|
|
|
|||
| Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
ChEeKy_MoNkEy Regular user FCCL 149 Posts 
|
...'just' magic with gadgets?
I've read quite a few differing opinions here recently about the virtues of high technology versus low tech (i.e billets, etc., etc.) In a recent post someone commented "if the technology is there, why not use it if you can afford to". Indeed why not? - it's a matter of personal choice. However, IMO the low tech way takes more skill and experience - using high tech makes it easier for the mentalist to do his 'job'...and into the bargain is, more often than not, a more expensive way. I have no beef with the opinion "if technology is there, why not use it", but it seems the 'trend' in mentalism is leaning more and more towards high tech. Which brings me back to my original question...is mentalism becoming 'just' magic with gadgets? |
|||||||||
|
partyboy Regular user Montréal, Québec 142 Posts
|
If audience's perception of us doesn't change then why should we actually care about this issue ? I hope you're just not doing this for yourself and other collegues. The last person I'm thinking about when coming up with stuff and performing are other mentalists
"communicate your humanity, 'cause that's what we all are after all : human!"
|
|||||||||
|
scott b. Special user 732 Posts
|
Interesting topic. I don't really think that mentalism is becoming just magic with gadgets. I mean as long as there are simple ways to achieve things, a billet switch over a electronic gadget, you will have those people who want to do the work themselves. It's like the comparison of why go have someone fix your car, if you can do it yourself.
Thanks! Scott B.
"I don't know the key to success . . . but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." - Bill Cosby |
|||||||||
Mark Storms Veteran user Seattle, WA 393 Posts
|
Of course there will usually be a way to accomplish somthing through mechanical or technological means. Is mentalism moved in this direction? I would have to say NO. The reason for this is that most mentalists cannot aford or do not want to shell out the moneyfor these expensive gadgets. One such example might be Cerebero. I have heard nothing but good about cerebero and I am sure every meantalist would love to have one to make their lives easier. The fact of the matter is that things can still be accomplished the old way just as effectively in most spectators eyes. This is not to say that I wouldnt in most cases much prefer the simpler more techy gadgets to get the job done. I just have to face the fact that I am not Bill Gates.
Find out what you cannot do.., Then go and do it!
|
|||||||||
Sven Rygh Inner circle Oslo, Norway. 1945 Posts
|
With all due respect for the above posters, and as to
"using high tech makes it easier for the mentalist to do his 'job" I couldn't disagree more! In the first place it is not anything wrong with props and devices. However, the use of these rather than classic methods does IMO not necessarily "make the job easier" I have been in mentalism for a pretty long time, and I see it time and time again, that mentalism is NOT about getting moves or sleights "right" or perfect. Most of the time that is not the critical important thing here. What counts, is to understand "the meat" of what you are doing, the philosophy and psychology and present what you do in a way that "makes magic real" That is the real challenge, and what you should practise and work on to understand. I believe it is easy to forget (-or not learn and understand in the first place for that matter) what the importance of mentalism really is if you rely too much on “tricks” from the dealers shelf. Maybe you will learn some good tricks, but not to do wonders anytime, anywhere. Just my 2 cents Sven
WWW.SVENRYGH.NO
"Keep it as simple as possible, - but no simpler" http://www.svenrygh.no/sven-rygh/presse/nrk-forst-og-sist/ http://www.svenrygh.no/video.html |
|||||||||
|
ChEeKy_MoNkEy Regular user FCCL 149 Posts
|
Partyboy wrote:-
Quote:
If audience's perception of us doesn't change then why should we actually care about this issue ? I hope you're just not doing this for yourself and other collegues. The last person I'm thinking about when coming up with stuff and performing are other mentalists Erm, doing what for myself and other colleagues? I'm talking in terms of mentalism as an 'art' as such and caring about how it may or may not evolve. Also, maybe we should care about this issue in case the audiences perception of us DOES change. In other words "audiences/laypeople" aren't fools. They know they are being entertained, they know there is 'trickery' involved...but perhaps they would prefer to see manual/mental skills without the high tech stuff? (i.e. magic with gadgets)....just my thoughts 
Sven - the whole point of my post was of course to hear differing views and opinions in answer to my question. I understand you disagree with my view that using high tech makes it easier for the mentalist to do his 'job'. However, I did'nt say there was anything 'wrong' with using props and devices. On the contrary - I said I had no beef with the opinion "if technology is there, why not use it". Quote:
I have been in mentalism for a pretty long time, and I see it time and time again, that mentalism is NOT about getting moves or sleights "right" or perfect. Most of the time that is not the critical important thing here. I agree with what you say above. However, in this instance I was talking about the 'technical' side of mentalism and not the passion, psychology or presentation. |
|||||||||
|
graemesd Veteran user 369 Posts
|
Great quote from anthony owen in magicseen
'mnetalism is the new balloon modelling!!' in which he refers to the fact that everyone 'thinks' that they can do it. I guess technology and purchasable items have played a part in that |
|||||||||
Mishel New user Israel 100 Posts
|
I am of topic, but had to say this.
Graemesd, your typo "mnetalism" has made me think that "Mnentalism" would be a nice name for a Mentalism book concerning the use of Mnemonics in mentalism. As for the topic at hand, I agree with Sven.
Mishel.
Don't let the same dog bite you twice. |
|||||||||
|
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts
|
Its not the methodology that counts its the results. The audience don't care how it was done as much as how it affects them...If they are pre-occupied whith asking themselves how it was done then you are doing a bad job..
Shrink Mentalism for me is increasingly becoming boring. Probably because Ive been involved to long in these discussions. It will become boring to for the public if it is performed to frequently on TV in public. |
|||||||||
|
BT New user Winnipeg, Canada 64 Posts
|
Well said Sven, couldn't agree with you more!
Brian T.
"Nothing I do can't be done by a 10-year-old with 15 years of practice." Harry Blackstone, Jr. |
|||||||||
|
graemesd Veteran user 369 Posts
|
Oops mi silly spilling butt your rite a grate name four an pook
|
|||||||||
|
ChEeKy_MoNkEy Regular user FCCL 149 Posts
|
Shrink wrote:-
Quote:
Its not the methodology that counts its the results. The audience don't care how it was done as much as how it affects them...If they are pre-occupied whith asking themselves how it was done then you are doing a bad job.. Depends how discerning your audience is Besides, my original post was more to do with being interested in others thoughts about where mentalism may or may not be heading and the pro's and cons of high tech versus low tech.
Hi BT - good to hear you agree with Sven. May I ask....what do you agree with? - all of it - or just some of it? Would be interested to hear your views
|
|||||||||
|
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-07-27 00:39, ChEeKy_MoNkEy wrote: The point I was trying to make was there is no high tech verses low tech. There is only the effect you want to create. What method you use depends upon a) environment b) effect you want to achieve b) budget At least that's how I would see it.. |
|||||||||
|
Harry Lucas Regular user Europe 128 Posts
|
The method is not important, because as a spectator you should not even detect a method. If it's high tech or low tech is a decision the performer has to make considering the points Shrink has just mentioned.
|
|||||||||
|
Ian Broadmore Special user 555 Posts
|
I think its become "passe" and boring roll on the next new trend I say. Bring back David Copperfield perhaps he will make the moon vanish and everybody will start performing big illusions again.
|
|||||||||
|
ChEeKy_MoNkEy Regular user FCCL 149 Posts
|
Harry Lucas wrote:-
Quote:
The method is not important, because as a spectator you should not even detect a method. If it's high tech or low tech is a decision the performer has to make considering the points Shrink has just mentioned I take shrinks point. However, spectators/audiences are becoming more 'aware' of high tech devices being used and, IMO, it takes away some of the mystique. I feel the low tech methods leave more to the spectators imagination - for example they may think - "wow that's skillful how did he do that"? - as opposed to "well, I'm being entertained, but I wonder what kind of 'gadget' he's using to achieve it"? shrink wrote:- Quote:
The point I was trying to make was there is no high tech verses low tech. There is only the effect you want to create. My view is there is room for debate on high tech versus low tech and it depends how you wish to create the effect. |
|||||||||
|
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts
|
Well its obvious if the exact same effect can be done low tech then you do it low tech.
I think your focus is at he wrong end of the equation. You should be asking what do you want to achieve? How do you want to affect your audience? Then work backwards to the method. That way you can justify one over the other within the paremeters of a) environment b) effect you want to achieve b) budget To debate one way or another without a defined goal or specific aim for your audience is non productive and will lead to both technologies not being maximised.. Shrink |
|||||||||
Waters Inner circle 2508 Posts
|
Forgive me for quoting Derren (I know it's anathema), but I would rather make invisible compromises (than visible ones).
I think everyone who peforms mentalism should study the basics: tears, peeks, some billet work, etc. However, it seems to me many people who complain about performers using (invisible) technology, are the same people who hold billets in the (dated) Annemann style. They hold the billets up to their heads, or do unnceccasary "moves" that cause their "secrets" to glow in the dark (obvious for people to see). If you do anything... let it be at best invisble, and at least psycholoigcally invisible. Why does anyone care (the world doesn't) whether you use a spectator peek/ instant stooge or if you use a cerebro (that's worth about a 25% discount right James, Daniel, Mesaboogie) .
I agree with your statement Shrink Sean |
|||||||||
Hypnotic Winter Special user Ireland 720 Posts
|
Here's how I view it, if you lost every thing to tomorrow, can you go down to your ordinary every day store and get all you need to construct a show? I think it's personal knowledge that counts. If you buy a gadget and in the process learn how it works and how to make it on your own, that it is worth it.
If you take Mr Osterlinds products as an example, there is practically nothing you can not make. Other people can do what every they want, we should worry about our own performances I think as we are the one's who will end up in trouble if something does not go to plan, others will take care of themselves.
When your only reality is an illusion, then illusion is reality.
|
|||||||||
|
Waters Inner circle 2508 Posts
|
I do agree with that HW. Knowledge is of primary importance (what ones does with it is their business). I don't "NEED" ANY gimmicks... I use them if it is suits an idea. We are creating the "illusion" that we can read minds (be that through sound psychological techniques, peeks, forces, or afterfacting, not to mention devices). How one combines all of those tools (with careful thought to presentation)is how art is created... and thus each person's artistic interpretation.
Sean |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Is mentalism becoming... (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jul 26, 2005 03:56 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < 
|