|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
solarzar Regular user Solarzar 109 Posts |
George,
Thank you for your insights. I agree persona becomes a loaded word based on it's history. Today many do use it to simply mean the person they present. Much like you I consider a persona a development. However, it can be developed from your natural style, just expanded upon, if needed. Some people are natural extensions of their current personality; others have adopted traits or characteristics that are not part of their personality or natural style. Whether it's a fully created persona, or an extension of your current personality an important aspect is being natural with the persona. I believe some performers make an error by just assuming they can be themselves without making their performing personality larger. After all, it is an entertainment medium. Just my thoughts, Solarzar |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
George-
Yes, I use the term "persona" in its theatrical sense. I have discussed the concept and the importance of a mentalist having a defined persona, subscript and "back story," at great length in my "The Principia Mentalia" (see note below), "The Artful Mentalism" and elsewhere. Good thoughts, Bob Note- It's just a coincidence that Richard's book has virtually the same title. "The Principia Mentalia" literally means "The Principles of Mentalism." I used the Latin as an homage to Whitehead and Russell's "The Principia Mathematica" (The Principles of Mathematics) and "The Principia Discordia" (The Principles of Discordianism), which in turn was also a reference to "Mathematica." |
|||||||||
George Hunter Inner circle 2013 Posts |
Thanks Bob:
I have read your stuff and regard it highly. I may have unconsciously been drawing from your "good thoughts;" we all learn stuff, and later cannot recall the source. If all of the publishing reflective mentalists, past and present, constituted a basketball team, you'd be on the starting team. Thanks for your contribution to the art, and for your fellowship here in the Café and elsewhere. George |
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
George, I don't disagree with what you're saying. I would, however, suggest that you're really going way too deep. Having been in the theater department in college I'm very familiar with the classical theater meaning of persona. And indeed, if we were talking about making a movie such as "Lincoln" then your explication would be important. I've also read some of Jung's works, and if we were talking about persona in a psychological setting what you've shared would, indeed, be spot on. Perhaps I should have explicitly described what I mean by persona. Specifically, it is the character you present to the audience. No more. No less.
Some people spend a great deal of time planning such a character. In a workshop with Jeff McBride he not only suggested doing this but also staying in character whenever you are in public. The publisher of "Magick" suggested that the next mentalist/psychic superstar would be a woman who always dressed in black. Other people don't spend a great deal of time planning a persona, however they do manifest one by their routining and choice of effects. Someone who projects an "isn't this amazing" attitude has a different persona from a person who projects a "let's do a series of experiments" attitude. And then there's the type of person who has no idea what he or she is doing, but wants to do a bunch of mental magic. Without a direction determined by a persona, an act becomes just a bunch of tricks, existentially the same as the 12-year-old who performs from his or her collection of effects at a neighbors child's birthday party, albeit usually intended for an older audience. I would contend that this type of ill thought out performance—probably due to excitement at the field but without much thought—will range from breathtaking to boring (depending upon the skills of the performer), but is quickly forgotten. To be re-hired or hired by people attending an event requires making an impression, something a performer without a persona does not accomplish. |
|||||||||
George Hunter Inner circle 2013 Posts |
Mr. Kraig:
I kind of like your answer, and I really like your articulate intensity. I do have two small problems with your response: 1) Who decides who or what is going too deep? What is just right? What are the criteria for deciding that? We weren't reaching much common understanding while swimming in the shallows. The goal of an academic approach is to question the folk wisdom on some issue, and to face the complexity, and to reflect enough to arrive at a new informed simplicity on the other side of the complexity. If the classical distinction between the character, and the size of the "mask" required to perform the character, does not help inform this discussion, well, sorry about that! 2. You may be a case, but not an extreme case, of the post-modern sense of entitlement to make any word mean whatever we want it to mean. I may be a cult of one, but I have long struggled with making sense of a whole society with "Humpty Dumpty Syndrome." Most everyone will remember the exchange in Lewis Carroll's Though the Looking Glass. Humpty Dumpty explained to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Alice replied, “The question is, whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.” (Emphasis added) Alice's question has since been answered; many millions of people do it, whether they should or not. To use three public examples, people have made the second amendment, the third amendment, and now marriage to mean whatever they choose it to mean. One major related issue is whether Mentalism intends to be, or become, a serious performing art. If not, then the kind of seriousness that informs great film is indeed not relevant to mentalists. George |
|||||||||
John Raff M Loyal user Republic of Ireland 233 Posts |
Hi Pog,
I too think that this is an incredibly useful discussion. The way I see it it's all goes down to your performers character. If your performers character is someone who abilities and personality can really shake and alarm the audience on a certain level then it may be best to open with a VERY strong routine to grab their attention. On the other hand you may prefer to start simple and then get bigger and better so you do not threaten you audience. In this case something fun involving the whole audience may be approppriate. Just my two cents. Best, John. |
|||||||||
tboehnlein Inner circle ohio 1787 Posts |
I would simply state, that the only rule is there are no rules, but another reference you ,may want to check out is Maximum Entertainment.
|
|||||||||
Smoking Camel Inner circle UK 1039 Posts |
What is the overall message of your performance? Once you've figured that out you'll be in a better place to decide how you are going to communicate it. The opener is a small part of your communication and depending on how you think the best way to communicate your message is - the opener maybe a monologue, it may be an effect, it maybe an Erie piece of music or even a video.
