|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
John C Eternal Order I THINK therefore I wrote 12941 Posts |
... most of our ideas, beliefs and attitudes about reality are just that, beliefs. They are not facts about reality. They are simply what others have told us or what we have heard over our lives.
So next time you hear something just say ... PROVE IT!!!! j |
|||||||||
insight Inner circle 3095 Posts |
Yes, it's an unfortunate reality. Opinions are formed by such studies. These studies influence audience perceptions, which impacts the performer's reality. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy card tricks. And they certainly have the potential to be powerful.
Regards, Mike |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
How did this study influence any of our audience's perceptions, Mike?
- entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Like I said, the paper referred to was NOT a study. It was an undergraduate sociology term paper. As I recall, the author interviewed about ten people in order to find out if people played cards anymore. Her conclusion was that they didn't, at least not in her family or neighborhood.
|
|||||||||
insight Inner circle 3095 Posts |
Well, I know this "study" was propogated not just where it originated, but also in other Universities...I don't buy what it says (sample size was really small, the r squared (a statistical term) was almost zero, almost no significance, but I know professors who utilize this to demonstrate in intro to statistics courses...
I hope I'm not coming across as someone who does not believe in card magic to convey mentalism...if so, I apologize. I just reviewed a PDF that had a prediction effect and it dealt with cards, and I gave it a glowing review. Regards, Mike |
|||||||||
insight Inner circle 3095 Posts |
I just want to make sure we're talking about the same "study", I will see if I can post a link to it, if I can find it.
Thanks, Mike |
|||||||||
Simon (Ted) Edwards Inner circle London 1528 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-05-08 10:39, insight wrote: This assumes that the audience has read and believes the paper to which you refer, surely? I'm interested in this stuff and I've never heard of this report so I'd guess that your average punter has not heard of it either. You cannot say that "the audience will... (anything)" with surety. They are all different. You have to go by experience if you want to make generalisations (a dodgy road, anyway). If you said that your audiences always approached you (and reproached you) with criticisms of card usage after a performance then fair enough. But that is not what you are saying. You are talking about what others *will* experience. But I've not shared the experiences you predict I should have had (in the light of this report). That's all I know. |
|||||||||
insight Inner circle 3095 Posts |
That's true. The audience may...not "will".
Regards, Mike |
|||||||||
insight Inner circle 3095 Posts |
The question I ask to you, related along the lines of this thread, is: Do you think propless mentalism is more powerful that mentalism with props (cards or anything else, for that matter)? The assumption we have to make is that the audience and performer are constant. So, the only variable is that one routine uses no props, while the other uses props. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Regards, Mike |
|||||||||
Simon (Ted) Edwards Inner circle London 1528 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-05-08 20:36, insight wrote: No, I don't think there needs to be any difference between performances that involve props and those that do not because in all cases 'props' should not be seen as being special. In other words, if you do it right all mentalism should appear relatively 'naked' because these are not magic cards/envelopes/slips of paper that we use. If your props become suspect then you have significant problems. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
It is not props, or lack of them, that determines whether mentalism is "powerful" or not. For example, Geller used "props" (spoons, keys, watches, dice, etc.)and it cannot be denied that what he did was powerful and, for many, totally believable.
Persona, stage presence and charisma are what create powerful mentalism. Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
Greg Arce Inner circle 6732 Posts |
Personally, I think it depends on the performer. I've seen guys do mentalism that is either propless or just bits of paper, and it comes across as mental magic. Then I've seen guys use large props, cards, fancy items and the audience goes away thinking the guy was the real deal.
How do I know this? From years of hanging around the Castle and actually listening to the audience after the performances. You can learn a lot from that. I once saw one performer do a whole card act in the Parlor and then end with a simple billet switch that ended with the spectator in tears from the revelation. People sat around talking about it and were moved by the routine. Somehow they didn't connect the fact that 99% of the guy's act was all card tricks. That one effect changed everything. As I said in the beginning, I know I have them when I do my second effect in my close up act which uses cards. The moment I see them looking around for cameras or mirrors I know that they have no idea how I'm doing what I'm doing. I can hear the murmurs as they are startled by each revelation. It depends on the performer. If you feel that cards don't belong in mentalism then don't do them. I'm sure you're own personal beliefs will somehow manifest within the routine and come into play. The same goes with props. If you believe props make it into mental magic then don't use them. I remember Kreskin devastating his audience with an item that I laughed at when I saw it in a magic catalogue. It look like your standard magic prop. But he killed with it and made people believe that there was something weird going on. I think it all is centered on what you already believe is good or not good to do in your act. If you do something that feels wrong then it will play that way. Just my opinion from years of listening and talking to audiences and not other magicians about what they think. Greg
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
|
|||||||||
insight Inner circle 3095 Posts |
This is an interesting conversation. In your opinion, which one has the potential to be more powerful?
Scenario 1: You have a spectator write down a number, they give it to you, you put it in a wallet, and then you guess what their number is. Scenario 2: You have a spectator JUST THINK of a number, and you guess what their number is. If you do this 100 times to 100 different people, and if those people had to rank which one was more powerful, what would be the distribution of the responses, in your opinion? Regards, Mike |
|||||||||
Simon (Ted) Edwards Inner circle London 1528 Posts |
If you perform correctly there should be no difference between your posed situations. That wallet you mention should be invisible if you use sufficient misdirection.
