non-magician can buy it at a magic store?

What is it when a set designer/scenographer buys 60 of them, paints them silver and glues them on a wall on the set of a science-fiction movie?
What would the difference be if were curtain rings instead?

If you use it as a toy - it is a toy.
If you use it as prop - it is a prop.
If you use it as a detail in a scifi movie set - it is a detail in a scifi movie set.

[Jonathan Townsend]

...
If you use it as prop - it is a prop.
...

If it works in a magic trick (is deceptive - they don't know where to start for method) then it's a magic item.

[Tom Stone]

...
If you use it as prop - it is a prop.
...

If it works in a magic trick (is deceptive - they don't know where to start for method) then it's a magic item.

I don't know any item that performs itself just beacuse someone is looking. Those are more puzzles or optical illusions. If handling is required, then it is a prop. Or a toy. Or something else. Magic items does not exist.

[Brad Henderson]

Isn't the conclusion of "sleight of hand" as equally non MAGICAL as "the prop did it?" In either case there is no magic, ie supernatural, happening - only a demonstration of someTHING - a toy, a skill. The scotch and soda example seems to suggest that as long as the audience guesses wrong, it's magic. What then of the magician who uses skill and sleight of hand to convey the illusion that a rare object possesses mysterious powers, or that objects placed under a cup vanish. In these cases, the goal is for the audience to believe the magic occurs in and because of the prop/device/talisman - does that make it less magic?

So does the necessity of the prop, or the giving of credit to the prop, destroy the condition of magic?

When audiences witnessed early automata, both real and false, were they any less magical because the audience knew they were accomplished by clockworks - does that change whether or not clockworks really were at work?

[Jonathan Townsend]

...What then of the magician who uses skill and sleight of hand to convey the illusion that a rare object possesses mysterious powers, or that objects placed under a cup vanish. ...

If the audience smells sleight of hand - it's skill. If they feel they know when you did it - it's sneaky. If they look to the props - it's fine craftsmanship. The magic got lost in performance.

Automata beg a different question: what distinguishes behavior from sentient being?

[Tom Stone]

...What then of the magician who uses skill and sleight of hand to convey the illusion that a rare object possesses mysterious powers, or that objects placed under a cup vanish. ...

If the audience smells sleight of hand - it's skill. If they feel they know when you did it - it's sneaky. If they look to the props - it's fine craftsmanship. The magic got lost in performance.

That is how rational beings would think, but those doesn't exist - just like Gremlins, Fairies, Elves and Eskimos.
Most of us are to some degree human beings, and humans are prone to believe anything to be real.
Big Ben breaks down in London. Uri Geller calls the papers and apologizes. And a bunch of people believed him - did they insist on examining the clock?

Point being, if a human perform something with any kind of prop, other human beings will assume it is the performer, not the prop, that is special. Except when it is someone that is known, and is known to not have special abilities, then the focus is on the prop.
Humans are magic. Props are props.

[AJM]

It is indeed an interesting discussion although it all comes down to a matter of taste / opinion.

A few (random) thoughts from me: -

1.
Not quite sure what the purpose of defining different types of shops or shoppers will serve however - surely a creative magician will see potential props in items he or she encounters anywhere, whether toy shops, magic stores or any other type of shop.

2.
I've been bitten by the Tenyo bug fairly recently so still unearthing a number of treasures - so far, however, there are some items that I would perform for spectators and others I wouldn't. Might be because of the prop itself or because I don't feel it's suited to me.

3.
I'm conscious that Tenyo produce their items for their domestic (mass) market - nothing wrong with that if it encourages a proportion of purchasers to learn more about magic. After all toy shops, department stores and bookshops here will stock some magic related items for the general public, whether it be magic sets, Marvins tricks or books.

