|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
ArielIllusionist New user 51 Posts |
Sorcerer (Loyal user), thanks again for the discussion. Your example above of the Mini Kub Zags, IMO, is not really related. These two illusions are exactly the same illusion. The only difference is the custom made design, colors and shape of the elements introduced—but Dan, who I know as probably you do, custom makes the same illusion for anyone. So, this is not exactly the argument being made above.
I think you may have misunderstood my point: "By 'totally unique and different' I meant that no other illusion was build like the Eye of Ra, and in principle it's similar to the Origami." That is, there's not another identical illusion like the Eye of Ra (EoR), since the builder only made this one. I did not mean that it does not share similar characteristics with another illusion, although I've said above the differences and you pointed out the similarities. In fact, I'm the one that originally said it works similarly and shares many similarities with the Origami, but it also shares differences. Yes, the EoR is the closest akin to the Origami, similar to the Modern Art and the Zig Zag or Zig Zag Lady, and even Sliced Man illusion (or perhaps Modern Art Reloaded). Would you attribute the same comment, "Your Eye of Ra is standing on the sharp edge of line which separates the inspiration from the copy" regarding Habin's Zig Zag and Modern Art? And although I've read in another thread in the Café that someone deemed them to be basically the same, I would not. Although they are akin to each other, look alike, but have enough nuances to call them different (as I've argued in my illustration above regarding car manufacturers and human vs an ape's look and characteristics). Having said this, however, the principle of the EoR and Origami of concealment appear in general in the Crystal Casket (w/o sword, spears, or blades of any kind and shape of the illusion), both principle and swords appear in the Sword Box by Chalet Magic and others, etc. This is what I meant by "And like the Eye of Ra and the Origami, many illusions work on the same principle. We can put pictures side-by-side all day look to prove this, but I'm sure that you know." I did not mean that we can find a number of illusions that share similar characteristics and look, but we do find many that share similarities in how the principle of concealment functions. You get the point. BTW, the term Origami (the Japanese art of paper folding), I believe, as the name of the illusion illustrates, is the process that is partly what makes this illusion unique (unlike the EoR that doe not fold anything) and mesmerizes people when this takes place. The illusion is incredible of hope it evolves (in reducing the space) by folding the parts leaving a small box. This is for the most part what caused me to love the Origami. Of course, the principle of the gimmick is shared by many other illusions, but how the Origami unfolds and presents the illusion is unique, which the EoR does not and cannot duplicate. BTW, the back of the EoR is there to hold the spears, swords, and blades, period. And it has the big eye of Ra. I guess you're not wanting me to say "unique and different" because in your view, you're interpreting it different than me. I retracted the term "totally" ;-) because it may be too strong, but by "unique and different" I mean no other illusion employs the mechanism the same as this one (all doors completely open, close and having doors itself unlike the origami), blades, swords, and spears all in one illusion, and only ONE WAS EVER BUILD to work and look exactly like the EoR. Surely, I think I have an argument for thinking I've used the words to illustrate my illusion correctly, since what I've define certainly fits the EoR. However, if by "unique and different" I would interpret it like you (i.e., that it has many similarities to that of the Origami), then, of course, I would be making your argument. I live and teach in the world of Hermeneutics (the Art and science of interpretation) in Seminaries and Universities. Hence, I think that partly what's gone on here is that we approached the same thing from different angles. Thanks again, and I appreciate your comments and stimulating thoughts, since our discussion has help me crystalize my thoughts much better. |
|||||||||
Sorcerer Loyal user 289 Posts |
You say your illusion is "unique and different" because it has opening/closing doors Many illusions have doors, that’s not an original concept. What makes origami unique, despite the obvious folding/unfolding box (present in other illusions like for example Woodbury’s Pandora Box), It’s it UNIQUE concealment method and body position (curiously shared by your Eye of Ra). This concealment method and body position is NOT present in “Crystal Casket” nor “Sword Box by Chalet Magic” as you state in your post, you know perfectly that… Can’t be more specific here to avoid exposure, but you know what I mean.