I no longer smoke camel cigarettes.
|
|||||||||
The Amazing Pog Veteran user 372 Posts |
I wonder how much is driven by the context as well as the character? Should performers aim to tailor their opening to suit the location and audience, or is that (in the real world) simply too much work?
'One of the safest ways to make a good performance is to have tricks which work so easily, that mechanics can be forgotten and every attention devoted to presentation' - Corinda
|
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
I agree with Smoking Camel. Or at least I would suggest that more memorable performers will follow that pattern. That doesn't make them better than other performers, but I would suggest that it will have a more impactful effect on the audience.
George, you wrote that I'm acting like Humpty Dumpty, giving words the meanings I want them to have. Well, I wrote that the meaning of the term "persona" is "the character you present to the audience." My dictionary says that the meaning is "the aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others… a role or character adopted by an author or an actor." So it would seem, then, that my definition is exactly the same as that found in my dictionary and that I am, in fact, NOT an example of what you call "the post-modern sense of entitlement to make any word mean whatever we want it to mean." As a matter of fact, since you would apparently disagree with both me and the dictionary, "you may be a case, but not an extreme case" of using what psychologists call "projection." So who decides when someone has gone too deep in analyzing a word's meaning such that it no longer applies to the actual world? I think it's self evident. When any analysis of a word out takes it out of its commonly accepted meaning in context, that would be going too far, don't you think? Thanks for giving us the opportunity to have a nice philosophical discussion. |
|||||||||
George Hunter Inner circle 2013 Posts |
Mr. Kraig, teachers (like me) often cite the exchange between Humpty and Alice to feature the relationship between words and meanings. I did not mean to say that anyone is acting like Humpty, though I suppose I am acting like Alice. You will recall that I emphasized that the promiscuous use of language is one of the features of post-modern western culture; Humpty is winning, but clarity in public discourse is losing.
I am reasonably well versed in communication studies (PhD, Northwestern), including rhetorical studies and performance studies within that. However, it is an area of enormous complexity, and I frequently learn something from the reflective practitioners who contribute to these discussions. (The very best communication practitioners are often ahead of the theorists.) If you consulted an authoritative dictionary (like the OED), you undoubtedly discovered that speakers and writers, past and present, have attached a range of meanings to the term. You actually quoted TWO meanings: 1) the part of oneself that is presented to others, and 2) the different kind of personality one adopts to fulfill a role, as in a play; In think you mean to focus on the second, so do I. As you probably read, there are other meanings too. You have helped me distill (what I hope is) my contribution to this discussion: 1) A performing mentalist is already an actor--playing the role of a mentalist. We have already accepted that formidable challenge. 2. The character (or persona--in the ancient metaphor of the mask) that he or she adopts to play the role really matters because, for any performer, some options have a much greater "degree of difficulty" than others. (So, for instance, if you take the psychological approach to performance mentalism, you'd better know psychology--because someone in the audience will; if the chosen character is a commanding presence, can one pull that off without inducing terminal giggles?) Take John Wayne as an example of both: 1) People liked him in most every role he played in his movies. 2) But the degree of difficulty in each role was manageable for him; he kind of played a version of himself most of the time--without the kind of "stretch" for which Oscars are usually awarded. This relates to my earlier comment about Paul Brook kind of inviting us to choose either the psychic role or the psychologist role. Both of those may be beyond the capacity of most of us, including me, to pull off plausibly. That may be why many of the best performing mentalists are pretty much an amplified version of themselves when they perform. I hope this helps some. In any case, I need to move on to other things. George |
|||||||||
The Amazing Pog Veteran user 372 Posts |
Well, there's a nice knock down argument for you ... ( sorry, couldn't resist).
'One of the safest ways to make a good performance is to have tricks which work so easily, that mechanics can be forgotten and every attention devoted to presentation' - Corinda
|
|||||||||
George Hunter Inner circle 2013 Posts |
Pog:
The purpose of my attempt at a clarification was NOT to "knock down" any ideas or any persons. I do not have the last word on anything. George |
|||||||||
The Amazing Pog Veteran user 372 Posts |
I think you misunderstood George, I was just quoting Humpty Dumpty from Alice ... I love that book, and as you referenced it I thought I'd jump on the inter textual bandwagon. Sorry if wires got crossed.
'One of the safest ways to make a good performance is to have tricks which work so easily, that mechanics can be forgotten and every attention devoted to presentation' - Corinda
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Routining: The Opener Debate (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < |