|
|
Go to page 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] | ||||||||||
teejay Inner circle Liverpool, UK 1831 Posts |
This is supposed to be a fun discussion.
Just been reading the thread Mentalism versus Mental Magic. Because it seems to keep going over the same grounds, I decided to start this one. In NLP there is a model that says that when arguments can't be resolved, it's usually because the logical levels are badly sorted. Calling it M versus MM is an indication of an attitude and people who reply are accepting that attitude, Let's leave the 'versus' attitude out and find an area of commonality so that we can build on it and hopefully get some understanding of the various issues. First, I, you, we must accept that our opinions are worthless, the only judge is the spectator. What does he think he is seeing? You may disagree and you may be right but the only way we can move forward is to accept this? Usually the discussion is about M and MM. Perhaps a lot of the argument is about trying to classify a lot of performers and even more effects into these 2 headings? How about this? Instead of 2 classes of Mentalism and Mental Magic, let's have a few more Psychics (in our world, this means people who have or pretend to have real powers) Mentalists who let the spectators decide if they have real powers Mentalists who insist that they have no real powers People who use gimmicks that are not seen for any of the above People who use obvious props People who mix some Mental in with lots of obvious Magic effects If we accept these different categories we could possibly do a better job of describing performers, performances and effects? What do you think? Please accept that this is about taking the spectator's judgment. Some of the most expert members have written their expert opinions on this. Just for fun, let's look at what the spectator thinks he is seeing. This is a challenge: Considering the whole field, what does the spectator think he is seeing? TJ |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Teejay: I think that you are putting the cart before the horse.
In the beginning, the performer decides what he wants the audience to think (about him/her, what he does, and how he's doing it). The performer then makes decisions based upon those things, utilizing his own taste, aesthetic interests, knowledge, artistic talents and abilities. Different performers will take different approaches. If a particular performer wants the audience to believe that he has real powers, he will approach his presentation in a way that delivers that message to the audience. Likewise with the performer who doesn't want people to think he's psychic. In other words, the audience is led to think what they think by the performer. Therefore, to say that the performer's opinion is worthless seems to me to be missing the point. Once the performance is realized on stage or in a close-up situation, the performer then must ascertain whether or not his goal/vision has been successfully achieved. At that point, the audience's reactions and critiques are important, of course. In the end, sometimes we find that what we want to portray might not be working, for any number of reasons, one of which (and this is something I find lacking in any discussion of these matters) could be that the type of audience that the performer has available to him is not appropriate to the type of performance he wishes to present. In some cases the performer and the performance are valid, but the particular audience (for reasons of age, education, exposure to theater, religions convictions, etc.) isn't able to appreciate what is being presented. A different audience, in a different setting might find the presentation exactly to their liking, and the performer's goal will be achieved. In the end, what the audience THINKS they see is up to the particular choices made by each performer. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
DT3 Inner circle Hill Valley 1920 Posts |
Two excellent posts, gentlemen. Great food for thought in both posts. My thoughts on this are a bit too esoteric to put into words, but other than that this discussion is off to an eloquent start.
D. P.S. Just re-read each post and got a real zen vibe here. |
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Teejay, Entity, you both make valid arguments. Teejay, I agree that in the end, the only value judgement of your show that counts is the spectator's. If it's not favorable, eventually you'll be playing to an empty house, and that, as you said, is a fact. Entity, I also agree with the insightful point you made- that we, as performers, have to decide in what way we wish to be perceived, and then ask OURSELVES if we have successfully accomplished our goal/vision.
If that sounds like a contradiction, well, perhaps it is. ART is a contradiction, and that's what this is about: As artists- (in ANY field) we are constantly walking the tightrope between creating what we want; the material that pleases US... and creating material we know the audience will enjoy, and will move them the most. Often, they are not the same. We certainly don't want to pander, and "sell out"... but we also can't do it JUST for us, the work then becomes selfish and often inaccessible, and therefore boring. IMHO, the only mentalist who has successfully figured out a way to navigate that tightrope on television, is Derren Brown. (on the BBC) |
|||||||||
teejay Inner circle Liverpool, UK 1831 Posts |
D
Here is a recommendation for your understanding of the two posts I have studied Zen for 45 years and for many months studied full time with a zen monk who was a head teacher at the Mahatma Gandhi Ashram. Entity's post is a perfect example of a zen approach. It goes to the heart of the matter with crystal clear vision and no emotional colouring. Well spotted Your buddy in the Dharma LOL |
|||||||||
DT3 Inner circle Hill Valley 1920 Posts |
TeeJay,
Thanks. I definitely picked up on your zennish approach in your Tao-like harmonious approach to the matter. And Entity put forth great points while keeping with the harmony. I wish more discussions on this board were handled with the same amount of grace and flow. D. |
|||||||||
Tom Jorgenson Inner circle LOOSE ANGLES, CALIFORNIA 4451 Posts |
It seems to me that TeeJay and Entity are still talking about two different things.
