Al Schneider wrote: Glenn, your words hurt me. But let me explain with an analogy.
That is something I don't want to do Al is hurt you.
Al Schneider wrote:I am a computer guy. When the computer graphics began, I was entranced. I went to a movie theater that displayed one graphic demonstration after another. One was a lion prowling. Another was birds flying to music. These little clips were displayed one after another. I was enthralled. However, after fifty or more of them, I began to tire. I wanted them to go somewhere. I wanted a story.
Computer graphics and special effects can dazzle the eyes, but they do little to improve the content.
Al Schneider wrote:
No one can deny the importance of computer graphics in our society today. It is part of the significant material we watch everyday. That is, computer graphics has become the core or bedrock for stories told.
I see magic technology that way. The stronger the magic technology, the stronger the magic show. The presentation/story is important. However, it depends upon the support of solid magic. If the magic is not there, you just have a story.
My point of view is that magic "Is" the story.
Al Schneider wrote:
Note that I am not disagreeing with you. I think I am refining the point of view.
Not to re-hash, the point of view is an entertainer point of view and very old school. The audience doesn't care if the dove is produced from a silk (taking skill) or a dove pan (no skill). Only magicians care about the technical side of things. The audience is just there to be entertained.
However as a magician I find that the stronger the magic technology, the stronger the magic show is as well. As long as the "effect of magic" happens in the mind of the audience. And it gets the audience reaction I am after. I don't do any magic that I like that the audience doesn't like. Things that are overly technical to service my own personal ego of how skilled I am. That isn't my goal.