|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Psy Veteran user 337 Posts |
Whatever is powerful enough that is able to affect and transform in postive ways, I don't care if its propless or not. If props are the TOOLS that allows me to share a more powerful experience that's what I will do. If propless is the way, than that's the path me and my participants will enjoy. Props are only TOOLS like words are also TOOLS, they all are "normal". I see this dilema as a "magicians guilt"
|
|||||||||
Scott Soloff Special user Philadelphia, PA 960 Posts |
This is not the way I would use the term Magician's guilt...
'Curiouser and curiouser."
|
|||||||||
sandsjr Special user 840 Posts |
We might put props into 2 general categories...
Category 1. Something you would find at staples or some similar "everyday" item you'd have laying around your house. Category 2. The fancy box with the lock, or the stack of postcards from all over the world, the big tube, the fancy 6-panel chalkboard etc... anything along these lines. Who has a fancy chalkboard separated into 6 panels? (And, why would you use a pad to write things on your whole show then pick up this chalkboard to do an effect?) Who has a stack of 20 postcards from all over the world? Category 2 props, IMO, would be the first thing a spectator might "suspect!" If the spectator suspects a prop is the secret, even if illogically so, then you've undermined yourself to a degree, maybe even completely. If I were to use one of these types of props there would have to be a very good and logical/believable reason! And, the box would have to have a strong logical disconnect built in. i.e.; DB's box from his dead uncle for example. Category 1 props fly under the radar. I would imagine a spectator wouldn't ever consider these to be props in any way. So, my criteria and logic for whether or not to use a "prop" would be if it is incidental to the effect, not "part" of the effect and the "everydayness" of it. In fact, I probably wouldn't even call the items in category 1, "props!" In this way I aspire to perform "prop-less." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
I agree with sandsjr. And things an audience doesn't see aren't props at all. "Props", or more formally,"properties," are, by definition, items seen by the audience and are either part of the stage set or are openly used by the performer.
|
|||||||||
sandsjr Special user 840 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 20, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: Right Bob. I would amend my post to say, "3 Categories" of props. You wouldn't find an ITR at Target. |
|||||||||
Scott Soloff Special user Philadelphia, PA 960 Posts |
Bobby,
You're point is very well taken. But look at David's original post: "Let me take a second to define what I mean by "propless" so we're all on the same page. I mean no billets, no NW, no imp, no TT, no books, no electronics...nothing hidden from view...nada. Just you." Then, look at Jerome's post for even greater clarification. This discussion revolves around two opposite poles of our craft. Personally, I don't think or even care if one is better than the other. Just figure out who you are and what you want to do and go do it. It really is that simple. Best wishes to all, Scott
'Curiouser and curiouser."
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
No, you were right the first time. An ITR is not seen by the audience and,therefore, is NOT a prop.
|
|||||||||
sandsjr Special user 840 Posts |
Got you Scott. I wanted to present my views here even if they were a little off point.
I'm guessing what David is talking about is the divide between the old paradigm of mentalism vs for example, the approach Enrique Enriquez describes in invisible readings. In this way props would be used metaphorically in an open honest way, not in a way to deceive. I consider this to be a different art-form altogether. I might not even call that mentalism. However, with that approach I understand why someone might want to be prop-less. On the other hand, if your goal is to deliver mentalism the old fashioned way I think the whole idea of whether or not to use props is for your "own" sake, not the audiences and would agree with you when you say, "who cares?". In this case I would disagree with the initial classification of billets, pencils, nail-writers etc as props. Hope this makes sense. Bobby |
|||||||||
sandsjr Special user 840 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 20, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: Gotcha Bob. I'm in complete agreement that if you can't see it its not a prop. I think there's a bit of a crossover with regards to the definition in the classical sense. Some people refer to a thumb tip as a prop. Beyond even the classical definition, I would not consider it so. That was where I was going with the ITR. I am a bit delirious now having a fever and sitting here in SoCal at this computer. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Scott-
The problem is that David, in his original post, gives a new definition to the word "prop." Electronics, gaffs and gimmicks unseen by the audience are no more props than a spotlight or footlight is. Quote:
A property, commonly shortened to prop (plural: props), is an object used on stage or on screen by actors during a performance or screen production. In practical terms, a prop is considered to be anything movable or portable on a stage or a set, distinct from the actors, scenery, costumes and electrical equipment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatrical_property What David is referring to is propless AND gimmickless mentalism. Such effects are fine as far as they go. But too many newcomers believe that this is somehow closer to the "real thing" than traditional mentalism. Some, in fact, seem to think that the "real thing" can actually be performed on stage. I refer to those type of effects as "amazing mentalism that sometimes works." When it does, it can be great. When it doesn't, it can be painful to watch. And I can't imagine why I would arbitrarily limit myself. As it is, my act appears to be pretty much propless. And that's all that counts- the audience's perception. |
|||||||||
Scott Soloff Special user Philadelphia, PA 960 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 20, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: Couldn't agree more! Best, Scott
'Curiouser and curiouser."
|
|||||||||
Adrian Tugui New user 69 Posts |
I'm in no position to give solid answers for why 'propless' is better or not, as I don't perform as much as I would like to. The way I like to perform is there, on the spot, any time, anywhere. Stage shows are not my cup of tea. If I had enough knowledge to be able to construct enough 'propless' pieces (what I mean by that is to have NOTHING on me. Not even stuff that the audience doesn't see) I would definitely perform only that way. I find it more interesting when a mentalist does stuff which looks real, but the only choice the audience has is to enjoy what you are doing, because thinking about the method is futile since you are using NO OBJECTS. I'd rather guess someone's PIN code (or some substitute of that code) using only my skills than having them write it down and then getting the information the easier way. When I got into magic I was a little kid, thinking I would learn some miraculous way to make that coin vanish from my hand. As I found out it wasn't actually possible to vanish something I became a bit disappointed. That's why I like to keep the feeling of what I do real not only for my participants, but for me too.
