Real-Life X-Files (43 page)

Even if I am wrong about the implications of the surface damage in the corners, the hypothetical scenario I have sketched remains a valid explanation, since it would be possible to attach an overlay without such damage. (One version of the trick calls for tacks to be used to attach the blank sheet [Gibson 1967].) Given thee vidence, the painting of “Azur”—indeed the entire bodyof spirit paintings, like other physical spiritualistic phenomena—can scarcely be taken as proof of a transcendent realm.

References

“Campbell Brothers.” n.d., Album, Lily Dale Museum.

Carrington, Hereward. 1920.
The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism.
New York: American Universities,220–23.

Coates, James. 1911.
Photographing the Invisible
, n.p. [USA]: Advanced Thought.

Doyle, Arthur Conan. [1894] n.d. [1930]. “Silver Blaze,” in
Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes
, reprinted in
The Complete Sherlock Holmes
, Garden City, N.Y.: Garden City Books.

Gibson, Walter. 1967.
Secrets of Magic: Ancient and Modern
. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 138–39.

Houdini, Harry. [ 1924] 1972.
A Magician Among the Spirits.
Reprinted New York: Arno.

Jackson, Dorothy. 1975. Lily Dale-spiritualism center in Chautauqua County, “Campbell Brothers,” n.d.

Mullholland, John. [1938] 1979.
Beware Familiar Spirits.
Reprinted New York:

Nickell, Joe. 1995.
Entities.
Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus.

Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. 1999.
Crime Science.
Lexington: Univ. Press of Kentucky, 177, 178.

Permutt, Cyril. 1988.
Photographing the Spirit World.
Wellingborough, England:

Podmore, Frank. 1902.
Modern Spiritualism.
London: Methuen.

Prendergast, Emma, et al. 1898. Text given in a brochure,
Spirit Painting: Azur
. Lily Dale, N.Y.: Lily Dale Historical Society, n.d. (Other signers were Abby Louise Pettengill, M. Sage, Sidney Kelsey, F. Corden White, and Helen White.)

Swann, Irene. 1969. T
he Bangs Sisters and Their Precipitated Spirit Portraits.
Chesterfield, Ind.: Camp Chesterfield.

Chapter 43

In addition to the Campbell “brothers” (the subject of the previous chapter), the other major spiritualists whose mediumship produced “spirit” paintings were the Bangs sisters of Chicago. Sitters watched portraits of their deceased loved ones gradually appear before their eyes.

Misses Elizabeth S. and May E. Bangs were reportedly mediums since childhood, but their “gift” of spirit painting did not appear until the fall of 1894 (
Chesterfield
1986). They offered clairvoyance, séance trumpet effects and spirit “materializations,” “direct” (or so-called automatic) writing, spirit typewriting, and slate effects. But they were most famous for their allegedly ghost-rendered paintings. Their business card advertised, “Life Sized Spirit Portraits a Specialty” (“Bangs Sisters” n.d.; Swann 1969). Indeed, they appear to have made something of a racket of it, as indicated by an Associated Press story of 1908. A woman who alleged to be the wife of a Chicago millionaire accused May Bangs of enticing him into a bigamous relationship, the man having been, it was claimed, “inveigled into the marriage through the instrumentality of a ’spirit portrait’ of his dead mother”—produced by the Bangs sisters (“Spirit” 1908).

The Bangses were exposed as tricksters many times. For example, a minister, the Reverend Stanley L. Krebs (1901) sat for one demonstration that involved producing a “spirit” reply to a multipaged letter that he had been instructed to bring, sealed in an envelope. At the beginning of the séance, it was placed between two bound slates. Careful observation, and the use of a small mirror that permitted viewing under the table, allowed Krebs to see how the bound slates were secretly wedged apart and the envelope dropped into Miss Bangs’s lap, from whence it
was transferred to a tray on the floor and drawn under a closed door. In time, after her accomplice/sister had done her work of steaming open the envelope and penning a reply, the seemingly impossible effect was completed.

The sisters used a variety of techniques for their spirit portraits. Typically, for reasons skeptics may well imagine, “their method was to have the sitter bring a photograph of the dead person to be painted, and the following day the spirits would paint the portrait” (Mulholland 1938, 158). For one-day service, the photograph was reportedly “concealed” from the sisters’ view (Swann 1969, 4), but they may have gotten access to it in much the same way as they did the previously described letter.

According to a booklet published at the Indiana spiritualist colony Camp Chesterfield (where the Bangses had a cottage for a number of years), the sisters’ earliest work involved “a locked cabinet or curtained off space” and “several ’sittings’ were necessary.” Later, the “canvas” (actually a paper-mounted panel) was placed before a window with light streaming through, and the sitter watched the picture progress over a period of up to forty minutes or so. Still later, the sisters were able to produce artworks in “as little as five minutes” (Swann 1969, 3).

Reportedly, the Bangs sisters’ portraits were examined by unnamed “art experts” who concluded they were not done in any known artistic medium. Rather, the colored substance “could be compared to the dust on a butterflys [
sic
] wings” (Swann 1969, 3). That is, the particulate matter resembled pollen and would thus seem consistent with a pastel “painting” (i.e. a drawing done in pastel crayons, which consist of pigment mixed with gum).