EDIT: And having just seen some of your previous posts I am now dropping this line of interesting conversation. Best of luck with it all etc. |
|||||||||
Greg Arce Inner circle 6732 Posts |
Without a proper presentation or persona you might find an interesting reaction. A lot of times people will think, in either case, that you just got lucky or everyone thinks of that number. When you present things as a puzzle then people do think it is just that.
I'll use you're experiment to give you an example: Scenario 1: You approach someone and ask them to think of a number. They do and you instantly tell them. Scenario 2: You have someone think of a number, write it down, and put the paper in your wallet. Now you begin to tell a tale of what individual numbers mean, why certain people pick numbers, etc. You then say, "You're the type of person that seems to have fun in life. You have some adventure in you. There are certain things you know you want to do that others might think are foolish, but you will do them nonetheless. I've noticed in the past that people who think this way tend to choose numbers in the forties. Most will do something in the mid range like 44 or 45 or 46. I'm not sure, but with you I would go with either 45 or 46. Am I close?" And you are. Now in scenario one you used no visible props and instantly read their minds. No trickery. I would bet that a lot of the times you'll get the response, "Ah, that's just luck" or "Everyone thinks of 45." Of course, you could now say to me, "Well, then do all that cold reading when you instantly tell the number." But that would contradict what you are trying to prove. You're saying that instantly telling someone their thoughts is stronger than any prop could be. I don't think so. And once again I'm coming from actually talking to real people... not other magicians... not other mentalists. I studied psychology and actually did an experiment where I got people's opinions afterwards. It was very enlightening to find out what non-performers thought... even when presented with facts. So, let's agree to disagree. Simple answer: Don't do card tricks. You don't like them in mentalism. It's that simple. Greg
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
|
|||||||||
Jay Are Inner circle 4186 Posts |
The audience will only mirror the suspicion YOU place on the object.
Believe in what you do and have it justified 100% in your mind and so too will they. J
xxx
|
|||||||||
nimrod Special user 881 Posts |
Cards are tricky but can be used. I have a cards routine in my act which is one of the pinnacles of my show.
Nimrod , Israel |
|||||||||
DN777 Veteran user 360 Posts |
Here's the bottom line in my humble opinion: Nobody gives a ****. Within the context of being HIRED as an entertainer, I could juggle baby geese and call it magic. I open my tables with Xtreme Card Manipulation - Then I bend their silverware, coins, and do mind reading.
I have a lot to say about the use of XCM and magic. I know this topic leads to controversy from both magicians and flourishers alike, however I'm not on either side. I employ flourishes all the time within my magic. One school of thought says that using flourishes in a mentalism act is foolish. Another school of thought suggests that nobody believes in real magic anyways. They are both incorrect in my humble opinion. The first believes that flourishes would appear to the spectator as 'sleight of hand', causing him to suspect trickery. This depends entirely on the presentation. I might say that I don't do card tricks anymore, because after a while I mastered handling a deck of cards and I wanted to move on to new level of magic. This idea elevates your character to 'expert magician' in my opinion. At the same time, a flourish in one hand is the perfect way to steal an object with the other - A TW perhaps. Now, the second idea suggests that nobody believes in real magic. This is mostly true in the sense of a card trick, a coin trick, or any trick involving what appear to be props. Naturally, if you carry the right presentation you can make people believe you have supernatural powers with those objects... 1) Establish the skill This does 2 things for me. The first is establish skill. The second thing it does is let me read the spectator's interest in magic. They might be attracted to the gambling aspect of cards. I might decide that card magic will impress them more and continue with a card routine. In the other case the spectator might indicate that they believe in whatever psychological or psychic effect you want to present. This can be done via Ericksonian hypnosis: "One time, I saw a man with a dark cloak and a deck of cards. He brought the cards to life and made different shapes, all at a very high speed. I couldn't help but watch as he brought me into a trance." Etc etc. This is the same thing as using a pendulum to lead and pace, however, we add the element of a sustained state of heightened attention due to the visual nature of XCM. 2) Cold Reading Techniques Now that I have your spectator in a trance state, it's easy to move to some cold reading. I like Angelo's books as well as Ian Rowland. 3) Telepathy effect Now I move to an effect that is even stronger. They are already fully convinced now, especially if you're a good actor. 4) PK effect This is optional. You could do a PK effect or a stronger hypnosis effect such as mirrored arm lifts. This said, I believe I have a model for some strong psychological effects. The proper way to deal with this is by going along with what they already think. It's much easier to swim with the current than against it. People who follow the show "The Mentalist" know that the character does magic. The show sets you up to believe in hypnosis, illusion, sleight of hand and psychological trickery. Patrick Jane defies any spiritual or psychic explanation. If your audience knows what a mentalist is... They are already expecting trickery. It doesn't matter what you call yourself. The most important thing is that they remember your name. - Dan AKA SeVryn |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Cards in mentalism (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 0.06 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 < |