4.
Now, I like Tenyo items and others don't - that's perfectly fine.
I didn't at all like Real Secrets items although others swear by them - that's fine too.
However this also triggered a thought.
Tenyo items are magic items that are available to the mass market.
Real Secrets items are items (note I never said 'magic') available only to those magicians who subscribe as members.
Now, which of the two, Tenyo or Real Secrets, would you consider produce truly magical props that can be successfully used in a performance setting? For example, is a plastic prop more authentic in a performance environment than, say, a number of false looking store receipts (I mention this latter 'prop' as I recall a version appeared in Genii as a free gift).
My money would be on Tenyo every time, although I appreciate that this is just my own opinion.

Just my own thoughts on what is an interesting topic.

Regards

Andrew

[Richard Kaufman]

Someone should raise the circumstance of Ricky Jay performing Robert-Houdin's Blooming Orange Bush.

Why is this construed as magic by the audience versus a narrator introducing a clockwork mechanism which is then demonstrated?

[Pete McCabe]

Isn't the conclusion of "sleight of hand" as equally non MAGICAL as "the prop did it?" In either case there is no magic, ie supernatural, happening - only a demonstration of someTHING - a toy, a skill. The scotch and soda example seems to suggest that as long as the audience guesses wrong, it's magic.

Thank you, Brad. This has always been my biggest problem with the Too Perfect Theory. It seems to be based on the idea that if the audience thinks they know how you did the trick and they are right, that's bad, but if they think they know how you did the trick and they are wrong, that's great.

The problem is that there is no difference to the audience. They think they know how it was done. They don't know if they are right or wrong. So it seems to me that followers of the Too Perfect Theory, in trying to avoid the possibility of "audience thinks they know and are right", instead creates the certainty of "audience thinks they know and are wrong". And this destroys the magic.

[Brad Henderson]

I kinda thought my reference to automata would have raised that question re orange tree's and the like. I guess next time I will type harder.

[Tom Pilling]

If the too obvious theory correctly leads an average audience to suspect the props (to wonder how intricate are the internals of a cube-a-libre or Tenyo item? ) then there's something wanting as far as magic goes. Somehow items like Harbin's zigzag and Jarret's boxes (Steinmeyers items these days?) seem to work.

If the audience can follow and report the effect yet have no clue about the method (guessing sleight of hand after seeing the scotch and soda trick for example) then it's likely a magic item.

However beautifully made is it really deceptive? Do the props fade into background behind the magical effect?

No matter how "entertaining" we need to distinguish the dancer, comic or juggler who use magic shop props from the magician in that the audience registers the magic items, ie the tricks work.

Still very impressive craftsmanship and design. Not sure about magic though.

Whether a magic shop offers juggling clubs, UNO packs or doll house furniture is outside the issue here.

Very well put, Jonathan. If I had a gold star to award, you would be the recipient. I think Tom S. is making a similar point vis a vis usage. Maybe he gets a gold star too.

Tom, take note of what Jonathan says: "However beautifully made is it really deceptive? Do the props fade into background behind the magical effect?". Isn't that something you'd concur with?

[Brad Henderson]

del Rey's bird was a toy - and look at what he did with it. little willie - toy or magic?

[Richard Kaufman]

Little Willie was magic. Get the cheese, Little Willie!

[Tom Stone]

Tom, take note of what Jonathan says: "However beautifully made is it really deceptive? Do the props fade into background behind the magical effect?". Isn't that something you'd concur with?

The prop maker is seldom a performer, and even more seldom clairvoyant enough to know what my intentions with the props are. I've put my Dremel into both plastic props and expensive wooden props, in order to make my handling more deceptive. I've stripped off decorative decals that have called the wrong kind of attention to the props. Things have been sanded off, other things repainted in different colors.

So, yes, in some ways I concur with what you quote from Jonathan. But I don't agree to the notion that it has to remain like that. The prop have to be adapted to your handling, not the other way around. In your performance, you should be in control, not the prop maker.

[Tom Pilling]

I agree with you, Tom. I think we're slightly at cross purposes here. You are saying that when something is used successfully as a prop, then its definition changes. I agree.

Jonathan is saying, make sure that the performance ensures the prop is not upper most in peoples' minds.

