|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
J ack Galloway Inner circle 1309 Posts |
I would advise taking the advice of ALEXANDRE.
I have and do well becouse of it. Heck, brither Ted gave the same advice. Jack H.O.A-X |
|||||||||
SHoT New user 57 Posts |
I also use cards in my performances, but typically only one card effect during the show. It can play very strong, you just have to justify the use of cards.
S% |
|||||||||
David Numen Inner circle 2072 Posts |
As usual this kind of thinking arises when Mentalists don't consider what their audience are really likely to think.
Most people associate cards with games, gambling or fortune telling. And gambling and fortune telling are terrific themes for Mentalism. |
|||||||||
Carlos the Great Inner circle California 1234 Posts |
I understand where you are coming from bartlewizard, but you didn't bring up the fact that the performer should be controlling what their audiences is thinking about. If cards are introduced as merely a way to have 52 possibilities than can be randomly chosen, then, if the performer is good, that is what they will think. Furthermore, the way in which the cards are used affects how the audience will view their use. For example, if the cards are mixed in the audience and one member selects one card and then hides the deck, I don't see how visions of poker, blackjack, or rummy would come to mind. However, if you presented a precognition routine using an effect like, say, Power Poker from Dear Mr. Fantasy by John Bannon, it would.
As great as this discussion has been, I am unsure as to whether it is actually beneficial in any way. People will tend to have their own opinions and, more importantly, performing styles. I am unsure whether reading arguments for and against using cards is wise as a good argument either way may, in fact, cause somebody to do something that does not fit in with their performance style. Just my opinion, though. -Carlos
Cognite tute
|
|||||||||
David Numen Inner circle 2072 Posts |
Quote:
I understand where you are coming from bartlewizard, but you didn't bring up the fact that the performer should be controlling what their audiences is thinking about. If cards are introduced as merely a way to have 52 possibilities than can be randomly chosen, then, if the performer is good, that is what they will think. This is true but it hasn't been enough to convince those mentalists who are fervently against the use of cards. Which is why I thought it important to consider what real people in the real world actually think. I also think it's rather dry - particularly for the female audience - to talk about cards being 52 different objects. Why should they care? For example the associations cards have are important - many gambling people will automatically get excited about the mere sight of a pack of cards. If you talk about the fortune telling aspects then that will certainly interest another portion of your audience. Even better, a story building up the importance of the turn of one single card can actually be quite emotive. By all means, strive to control what your audience is thinking but also use readily available associations to make that easier. I can imagine a great many people just "switching off" or losing interest at the description of "52 different objects". |
|||||||||
Carlos the Great Inner circle California 1234 Posts |
Oh, I agree. But my point is that the performance and the performer should direct what the audience is thinking. While automatic associations are made, the same can be said for any magician/mentalist to begin with. I don't know about you, but my feeling is that any "magicial" performance will automatically draw associations with top hats, rabbits, and cards. It is the performer's job to either meet those associations or direct the audience's thoughts away from them. Many mentalists use numbers in their routines. Are the ignoring the fact that many members of the audience hate math or suffer from innumeracy? Well, maybe some, but not all. It is not the numbers that should be important, it is the performer. The numbers, just like the cards, should be treated as a way for the performer to demonstrate his/her skills. To use your example, why should ANYBODY care of this guy picked 9801 and this guy picked 4356 and that girl picked 1089 and the numbers total 15246 (heck, it was even boring to write)? Does it make it any more interesting that all the chosen numbers are all multiples of nine? That they are all perfect squares (of 99, 66, and 33, respectively)? It may matter to somebody who is a mathematician or somebody who knows all the little tricks about multiples of nine. Will that change how I present the trick? Maybe, maybe not. That is my point. Regardless of what people think about cards or numbers or the tarot or whatever, your job as a performer is to control their experience. A stage performer does not truly cut a woman in half and I doubt anybody in the audience thinks he does, does that make it a bad trick? Should he say "I know none of you believe this is real but..."? I don't think so. He should take it into account, but then use it only to change his performance so that that is taken into account (maybe adding some blood to the blade as it cuts or showing a different angle that negates a common explanation).
However, and I don't want this to get lost, I am not sure it is appropriate to try to convince anybody that they should or shouldn't do a particular thing (like use cards). Each performer must decide what works with their performance style and the overall effect they want to have on the audience. If getting over initial impressions of cards gets in the way of a performance, I would hope that cards are not used. Please remember that this is just my set of thoughts, I appreciated your response and wanted to give you some more of an idea of my thought process. -Carlos
Cognite tute
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Could someone please explain what an obscure science fiction author like Isiac Asimov has to do with this discussion? L Ron Hubbard said something similar but so what it had nothing to do with what I said. I really missed the point.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Carlos the Great Inner circle California 1234 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-11-01 11:20, Dannydoyle wrote: The key point here is that you said neither is happening any time soon in the physical universe we occupy. That is where a discussion about Asimov comes in. Here is a sports analogy since the first example was too complicated. Prior to Roger Bannister running a sub-4 minute mile, scientists from all over the world "proved" that it was physically impossible for a human being to run a mile that fast. Here are more examples, scientists used to "prove" that speeds above 30MPH for a prolonged duration of time would be fatal to a human being. Oh, and did you know there were numerous "scientific facts" that proved tomatoes were deadly to humans, until a human ate something like 120 over the course of a couple days. The point is that you have no basis, scientific or otherwise, for saying that something is not going to happen in the future. As a population, we may know "more" than the scientists that said it was impossible to run a 4-minute mile, but there is still a lot we don't know about and to act like we do is a result of ignorance of history and over-estimating the state of scientific progress we have made in 60 years. For the record, I am a scientist by trade, so this isn't an anti-science spiel, just remarking that somebody seems to be pretty sure they can see the future when the are arguing against the fact. Does that answer your question? -Carlos PS- We won't even get into the discussion about how the scientific method was completely ignored in the above quote.
Cognite tute
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Perfectly Carlos........you like to try to prove your superior to others and act all pompus....
So go ahead .........read my mind.......levitat me..... or stop telling me I am wrong. Asimov was a science FICTION writer if I am not mistaken right>? Since your a scientist by trade you should look up the word FICTION in webster for clarification. Wans't it a scientist who "proved" a bumble bee can't fly? In the physical universe we occupy RIGHT THIS SECOND neither has happened, is probably what I should have said. Prove me wrong. Levitate someone or read my mind or stop acting so arrogant with your 47 posts. Instead of nit picking and using obscure science fiction authors as reference to make yourself superior maybe you should just consider the point. Is THAT easy enough for you>? all I am smart enough to speak of is the reality of the moment. things that HAVE been proven or disproven. PERIOD. so stop wasting my time with theoretical bull horns about Asimalv ok?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Carlos the Great Inner circle California 1234 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-11-21 16:02, Dannydoyle wrote: 1) Asimov wrote fiction and non-fiction. The book I referred to was NON-FICTION, look up NON-FICTION for me, won't ya? 2) Actually, and this is what I didn't want to get into, it is impossible to prove something can't happen. Scientific method is coming up with ideas until they can no longer be disproved. Even then, it isn't a fact, it is a theory, just like the theory of gravity. 3) You are absolutely right, all you can say is that, to your knowledge, nobody has read minds or levitated. That is all you can say. Telling the future is definately not your strong point, nor is intelligent discourse. 4) What does it matter if I have 47 or 470,000 posts. I have posted on other boards for YEARS and decided to try this one to see what the discussions looked like. Some good, some bad, some (like your respose) are just idiotic. I am not "acting arrogant" I am merely pointing out logical inconsistencies in your post and giving examples that you still seem unable to comprehend fully. If I seem arrogant, maybe because you are an idiot. 5) The point is that you said it would NEVER happen. The counterpoint is that, and I will make this simple this time, only a simple-minded nitwit would say something that final about a future they couldn't know. -Carlos Posted: Nov 21, 2005 4:52pm ---------------------------------------- As a correction, you actually said "not anytime soon" which is just as unfounded as saying never. I just wanted to counter the most simple response (and one which, by the way, has nothing to do with the arguments at hand).
Cognite tute
|
|||||||||
snm Special user 550 Posts |
I I use cards in my mentalism every now and then.
|
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts |
This topic is continued at Cards in mentalism.
Other topics discussing whether to use cards in mentalism include: Playing cards & mentalism Mentalism with Cards Least likely psychics See also: Cards and mentalism Mentalism with regular cards Mentalism with Cards?? Favorite mentalism with cards Killer Mentalism with Ordinary Cards Docc Hilford Customizing cards for mentalism effects Cards and mentalism Mentalism... With Cards! Marked cards and mentalism Your "Mentalism" Packet trick with cards Presentations for Mentalism with Cards
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Cards in mentalism » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (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 0.05 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 < |