This question has popped up in a few threads over time but ive never really seen it answered thoroughly.
So here goes ... here's my penny's worth.
I've been performing for nearly 20 years - I perform closr-up magic professionally -I go out with an ungaffed deck and use other stuff on the table. I do include mentalism or possibly in this case mental magic (I love a CC force) - none of what I do is gaffed.

Yet I read more and more about methods using lipsyl, pva, NW and using Exacto knives to cut this and do that. 13 Steps... is full of gaffed stuff. Osterlind's ETMMM has a fair wack of stuff too as does Stunners Plus, etc., etc.

So this is what I think - there is a tendency for a lay audience to believe that a 'magician' is going to use a gimmick of some sort, a dodgy deck a box with a flap. You only have to listen to people trying to reconstruct effects and discuss possible methods, whilst I have never had somebody question anything when it is presented as a mentalist feat. So whilst I'm happy to pass and top change in magic it seem that simpler is better in mentalism.

Presentation is of course paramount and this is where some of the big diferences lie. The magician is expected to handle cards etc whilst a mentalist isn't and distance has a huge effect in mentalism but people want closer in closeup magic.
I guess that the gaffs etc enhance the impossiblility and the clarity and the simplicity

There have been mnay discussions on something being 'too magical' the fact that something simply has to be gaffed or faked etc. conversly in mentalism (incloseup) ther doesn't seem to be the same arguements no matter how gaffed something really is.


I seem to be waffling... it is late maybe I'll clarify some points later when I've finished this last GNT - I'll submit and see what happens.

Mentalism can and does often use gimmicked props, but those props are meant to look like ordinary articles. I agree that it is very satisfying to use as few props as possible to entertain, but there is another element that comes into play. People like to see something interesting. I am thinking of Hypnotist Paul McKenna's appearances from a few years ago. Certainly a hypnotist doesn't need any props and can work an entire show with nothing but his voice and his spectators. Yet Paul introduced all kinds of props to make the show more interesting. Likewise, I have found in my personal work, especially on stage, the audience likes to see a few props and are even intrigued by them.

Just my thoughts.

Richard

Mr. Osterlind knows of what he speaks.

Speaking of gimmicks, one of the coolest mentalism gimmicks I've ever come across is Richard's "Change of Mind" gimmick. Combine the gimmick with a simple one-ahead prediction, and you've got yourself a miracle on your hands...with NO suspicion of a gimmick being used.

genius genius genius genius genius genius genius

Hopefully by the end of the summer/beginning of fall, my 2 dvd set will be released. Its a mix of magic and mentalism. But none of it requires any kind of a gaff. It is all based on sleights and psychology, and subtle techniques. But No Gaffs! There is even a way to move objects with your mind! Again no gaff. Imagine making things move on their own without any gimmicks! No strings, wires, magnets or any kind of gimmick!
Its amazingly clever!

Chad

Its our favourite word "context" again I think.

The opposite argument I suppose is that mentalism can sometimes look bland and bare. Just a person on a stage with no visual appeal.

I have no problems employing gimmicks, if it creates the strong effect I desire then I use it. For example, I always use Richard's Radar Deck, and I carry a deck stacked in the Breakthrough Card System which means I am ready to basically assault people with the power of my mind. However the benefit of the BCS is that you can then shuffle the deck and use it in an ungaffed mannor.

I think its a toss up between visual appeal and looking gaffy. Its liek saying "which is better the Thought Transmitter or the Centre Tear" to me the Transmitter looks like a magic prop, so I do not use it, I love the idea of the centre tear and other peeks.

Best,
Kennedy

Using props in a live hypnosis show can be really funny as long as they exaggerate the effect you are going for. However its just my opinion Paul's TV show detracted from the hypnosis it became the show. I didn't think it worked. I thought the props became the show. Then again hypnosis is really a live event. I don't think it comes across well on TV.

I just did a few effects today with a PR guy. He is planning to get me into corporate and business publications as a performance consultant. Part of my branding is persuasion and I use mentalism as examples. I tried to tell him I shape perception and that what he just experienced may not be the whole story..

I just gave up he kept trying to analyse when I delivered the suggestions etc..

The thing is there is a blurr with reality because I do use embedded suggestions etc for real to get real results for my clients.

Anyway the point being is. You are all focusing on the wrong part of the equation.

This is an "output" world not an input. The audiences reacts to what they experience not how you create that experience. If you want to create better and better experiences concentrate on the output it doesn't matter what the input is (method).

Shrink

I agree with Mr. Osterlind and John.
Many props are designed so people think they are ordinary objects (books, pens, watches, etc).

I am going to share something with graemesd: I can’t recommend you enough reading the following books:
"Fundamentals" by Bob Cassidy and "Making Real Magic" & "Essays" from Richard Osterlind. They will be invaluable to you.

Best Regards,

Alfredo

Look forward to seeing them Chad. Please keep us posted.