We dance an invisible dance to music they cannot hear.
|
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-11-18 15:39, Tom Jorgenson wrote: Agreed. Yet both certainly are insightful and valid. |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Well, in a way, Teejay was talking about two different things in his first post. One issue was how to classify Mentalism in its various forms; the other was how the audience sees us as mentalists.
I chose to focus mostly on the latter, as I think that the former only matters to those inside the trade, and not to the audience. Even then, few inside the trade really care about breaking mentalism down in classifications, I think beyond those claiming psychic powers and those who don't. Just my opinion. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
DT3 Inner circle Hill Valley 1920 Posts |
Entity it is obvious that your well formed statements are born out of a great deal of experience on stage. Thank you so much for being so generous in sharing your hard knocks knowledge on this AND other topics.
You know, some people actually charge a lot of money to impart this level of intel. D. |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Thanks Don.
Part of what's worth considering here, for me at least, is that many performers of Mentalism only think about who their audience will be AFTER they've created their show. Knowing the audience you want, and having access to that audience may be two very different things. If you can be honest enough with yourself to know the audience you'll probably be performing for, that will help to dictate the material that you choose, the on stage persona you take on, whether you'll use props or electronics, have a one or two person show, etc., etc. Thinking about this at the start will save you a lot of wasted time and energy. And if you dream of moving beyond your initial audience, the show you've already developed won't be wasted. It's now a polished little package of material that can be incorporated in parts or as a whole for the new type of audiences you'll face. Re ART -- I've said here before that while we all strive as artists to create ART, it's the audience who decides if it's art or not. I define ART as the direct communication between the artist's imagination and that of his audience. If the performer sets out to communicate something personal and the audience gets it, then art is achieved. So, the artist decides what he wants to say to a particular audience. They, in turn, decide if what he's saying has spoken to them in any meaningful way. Perhaps that's what Teejay was saying in his original post, that the ART doesn't happen until the audience gets it. I agree. In my prior post, though, I suggest that sometimes it's not the artist or the product that's at fault, it's merely that the artist has misjudged the audience. The same artist with a different audience more suited to his goals would succeed in his performance. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
"The same artist with a different audience more suited to his goals would succeed in his performance."
When discussing art it is important to visit the curator's viewpoint. There are many works which do not resonate in any way shape or form with me. I can tell by those who pass by these works that my experience is common, if not predominant, but that does not make a work non-art. If it works as art for a few it has achieved the art label. Part of the issue with performance art is that most of it is commercial art at its core. Without a buying public the ability to perform it, realise the expression, is very limited. But commercial or common success in no way determines what is art, and we can get lost if we journey along that success is art path. At one point Entity is saying "the audience sets the materials choices", albeit through the decisions of the artist. I'll just add there is a different perspective. That being, create your vision and put it before as many different audiences as necessary until you find one with which your choices resonate. This is a more difficult, longer journey; but one which I find more rewarding and truer to "the artist". It appears entity embraces this with the closing line of his which I quoted. The path of the artist is indeed full of twists and turns and the tight rope dance of commercialism vs. your vision. That dance is where art is born. Cheers, Tom |
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-11-18 16:26, entity wrote: Quote:
On 2007-11-18 18:26, Tom Cutts wrote: This thread is such a breath of fresh air. Very insightful, very zen, very thought-provoking. Thanks to all. As to the above quotes, I must agree with Tom-- Art is not dependent upon the audience "getting" it, and I can only speak from experience in my chosen field: comedy writing. Unlike other talk show hosts, David Letterman will do one or two arcane, "artful" jokes during his monologue, which only a small percentage of the population will laugh at. Dave's got plenty of jokes to choose from every day, and considering he only does 8 in the monologue, he could hit every one out of the park, if he were to only choose from the "crowd-pleasers". He doesn't do that. He does a few that make him and only a small group of others, laugh. One of the most brilliant jokes he ever did, IMHO, was the following, (which I'd classify more as an "anti-joke"): "Everyone is sick with the flu right now. In fact, the guy who wrote this joke got sick with the flu, had to go home, and couldn't finish it." There was a long silence in the studio audience. Crickets. Does make it "non-art" because 99% of the audience didn't get it? Of course not. It's brilliant. (And I didn't write it, by the way). I maintain it is HIGH art, and for those who DO appreciate the joke, see it as such. Can you picture ANY other talk show host doing that joke? I can't. They won't, because they're playing for numbers, rather than creating art. No matter who gets it, or not. |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Gableson:
Perhaps you've made my point, that ART is dependent upon the audience "getting it". In your example, you stated that jokes like the one you mention are aimed at only a small percentage of the audience. They get it. That's the audience he's aiming the joke at. He knows that those people will get it, laugh, appreciate it, and see what he's done. It confirms my earlier position that if you find the right audience for the performance, it's art, even if another audience doesn't "get it". If, on the other hand, NO ONE gets it, I don't think it can be classified as Art. There's no communication of anything meaningful to anyone. The same, by the way, can be said of Magic or Mentalism. If the audience doesn't get it, isn't mystified or amazed or impressed with the effect, no Magic exists. They might appreciate the skill or the dance or the production, but if someone doesn't experience that moment of mystery in their brain, it's not Magic. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
DT3 Inner circle Hill Valley 1920 Posts |
I worked a bit for a director on stage as a comedic actor...we threw several refereces and jokes into those plays that very few people, besides us, would get. (our basic philosophy was six for them, one for us).