In fact, at Lily Dale, where the sisters resided for many seasons, I was able to examine two of their “spirit” portraits, which were framed and mounted under glass (as would be expected for certain media, like watercolors or pastels, but not others—for example, oils). I used an illuminated 10X loupe for the inspection. Having myself done portraits in oils, pastels, watercolors, and numerous other media, I saw very familiar characteristics that I could not distinguish from ordinary pastel renderings (Woolwich 1996), including layering and blending of colors and even unmistakable crayon strokes (as in the hair). (See
figure 43.1
). Indeed, although claiming that for some pictures the spirits under the Bangses’ mediumship furnished “their own colouring matter,” one contemporary source stated that “for the usual portraiture, coloured French pastels are placed in front of the canvas and these are used by the spirit artists—by a process called ’precipitation” (Coates 1911, 294).

'

Figure 43.1. A typical “spirit” portrait produced by the Bangs sisters.

But how were the pictures actually produced? The evolution of their techniques would seem consistent with deception. The early cabinet method suggests the pictures were simply painted by the sisters out of patrons’ view, and the latest productions (done in “five minutes”) no doubt involved the substitution of a previously prepared picture. The ’window’ technique is most interesting.

Explaining the technique is made difficult by the conflicting descriptions given by credulous observers who lacked knowledge of conjuring methods and who may have misperceived or misremembered exact details. Some accounts insist the effect was produced “in broad daylight”
with the blank picture panel simply standing on a table before a window, but May Bangs herself admitted (1910), “The room is shaded sufficiently to cause all the light from the window to pass through the canvas.” A more detailed explanation states:

Two identical, paper-mounted canvases in wooden frames were held up, face to face, against the window, the lower edges resting on a table and the sides gripped by each medium with one hand. A short curtain was hung on either side and an opaque blind was drawn over the canvases. With the light streaming from behind [,] the canvases were translucent. After a quarter of an hour the outlines of shadows began to appear and disappear as if the invisible artist made a preliminary sketch, then the picture began to grow at a feverish rate and when the frames were separated the portrait was found on the paper surface of the canvas next to the sitter. Though the paint was greasy and stuck to the finger on being touched, it left no stain on the paper surface of the other canvas which closely covered it. [Fodor 1933]

The effect was reproduced by stage magicians who were probably inspired by the Bangs sister’ phenomenon. As described in Thayer’s
Quality Magic Catalog
(1928), two canvasses were placed face to face in a frame before “a powerful light from the rear.” Then, “With the house lights off and while all eyes are intent upon the white illuminated canvas, slowly and faintly at first, a dim shadow appears. Gradually this shadow grows larger and becomes more distinct. The outlines begin to take shape, colors appear, and in a few short moments, a perfect finished picture in all its brilliancy of color is before them.”

Thayer’s catalog did not, of course, explain how the trick worked, but—significantly—prepared “spirit” portraits were sold with the apparatus. Whatever the secret, it may have been virtually identical to the method used by the Bangses. One notes that, like theirs, the Thayer method employed two canvases, and I think therein lies the crux of the matter.

After considerable experimentation, I have found a way to produce what seems a very similar effect. Someone witnessing it might well write, as one of the Bangses’ clients did (Payne 1905): “At first it was a faint shadow, then a wave appeared to sweep across the canvas, and the likeness became plainer. It was a good deal like a sunrise—got brighter until it was perfectly plain and every feature visible.” The effect is of a picture seeming to slowly materialize and gradually coming into focus. Indeed, that is just what occurs in the method I came up with.

Briefly, here is my hypothetical reconstruction of a Bangses’ spirit-picture séance Prior to the client entering the room, the previously prepared picture (rolled up perhaps) is secreted in its hiding place (say a drawer on the back of the table). The sitter is invited inside, allowed to casually inspect the premises, and invited to take a seat. The two blank panels are placed face to face, stood up on the table, and held by a sister seated on either side. The aforementioned short curtains are drawn to each side and the opaque blind pulled down. The spirits are invoked, while under cover of the drawn blind, one sister uses her free hand to extract the picture from its hiding place and attach it to the face of the rearmost panel, which is laid on the table behind the other panel. All is now ready for the blind to be raised.

Light is seen streaming through the blank panel, which will function as a sort of screen on which the seemingly materializing image will be projected from the rear. At a suitable time, one of the sisters, using her free hand behind the curtain, stands the picture panel upright a few inches from the other, an action which creates a shadowy, clouded effect upon the “screen.” Slowly, the picture panel is moved forward, and as it approaches the screen, colors appear, followed by a blurry face which eventually comes into focus and is recognized. Finally, the completed picture is revealed in full light at the end of the séance (
figures 43.2
–
43.5
).
¹⁴

That the Bangses employed some technique such as I have hypothesized is consistent with the overall scenario described in various accounts (Coates 1911; Fodor 1933; “Bangs Sisters” n.d.).
¹⁵
It would certainly explain the otherwise puzzling use of two panels: the extra one serving both as a shield to hide the portrait panel from view and as a screen on which to permit rear projection of the image. The following account is also instructive: “A few minutes after they [the face and form] began to appear, the psychics (apparently under impression) lowered the canvas toward me until it touched my breast. May Bangs then got a message by Morse alphabet [supposed spirit-rappings] on the table: 'Your wife is more accustomed to see me in the other aspect.' Up went the canvas again and I saw the profile and bust, but turned round in the opposite direction; instead of the face looking to the right, it was looking to the left. The portrait then proceeded apace, until all the details were filled in” [Moore 1910]. This is consistent with the methodology I have described, it having been merely necessary to “flop” (reverse) the picture panel as it was returned to its place on the table.