The comparison between zig-zag and modern art is clearly an example of inspiration. As can be read in “Modern art and other mysteries” Jim was inspired by many contemporary effects, one of them Harbin’s Zig Zag. But to speak of inspiration and not copy must be substantial differences, as are between Zig Zag and Modern Art: Cutting in half/in thirds, different body position, different fake body parts, the use of an additional table beside, and many more. Now that you mention it, “Sliced Man” is also standing on the sharp edge of line which separates the inspiration from the copy from “Modern Art”, as has been widely discussed in other forums (many consider it just a copy) That would be a perfect example: your “Eye of Ra” is to “Origami” the same that “Sliced Man” is to “Modern Art” BTW, is often said that oneself knows he has something original and different when others start copying you. Has someone copied your Eye of Ra concept? ArielIllusionist, I'm not interested in turning this into a daily dialogue. I have clearly stated my arguments, if you don’t want to see them, I can’t do anything else. Regards |
|||||||||
ArielIllusionist New user 51 Posts |
Sorcerer, I would point out various final comments (since I agree w/you that we do not want to make this into a daily "devotion"). 1) Many illusions have doors, like many use swords, spears, and blades, as the Origami that use blades. By your logic, because the EoR uses doors in the process of the performing the illusion's, and other illusions also use doors, therefore, my illusion cannot be called unique. Then, by that same logic the Origami uses blades, as others do, and another one folds origami style, as Woodbury's Pandora, then the Origami would not be unique. But you say it is, and so do I, but arrive at this conclusions by using different forms of reasoning, as you correctly point out: Canada's Gary Frenette builds the Woodbury's Pandora Box [WPB], which is described in his site as follows: ""This is Rand Woodbury's take on an Origami-like effect. It uses a completely different method, which I also changed somewhat. The result is a deceptive illusion. . . ." Obviously, this is similar to other illusions in the "principle" of how it conceals, but the position varies (vertical vs horizontal), but Gary admits it has an Origami-like effect. So, what we are left with at the final analysis in comparison of these two illusions (the O and the WPB) is the logic that suggests that the reason that WPB may be different than the Origami, because it does not look exactly the same and the "position of how" the lady is concealed is not the same in both. However, they do conceal based on similar principles (although the bodies may be positions differently) and both use the same origami effect of how both illusions evolve in the performing of them. 2) The mechanics of the EoR does not work "at all" like the Origami, as was discussed before. You also said, "The comparison between zig-zag and modern art is clearly an example of inspiration," which I agree, but so is the EoR. And if similarities disuade you agreeing w/me, how can you claim "inspiration" between MA and ZZ with such similarities?
I'm really not convinced by your argumentation, since I feel you're calling "inspiration" what you like and "copy" what you dislike. The evidence does not back you up as the similarities in what you would call "inspiration" between the MA and ZZ are also present in the EoR and O (see the pics). I tried adding a pic, like you, to show my point but upon attaching it, it would not come out. If you can tell me what I'm doing wrong I'll appreciate it. Again, thanks for the spirited discussion. |
|||||||||
Sorcerer Loyal user 289 Posts |
I realize you think all illusions which use B#s# are based on the same principle, and you don’t want see the important distinctive differences between each B#s#. This can’t be discussed in an open forum, but some B#s# can be a definitory element for one illusion, a kind of trademark that makes that illusion unique. Some may think a Zimmerman B#s# is the same as any other B#s# and can be copied freely for any illusion, but others think it’s not public domain.
The line between “inspiration” and “copy” is narrow, and sometimes is difficult distinguish between them. That’s the case of Eye of Ra, otherwise we would not be talking about it. If you feel better thinking you’ve got a super original illusion, it’s up to you, but that don't make others stop thinking there are much, really too much coincidences in your illusion with origami. If you want to ad a pic, please visit the FAQ section http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/faq.php#bbcode go to “Adding Images” |
|||||||||
ArielIllusionist New user 51 Posts |
Distinctive differences between B#s# do not change that they work on the principle of a B#s#. Surely, you know that you've just admitted this by your statement, don't you? A principle of an illusion is a principle of an illusion in how it functions, whether bigger, wider, or smaller, and some may even argue that it applies to horizontal or vertical. BTW, the EoR, based on your definition that "some B#s# can be a definitory element for one illusion, a kind of trademark that makes that illusion unique" would make it distinct since it's the B#s# is not based on the "season" (clue of what I wrote before), but different. A position of an assistant in B#s# cannot is not necessarily unique, since many illusions used similar principles with assistants positioned exactly the same.
You said, "The line between “inspiration” and “copy” is narrow, and sometimes is difficult distinguish between them." By whose definition, yours? Sorry, but this statement is a logical fallacy: "That’s the case of Eye of Ra, otherwise we would not be talking about it." Since when do people discussing something that they may not agree on, proves in itself (the discussion) the obvious point for one of the two parties discussing it? You again said, "If you feel better thinking you’ve got a super original illusion, . . ." Why deviate from your gentleman-like discussion we've been having now to "sarcasm" and "distortion" (which is what I perceive from your statement "super ordinal illusion")? Since I never said "super original" but "totally unique and different," then retracted the "totally" (which may be overstating the case) to "unique and different." And by the definition I've provided above, of the many differences between the EoRa and O. BTW, are you representing all illusionist? Who are these others? I know of "others" who do not agree with you. Why give names right (wink)? If you think that MA was inspired by ZZ and not a copy that was further nuanced and somewhat changed in various places, which I would agree, then my EoR is even more an inspiration and not a copy, since it has much more nuances than the MA that was inspired by the ZZ (see the pics below). The O folds and the EoR does not since it has 8 doors that open and three doors on the top that open. The O uses three swords and the EoR uses two swords, blades introduced in a slanted angle (something I quite don't remember seeing—the introduction at an angle like this) and spears introduced horizontally. The O does not have a top and the EoR does. The O, let me say, door, (you know the same color as the B#s# table) is one piece and the EoR folds in two. The O is never completely open, but the EoR can be completely opened (i.e., all 8 doors on the sides and three on the top). The O has the "season" (you know, which may be unique to the O), but the EoR does not. The shape of the O is square, and the EoR is not. The back of the O is glass, and the EoR is not. It simply has holders for the swords (introduced vertically), holders for the blades, and the spears. The back is filled with openings as you can see, and has the symbol of the illusion: the eye of Ra (an Egyptian pagan deity). If you call this, being a copy and not inspiration, than frankly, I don't see how you can call the MA an inspiration from the ZZ, as the pic and description of both are even more similar than the O and EoR. |
|||||||||
Oliver Ross Inner circle Europe 1724 Posts |
Hi everybody,
Though I'm not a real expert of illusions, I think the easiest way to get an answer to the question of "inspired by..." or "a copy" would be to get in touch with the original designer, inventor or creator of the illusion, in this case Jim Steinmeyer, and ask him directly. Jim Steinmeyer is a very busy guy, but very kind. I'm sure he would : first appreciate the fact that you call him or send him a mail and secondly be enough objective to give a honest answer to this eternal question. You could ask him aswell where he got inspired from while creating the Origami illusion. Just a little idea from someone who is very respectful to the ethics of magic. Oliver. |
|||||||||
ArielIllusionist New user 51 Posts |
Thanks Oliver. This is a kind suggestion, but in the thread above both Sorcerer and I agree that JS's MA is not a copy but a further development which appears to be inspired by the ZZ illusion. Note what I said. "If you think that MA was inspired by ZZ and not a copy that was further nuanced and somewhat changed in various places, which I would agree, then my EoR is even more an inspiration and not a copy, since it has much more nuances than the MA that was inspired by the ZZ." This link also appears to say that the MA was inspired by the ZZ, in order to overcome some of the various shortcoming of the ZZ.