I think that approach to entertainment is totally worth it. For example, I have "got" jokes from Dave, Conan et al that I know very few others would pick up on. And furthermore I love when a joke flies over my head. And you can bet that when that happens I do everything research-wise within my ability to find out what the fuss is about. To bring back up the Zen angle, I think as entertainers, we each have an image of what we want to communicate to our audiences a message that we want to convey. In addition, our audieces pick up on a certain message that is dependent upon (a) the said audience member's preconcieved notions and (b) the message that the artist tries to communicate to his/her audience. What lies inbetween these two points is the grey. This is where the zen comes in. And it is also an amazing theory to ponder, born forth from the clarity of thinking that reasonates already within this thread, thanks to the thoughtful and concise comments heretofore maid by TeeJay, Entity and Gabelson. Thank you all for giving me and the others here an amazing koan to focus on in the next meditation. D. |
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-11-18 19:38, entity wrote: Not to be contentious, but perhaps I wasn't clear in my post- When Dave does a joke, he's not directing it at a small segment of the community who will truly "get" it; he's simply doing what HE finds funny. He's not taking aim at any particular niche audience; he's merely doing material that makes HIM laugh. So, if a joke falls in the audience, and there's no one there to hear it, is it "art"? |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Ah... sorry, I misunderstood.
If no one got it, I'd say it's not Art. Obviously you got it, as did some others, so it's art for you. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-11-18 23:33, entity wrote: Ok, I'm going to contradict myself, here. Earlier in the thread, I stated that we must constantly walk the tightrope that all artists must walk- and that is the one between creating work to please the audience, and creating work to please ourselves. I said that if it was purely for us, it would be selfish, too eclectic, and most likely, boring. I think that's true to an extent. But I do not believe it to always be the case. Take Letterman- just because some of his jokes may have played to 10 people, didn't mean he INTENDED them to play for 10 people. In the very early years, when his material was actually MORE out there, less conventional and LESS ACCESSIBLE, his ratings were low, and yet he seemed to win the Emmys every year. Someone was recognizing it as art. And I can tell you with 100% certainty, Dave didn't care about anyone at the Emmy nominating committee "getting" it. Dave doesn't even attend the Emmys. He really doesn't care. (Truthfully). So whether 10,000,000 get it, 100 get it, or no one gets it, it's still art. Consider this- how many great painters have there been who were completely shunned during their lifetimes; tortured artists who died penniless, only to be revered and nearly deified decades and even centuries later? Are they not creating art because their contemporaries didn't recognize it as such? Because no one in their lifetime "got it"? Of course they're creating art! Scott Joplin, the father of ragtime music, died penniless and was not respected in his day. No one considered what he did as "art". No one got it. In fact, it wasn't until the movie "The Sting" came out nearly a century after Joplin's death, that people finally heard and appreciated his true genius. Unfortunately, most people thought the songs were written by Marvin Hamlisch, but that's another cruel twist of art. Just because people don't get it, doesn't make it "not" art. Likewise, just because people DO get it, doesn't MAKE it art. |
|||||||||
burst Veteran user Memphis, TN 308 Posts |
Well said, Gabe. Seems we share the same concept of art. To simplify, art is the act of mindful creation.
Doesn't matter if the knowing creator never intends a person to witness it, or is somehow ignorant that it will be seen, the creation is still art. It's each performers choice to what is mental magic, magic, or mentalism, and it's that performers choice as to what s/he says it is. With good performers, the audience will take it however you say it. /paul.f |
|||||||||
DT3 Inner circle Hill Valley 1920 Posts |
Not that it matters but in terms of linguistics and peaceful philosophy I have to say that this is the most educational, influential and powerful thread I have encountered in over a decade of involvement at the salty old Café.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Mentalism 'and' Mental Magic (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < |