|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
espmagic Special user 978 Posts |
Ok, here's a thought: when the big illusion shows were common, a performer would (usually) perform at least one really good mind reading bit during the show, which would be accepted as "mind reading" done by the "magician"...even though the entire audience doesn't believe in "magic" as anything other than "tricks" of some sort. Now, when you see Kreskin, his entire audience (with the exception of those "in the know") seem to believe that he is 100% real.
Does it matter if we are perceived as magicians, or as mind readers, or as psychics? Only to the guy who prints your business cards... Working, Lee |
|||||||||
DKristof New user Ohio 26 Posts |
Methodology is unimportant, only the effect matters.
D Kristof |
|||||||||
Gordon Fisher Regular user Derby, England 193 Posts |
Some of cheeky monkeys comments suggest that he doesn't have much experience in performing mentalism, if I am incorrect then please accept my apologies but some of the points people are making are valid and you can see from their words that they have been performing mental based effects for sometime.
regardless of methodology, the key is giving the audience a plausible reason for your actions that they can to an extent latch onto psychologically, their beliefs will remain down the path which you led them, and away from the true methods that the performer utilises. the issue of technology regardless of how well it is becoming known will never be an issue. |
|||||||||
ChEeKy_MoNkEy Regular user FCCL 149 Posts |
DKristof wrote:-
Quote:
Methodology is unimportant, only the effect matters Really? - ahem...I seem to have heard that somewhere before.. - |
|||||||||
DKristof New user Ohio 26 Posts |
If done properly methodolgy should be invisible to the audience. Hence they would not know if you were using high tech or low tech means. Your choice of methodology should be based on a number of factors such as venue, use, ability, presentation, and surroundings. It should not be based on what you think is fair!!?
D Kistof |
|||||||||
ChEeKy_MoNkEy Regular user FCCL 149 Posts |
DKristof - forgive me for pointing this out, but as I said - I've already heard that point of view many times on this thread. You've pretty much reiterated what shrink has already said
I'm not talking about whether the method is 'invisible' to the audience or not, because if you're doing your 'job' properly then of course it goes without saying it should be. My original post was more to do with integrity and how 'mentalists' in general view the 'future' of mentalism as an art. My question was - is the 'trend' in mentalism leaning 'more' towards 'just' magic with gadgets? Hi bumbacla - I don't disagree, some of the points people are making are valid.... As to your speculation about whether I have experience of 'performing' mentalism or not. May I just say - one does'nt necessarily have to 'perform' something to understand what it's about |
|||||||||
markthorold Inner circle Shrunken heads atop 1942 Posts |
Having used gadgets I have found on one or more occasions the said gadget has failed to operate and unless backup was available ( or pretty swift thinking ) then said failure could have out that effect.Les risk with low tech, all you have to worry about is spectator management and selling the effect. that's my reasoning.
E.O.I
|
|||||||||
NJJ Inner circle 6437 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-08-01 04:39, DKristof wrote: That is the same as saying "Pennies are unimportant, only the dollars matter." You get a good effect by having a good method in the same way that you get a dollar by collecting one hundred pennies. Method is a vital part OF the effect. You choose your method based on how it will help you create your effect. If the method makes your job easier (e.g. you don't have to do a sleight because a gimmick does it for you) then why not use it? Since effect is so important, you should focus on your ability to present it and do everything you can to make easier. |
|||||||||
Gordon Fisher Regular user Derby, England 193 Posts |
That's not exactly true, experience gained performing for people will enable the performer to gauge what is and isn't plausible. throw a convincing red herring into the works and the spectators will firmly stay put. if your performance is believable then there is no reason for speculation into the methodology regardless of the use of technology or sleight of hand
just my 2 pennies worth |
|||||||||
ChEeKy_MoNkEy Regular user FCCL 149 Posts |
Bumbacla wrote:-
Quote:
That's not exactly true, experience gained performing for people will enable the performer to gauge what is and isn't plausible. Can't say I disagree with that, but what I actually said was - one does'nt 'necessarily' have to 'perform' something to 'understand' what it's about. Hope that clarifies my point |
|||||||||
DKristof New user Ohio 26 Posts |
I would believe that the reason there are suddenly more gadgets for mentalim is because currently mentalism is the flavor of the "month". Gadgets or not, mentalism strength lies in the fact that people believe what you are doing is real. Unlike magic it is very important that you do not use a "propish" thing. In magic people do not mind that you have a die box or a "Twister illision". The audience expects to be fooled so anything goes as long as it is entertaining and fools me.
Mentalism works differently. If someone suspects that you are using something strange then people will think you are doing magic albiet mental magic. Of course we need to clarify what a gadget is. 1. If it is one of those brass rods that we put in a cylinder and then guess what color they put in, well that kind of gadget will be assosicated with mental magic by the audience. 2. If it is an unseen gadget like a hidden electronics to let the performer know what object is hidden in a box then this would have no effect on the viewing audience. In keeping with No 2 then my feeling is, the only thing that matters is the end effect. using the way that will accomplish the desired reaction with the smallest of effort is the best way. D Kristof |
|||||||||
bevbevvybev Inner circle UK 2672 Posts |
Not everyone can go around saying that they're using NLP, body language or psychology forever. Some of this stuff is either going to have to become more magicy, more 'im the real deal psychic', or just more downright entertaining, whatever you call it.
Odds are right now, that if you say you're useing purely covert pychological methods, so did the guy before you. However, if you were to put on a weird hat, and say that you had a hat that gave you mental abilities, at least it would be different. People seem very keen on 'direct mind reading' or 'quick and to the point' mindreading. Well, so is everybody, and by removing your actual PERSONALITY you're becoming something similar to what happened to magic and the millions of kids with packet tricks - just a guy with another packet trick. Make wild claims, create strange stories, take on multiple personalities, but please try and be original. Before someone does that all over again just like Derren Brown did and you're sitting there wishing you'd thought of it first. I think every mentalist especially in the UK should go and write a list of 10 reasons 'why I'm not like Derren Brown' and see how far they get. |
|||||||||
Waters Inner circle 2508 Posts |
True.. no one should be anyone's clone... All this concern about "who is doing what" is the cart driving the horse. In the states especially, most people have no idea who Derren, Max, Banachek or anyone else is.
Be the best you, YOU can be. If you have a plausible means to claim the use of "psychological" means, then do, if you are weird or creepy, by all means claim the "weird and creepy" means. I am about as tired of the "don't be Derren" crowd, as much as the "Darrenites" from the tribe of Brown. Use ideas that appeal to you... and go read Ken Weber's book. He stated less than 1 percent of the general public has seen someone perform. As far as they are concerned, "YOU ARE DERREN BROWN"...who cares (no offense Derren...hugs,etc.). Perform the things that delight you and your audience... nothing else matters!!!!! Sean |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-08-01 08:34, Nicholas J. Johnson wrote:...Method is a vital part OF the effect... NO Effect is what the audience gets to watch. It's the show. Method is what you have to make sure happens. It's backstage and NOT in audience awareness. These things exist in mutually exclusuve frames of reference, like forground/background pictures.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Gordon Fisher Regular user Derby, England 193 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-08-01 12:13, bevbevvybev wrote: that's not neccessarily true, you may want to read drew mcadams new book |
|||||||||
bevbevvybev Inner circle UK 2672 Posts |
I have read his new book
There's plenty of space for people to earn a living at this stuff calling themselves whatever However, in my opinion, the best way to get more work than anyone else it to strive to be a one off and have a unique selling point Because if everyone reads his book, there's going to be a lot more competition! |
|||||||||
Waters Inner circle 2508 Posts |
If less than 1 percent of people have seen any magical performance (in person), I would say that there is plenty of market out there for any style. To each their own. That's what makes this interesting... don't you think? Besides, some uneducated kid who tries to pull off the psycho-babble approach is really not going to be believable. If your an intellectual, go for an intellectual approach. Style really is irrelevant as long as it suits you.
...That is if you can make it entertaining. I think we're forgetting that what all this nonsense is for. Sean |
|||||||||
bobser Inner circle 4178 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 08:25, shrink wrote: An interesting statement. A couple pro friends of mine were just saying that they are hardly doing any mentalism now, since they feel that too many of their friends have slid into that area, and have reverted back to mainly general magic.
Bob Burns is the creator of The Swan.
|
|||||||||
Bill Abbott Veteran user 351 Posts |
I think the "tech gadgets" vs. "low tech methods" is a great debate.
David Ben and I had a recent conversation about this and he said something I thought was worth considering. " With most low tech methods you know when you're wrong or when it's not going to work." For an example let's take the classic center tear vs. Cornelius' Thought Transmitter. In the CT if someone doesn't write in english or doesn't write in the circle, etc. I know that after my peek I will have to use a different method, out, etc. In using the thought transmitter I don't KNOW if during that performance, in that venue, at that moment whether the battery will die and no information will be available using this method. As an aside... Critics at the theatre (The Stratford Festival in Ontario is my example) have been know to bring various radio transmitter devices to trip off any electronics that may be utilized during the show, to see how the technicians and actors deal with the situation. Can you imagine if someone did the same at an upcoming magic convention? Sincerely Bill Abbott |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
I was the Magic Consultant at the Stratford Festival for several seasons and I've never heard of a critic doing such a thing.
It would be extremely inconsiderate, not to mention dangerous if a critic were to interfere with a show in such a way. What is the source of your information? - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Is mentalism becoming... (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 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 < |