"The Zig-Zag Girl illusion is a magic trick akin to the more famous sawing a woman in half illusion. In the Zig-Zag illusion, a magician divides his or her assistant into thirds, only to have the assistant emerge from the illusion at the end of the performance completely unharmed. Since its invention in the mid-1960s by magician Robert Harbin, it has been hailed as one of the greatest illusions ever invented due to both the apparent impossibility of the trick, and the fact that unlike many illusions it can be performed surrounded by spectators and withstand the scrutiny of audience members. Because of the manner in which the illusion is achieved, it is generally performed with a female assistant, and there are limitations on her height and weight. Some of these issues are overcome in Modern Art, an illusion created by Jim Steinmeyer." Case and point, are clearly seen by this above. Just see the following google as you will note a number of illusions that are based similarly on Robert Harbin's Zig Zag lady (https://www.google.com/search?q=Robert+Harbin's+zig+zag+lady&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=dnLTUqWJL5bMsQSbwIGgBw&ved=0CGcQsAQ&biw=1340&bih=696) __________ Also, it's recorded in http://www.geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/Modern_Art Modern Art is a Sawing a woman in half type stage illusion created by Jim Steinmeyer.[1] Similar to the Zig-Zag Girl (but with only two sections), an assistant enters a small upright cabinet to later be split at the waist. As the top half moves to one side, their face, hand and feet remain visible. Doors on both halves are opened, revealing them cut in half. Conceived in 1974, an early drawing of the concept is what got Steinmeyer "in the door" to working with Doug Henning. It was later performed by The Pendragons.[2] The history and plans for the illusion are in Steinmeyer's book, Modern Art and Other Mysteries (1995). Just to clarify, in no way are we saying that JS copied ZZ but was appears to be inspired by it, since it's mentioned w/ZZ in most description of the illusion, and frankly, by looking at the pics above one can see that they are cousins, far enough not to be "brothers" but similar enough to be related "cousins." |
|||||||||
Sorcerer Loyal user 289 Posts |
Quote:
On 2014-01-15 05:36, Oliver Ross wrote: Thanks for your contribution Oliver, you've highlighted an important point. Jim Steinmeyer explained this question in his book "Modern Art and Other Mysteries". Just after the author's introduction the book starts whith a "Background" chapter in which all influences and evolution from the first designs to the very popular known actual illusion are widely discussed in words and pics. I'll transcribe one paragraph, which mentions Zig Zag: "Believe it or not, the basic illusion is something I created over twenty years ago. The effect was a goal I set for myself, but my inspirations were many contemporary effects, not the least of which was Harbin's popular "Zig-Zag Girl." The first version of my effect was hammered together in my basement in 1974. In the process I learned a lot about illusions. And I made a lot of mistakes." Then continues explaining the next steps and influences in development of Modern Art. The entire chapter is quite interesting, but if someone wants to read all, should buy the book As Oliver has stated it would be nice to know the opinion of the other part implied, David Robinson, builder of the Eye of Ra. BTW ArielIllusionist, I see you're a professional debater, "super original" was just another way of saying "totally unique and different" if you are offended by my terms as impolite, sarcasm and distortion, I change my phrase: If you feel better thinking you’ve got a totally unique and different illusion, it’s up to you, but that don't make others stop thinking there are much, really too much coincidences in your illusion with origami (And to save you having to answer, I'll also say that there may be someone who think yours is a different illusion) |
|||||||||
ArielIllusionist New user 51 Posts |
Sorcerer, I just spoke to David Robinson, who is a personal friend of mine. He's far too busy now to get involved in this discussion, and frankly, so am I, but here's what he said—paraphrasing him.
First, David build the EoR for himself, not to reproduce and sell it. I bought it from him, as his friend, since I also fell in love w/it. And frankly, after having this entire discussion, I don't think I want to sell it anymore, since it is "unique and different" Second, he was "inspired" by various illusions: 1) Cutting a woman in half (blades and doors opening part of it), 2) a special Spiker that he build for himself and has which one can open and see compartments of the spears going through rather than pushed all the spikes at once, but individual spears inserted one at a time and 3) the Origami. I have bought numerous illusions from David, as you can see that he sells a number of them on Magic Auction, and all of his illusions a EXTREMELY well build. My EoR is build like a tank. Remember, he build this for himself. Oh, and he's an American builder—of course, which means his props are not build like the cheap Chinese knock-off that I believe you nor I would be in favor of supporting. I don't know if you saw me performing it, but you can find it at the end of this promo clip—for what it's worth. This may persuade you to think the EoR was inspired from the O like the MA was inspired by the ZZ, or not ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFFWoW6DU6o Thanks again for this interested and eye-opening discussion. It has certainly made me sharper, as iron sharpens iron. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Grand illusion » » Rights and builder of Copperfields Dividing a Lady (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 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 < |