You are emphasising different aspects of what makes a good performance.

[Jonathan Townsend]

make sure that the performance ensures the prop is not upper most in peoples' minds ->

as obvious explanation for the trick which takes them out of experiencing the mystery behind the magical effect.

imagine a show where the performer casts no shadow at the start of the act and later in the act a shadow appears, and acts independently of the performer. Not a bad premise for an act on stage, IMHO.


***


***


***

Okay - now imagine that same act but you can clearly see the projector on stage and the performer counting out cues. When you take away the mystery what's left is (on a good day) craft.

[Tom Pilling]

I'm not sure that analogy works when applied to Tenyo, other than in our eyes. But I like your thinking.

[Richard Kaufman]

Jonathan, that makes no sense in this context.

[Pete McCabe]

Which would you rather see: an average magician doing the zombie ball, or a master puppeteer?

[Tom Stone]

imagine a show where the performer casts no shadow at the start of the act and later in the act a shadow appears, and acts independently of the performer. Not a bad premise for an act on stage, IMHO.
...
Okay - now imagine that same act but you can clearly see the projector on stage and the performer counting out cues. When you take away the mystery what's left is (on a good day) craft.

I completely agree. But you seem to have bestowed these people in your example with a static and unchangeable mindset.
Once they discover that the mystery is gone and they only have craft left... why don't they add mystery back again?

[erdnasephile]

make sure that the performance ensures the prop is not upper most in peoples' minds ->

as obvious explanation for the trick which takes them out of experiencing the mystery behind the magical effect.

imagine a show where the performer casts no shadow at the start of the act and later in the act a shadow appears, and acts independently of the performer. Not a bad premise for an act on stage, IMHO.

Okay - now imagine that same act but you can clearly see the projector on stage and the performer counting out cues. When you take away the mystery what's left is (on a good day) craft.

Agreed.

I showed a layperson an analogous routine done at the EMC on video. The response was just "Meh" because the methodology was so apparent to them.

IMHO, no matter how artful, skillful, entertaining, clever, or beautiful a performance is--if it doesn't fool them, it isn't magic.

To Tom's last point though: adding the mystery back, while essential, is made harder I think by some props. If the words "Super Magic Box" are stamped on the front of the prop, along with "made by Mattel", one would have to take several additional steps if you wish to present it as an inexplicable mystery. (It's like openly exchanging gaffed decks after each separate effect in a close-up set).

That's not to say it can't be done (and done well--indeed, I saw Mike Skinner at Lilly Langtry's do precisely the latter once). It's just seems like your needs, desires and characteristics as a performer should ideally dictate the props you use, not vice versa.

Therefore, if you have to constantly fight the prop to develop a presentation appropriate to your character, why use it? Instead, maybe it's best to find one that already feels like magic to you, and develop it instead?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Which would you rather see: an average magician doing the zombie ball, or a master puppeteer?

It seems that we've agreed a few times on other threads that the puppeteer, especially a ventriloquist tops the magician for audience response, as a general statement. The Del Ray bird and mouse examples seem to serve here.

@E* check out the premise of "roadside picnic". Found objects with odd properties.

It's not about what you feel but what affects audiences. Magic has a component of deception and a component of eliciting a sensation of mystery when thinking about "how it was done".

For this trick what we'd want is not "I wonder what flaps or slidy things are in that box, let me pry it open and find out" but "let me look at that cigarette!" I did not and still don't imagine sensible adults will go for the wrong prop when it comes to the zigzag cigarette trick. Has anyone here gotten "truly deceived" responses where folks were really looking up your sleeves and talking about nanotech paper etc?

The just-so story (see bizarrist section) for a prop is fine for a discussion of presentation. As is the engaging manner and rhetorical mastery... but those things are not themselves what distinguishes our craft from public speaking, comedy or drama. Does the trick fool anyone? Reliably? Is it practical to perform? I recall one version of the cut and restored hank that actually cut the hank. Not quite what one wants for table hopping or when preferred a pocket hank. Cute for magicians or youtube though.

[Richard Kaufman]

To perhaps drag this topic back to my opening post. I've had some time to play with and perform the wooden Tenyo Elite version of this trick and it feels very nice. It's like holding a well-made pen rather than a Bic. Very glad to have it.

[erdnasephile]

...It's not about what you feel but what affects audiences...

If a performer feels that a trick is non-fooling, transparent, or cheap looking can he really perform it to its potential?

I think having props and accessories that you believe in can help one project confidence and thereby improve performance. I've heard the same sentiment expressed by the guys I run with--feeling good about your equipment is a useful thing come marathon morning. You gotta' be able to trust your tech.

The counter argument would be Eugene Burger's experience of performing a trick he did not like (sponge balls), yet got screams. From his writings though, it seems he eventually came to at least tolerate them.

PS: Richard--glad you like the prop. Did they need to use any type of lubrication or add extra clearance to the pieces to get the wood pieces to slide well? Wouldn't the wood rubbing together over and over cause wear to the finish eventually?

[Jonathan Townsend]

...It's not about what you feel but what affects audiences...

If a performer feels that a trick is non-fooling, transparent, or cheap looking can he really perform it...

it's called acting.

I've had some time to play with and perform the wooden Tenyo Elite version of this trick and it feels very nice. It's like holding a well-made pen rather than a Bic. Very glad to have it.

In the performing arts it's about the audience. If it works for them ... it works.

[Tom Stone]

In the performing arts it's about the audience. If it works for them ... it works.

I hear that being said so often like it is the top rung of the ladder. It's not, it's the bottom rung. Once you managed to safely reach the first rung and get control over that, the rest of the rungs are all about the performer.

Performing arts are to 99% about the performer. It is even hinted in the name: "Performing" art - not "Audience" art.

However, I'm happy that Richard is satisfied with his Tenyo item!

[Richard Kaufman]

The wood is treated with some type of oil (specified in the instructions) and you are advised to reapply once in a while.

It works very smoothly, and contrary to what might seem intuitive (that the wood would work less well over time), wood actually becomes smooth with less friction over time.

[erdnasephile]

...It's not about what you feel but what affects audiences...

If a performer feels that a trick is non-fooling, transparent, or cheap looking can he really perform it to its potential?...

it's called acting.

(Original quoted in full for context)

Most magicians aren't good actors.

Besides, IMHO, life's too short to spent time performing tricks you don't care for.

[Jonathan Townsend]

In the performing arts it's about the audience. If it works for them ... it works.

I hear that being said so often like it is the top rung of the ladder. It's not, it's the bottom rung. Once you managed to safely reach the first rung ...

Let me know when we get there. Still looking at the box the ladder comes in.

[Brad Jeffers]

I also think of the "elite" wooden Tenyo items as "magic toys", albeit fancier, much more expensive ones.

If you think about it, isn't this version also a magic toy, albeit extremely fancier and extremely much more expensive ...


...

[gaz pratley uk]

I must say,that zig zag cig elite does look very nice indeed but in my opinion is a very wasted opportunity remember this is just my opinion but of all the tricks they could have made in elite form,they chose zig zag cig. I can buy a knock off of this trick for less than a fiver at my local magic trick shop and every kid in my street knows how the trick works,it has been far too over exposed in my opinion. I personally would have liked to see ultra tube,black hole or Tod perhaps.. but just my view. gaz.

[Jonathan Townsend]

...

If you think about it, isn't this version also a magic toy, albeit extremely fancier and extremely much more expensive ...

and deceptive. I've see the looks on people's faces when they realize the hand, "tummy" and foot belong to the person inside the box.

[AJM]

Here is a Toy Shop that sells magic tricks - some certainly Tenyo-esque - does that make it a Magic Shop or a Toy Shop?

And who are it's customers??

http://www.grand-illusions.com/acatalog ... ricks.html

[Richard Kaufman]

It would not be possible to make "Ultra Tube" out of wood unless it was very large.