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
If I performed solely for my own amusement, I'd agree with you. But I don't, so I don't.
|
|||||||||
cpbartak Special user Mooresville, NC 941 Posts |
I've always believed that performing propless is a goal that, when taken on it's own, is a little shortsighted. That, as a main goal, massages the performer's ego without taking into account the audience's overall experience. I think more important goals that need to take precedence are to make sure your shows and effects are maximally entertaining or impactful and fit your persona, those goals take precedence over all others for me. If you put together the most entertaining show that you can for your audience and it ends up propless, great. If you put together the most entertaining show that you can and it ends up not entirely propless, great, too. I do like propless material, and perform a billetless Q&A as well as my variant of Jerome's Energetic Touches in my show. In fact, the only objects I seemingly use throughout my show are a single notepad and marker to record my thoughts "since they come so fast, I can't keep up with them all while talking unless I jot some down to come back to later." (see Kenton's 'Mind Reading' for this justification). Those simple "props" fit my creative/artistic persona, but opens up the doorway for everything I'd want to do method-wise to make my show maximally entertaining. After determining that an effect that I'm considering is maximally entertaining, I then take into account ALL of the following criteria when evaluating the various means to achieve it:
a) Is the method employed the most parsimonious approach possible? b) How invisible is the method from the audience's perspective? c) How much will employing the method take away from pure presentation (e.g., in time)? d) How reliable is the method? How reliable do I need it to be in the particular performing venue? e) How closely does the effect, when using this method, approximate how it should if I were "doing it for real"? A lot of times, propless methods may score high in criterion e, but low in criteria d or c, or what have you. Other times, propless approaches may score highest of all.
Some people hear voices.. Some see invisible people.. Others have no imagination whatsoever.
|
|||||||||
Jerome Finley V.I.P. SLC 3419 Posts |
Great post, Chris!
Your feedback and experience here is fantastic (as are the others weighing in!) and of course I'm ALWAYS thrilled beyond measure whenever I see a fellow performer (especially a good friend and trusted comrade!) giving so much thought, time, energy, attention and depth when it comes to who they are, what they do, share and provide their clients and audience members/participants and, lastly, WHY and HOW they select the material, routines and showpieces they actively employ and utilize in their daily lives and professional work. Well done, sir! "Going propless" is great, and I agree with you that as a goal by itself it becomes rather empty and meaningless. True, there are numerous perks, benefits and advantages to be had with this approach, and drawbacks too! In the end we should be striving to be as entertaining, beneficial, positive, rewarding and intimately connected with and TO our live witnesses and supporters as possible. Likewise, we should be good to the craft and for the performance art, history and legacy of Mentalism. The decision to use props & gimmicks or not (or even to combine the two!) is a strictly personal and professional one. You should do what's best for you (& those you serve or cater to), always. J.
"Join my update list here!" http://eepurl.com/uE3Jf
|
|||||||||
The Forgotten One New user 32 Posts |
I really don't care too much if I use props or not. It really depend what kind of act I'm performing. If I need something like tarot cards or pen and paper then I use them. But generally I do not like to use props what cannot be examined. This style fit for me.
|
|||||||||
guitarmagic Elite user Southern Louisiana 425 Posts |
Being able to immediately, extemporaneously, on the spot, out of the blue, without excuses, perform amazing, entertaining, enthralling, mind-blowing material for anyone, anywhere, anytime under any circumstances is worth my time, effort, money, investment, dedication, ambition and energies. No matter how long my studies and preparation may take to create something that I will be proud to perform.
This does not preclude my allowance to perform with physical materials containing mass (props) . . . those seen or unseen. I agree with Jerome in that to use props or not is a "personal and professional one. You should do what's best for you (& those you serve or cater to), always." I love my props and agree with Bob. For me, my weakness is in working prop-less, therefore it is my decided focus and goal to work prop-less, later concentrating on semi-prop-less and of course totally with props will be no problem. Balance is all things. In the end, I would like to gift my audiences with performances the note are truly special, something they know they don't normally receive, a unique connection, experiences that are "other-world" and even pleasant healing experiences . . . creating a good that was not there prior to my performance, giving them something they revel in tell their friends and families, think about throughout their days and to fill their lives with wonder. You guys' materials, here on this thread, I absolutely love, admire, cherish and constantly study with great pleasure and let me remind you I can't thank you all enough for what you have gifted me . . . with and without props!
Why is it that on one side of the world a person looks at a picture of the Grand Canyon and says, "it looks so real." At the same time on the other side of the world a person looks at the Grand Canyon and says, "it looks like a picture."
|
|||||||||
sandsjr Special user 840 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 21, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: Bob, why can't all lawyers be as succinct as you? |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 23, 2014, sandsjr wrote: No idea. |
|||||||||
sandsjr Special user 840 Posts |
LMAO
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » IS Propless Better? (36 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ 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 < |