|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-02-26 18:59, Arnon wrote: I don't know... Jermay is a scrappy little bas-tard. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
TamTheMentalist New user 65 Posts |
I have a feeling if this would happen Banachek would tag team with Jermay as well...
Though, we all know they would never stoop to such a low... |
|||||||||
kriskraze Special user 620 Posts |
Quote:
Surely the artistry is in the presentation and in the final effect, not in the tools used. Should the quality of the artist be defined by the tools he used to create the art? Willy Nelson makes beautiful music on a chewed up old guitar with holes in it. Is he less of an artist because he chooses to use that instead of an elegant looking, expensive guitar? Isn't the art in the music produced? I don't think your comparison holds weight. I agree with it's sentiment, but I don't think the use of stooges as a tool of mentalism can be compared in such a way. I think a more accurate comparison would be a guitarist who performs live but actually plays a recording of him playing the guitar, perhaps with some subtle multi-tracking or sped up parts, so as to achieve an effect not possible under the normal conditions. The presentation and the final effect the guitarist achieved may well be exquisite. His recorded play may be undetectable by the audience. They may well be thoroughly entertained and he may go on to get many more bookings. I don't deny that this is art - but is it solo guitar playing? I spoke at length weeks ago about the place of methodology in our art form. I was suggesting that although mentalism is mainly presentation, the methodology of an effect contributes to this artistry. I went on to claim that if you are performing someone else's work, you are not being a 'complete artist' and in the worst cases simply a 'karaoke mentalist'. Thinking up original ways to combine effects, presentations, methodologies and creating "new" (make of that what you will) methodologies when possible is an important part of the mentalism art. In my opinion, using a stooge is a methodological cop out in the same way that a camera trick is. When you visit a mentalist, if you have framed your performance as fictional entertainment as all non-frauds should, I believe there is an implied condition of the performance that you will use misdirection/trickery/magic/psychology/whatever to create the illusion of whatever skill you claim to have. I think if you asked the man in the street if he thought about a mentalist using a stooge and comparison to any other mentalism tool - for example a deck switch, he would only have a problem with the stooge. They are both deceptions, they are both 'tools' but I think stooging is a tool that violates the implied rules of the game - if only the artistic game. Let's use PK touches as an example... The effect can be achieved in a few ways - anything is fair game - dual reality, electronics, mechanics providing the person at the end actually believes you achieved the effect. Using a stooge who just pretends to feel the effect is, again, artistically weak. I realize that much like ethics, artistry may not be the primary consideration for a performer that needs to pay his bills with his "art". |
|||||||||
Jim-Callahan V.I.P. 5018 Posts |
Man you are lost.
But I like reading your stuff. Jim
“I can make Satan’s devils dance like fine gentlemen across the stage of reality”.
|
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-02-26 19:33, kriskraze wrote: I suppose the main difference would be that in Mentalism we practice deception in various forms during our performances. The audience for the guitarist is paying to see a non-deceptive performance. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18012 Posts |
Every now and then I think he's got it ... then off again
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-02-26 19:33, kriskraze wrote: There are interpretive artists and there are original artists. Many art forms are interpretive. Is Brando less of an artist because he interprets someone else's story and words as he creates his role? Was Nijinski less of an artist because he danced the classics with someone else's choreography? While you personally might have more RESPECT for orignal artists, to say that someone is not an artist because they interpret rather than originate would seem to negate the work of a lot of brilliant performers. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-02-26 19:33, kriskraze wrote: I would think that the audience is only aware of the final effect, unless you are careless or point out what tools you are using deliberately. You as an insider see the tools. You appreciate a smoothly done pass, or a deceptively done billet switch. The audience isn't aware of those things and only responds to the finished effect. Are we performing to please the audience, or to impress other mentalists? - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Why was this moved to Magic Names in the Media? Mods?
- entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
Kriskraze
Kris kraze Cris Craze Criss Cra(rotate the Z->N)e Cri$$ (C+r meld together =G) aNe Cri$$ GaNe-> ANGE And a crisscross with Ks=L Cri$$ Angel. That is why this thread got moved here... maybe. The art of mentalism IMHO is 95% about the presentation and 5% method... however, as Ascanio would say, we would need to have the 5% method stone-cold down first to then do the presentation justice.
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-02-26 05:08, obijuan wrote: Hang on a second. Which of the 3 stooges was a mentalist? I know the way Moe used to make Curly pick 2 fingers was kind of a force, but mentalism? Relly?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Ok on a serious note, use stooges, just don't get caught using stooges.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Arnon Inner circle 1320 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-02-26 22:05, Dannydoyle wrote: So seriously, then, it's not crass for Criss Angel to liberally plant his stooges as much as he can, as long as he doesn't get caught at it? As much as I dislike the emo goth-boy, do I sense a double standard on this forum? |
|||||||||
Philemon Vanderbeck Inner circle Seattle, WA 4694 Posts |
The problem occurs when you perform effects that are only possible through the use of stooges.
Professor Philemon Vanderbeck
That Creepy Magician "I use my sixth sense to create the illusion of possessing the other five." |
|||||||||
Ryan Reeves New user 75 Posts |
Quote:
I think a more accurate comparison would be a guitarist who performs live but actually plays a recording of him playing the guitar, perhaps with some subtle multi-tracking or sped up parts, so as to achieve an effect not possible under the normal conditions. While I'm not taking a stance on the issue one way or the other, there are some cases where they do that, to a point, and it's sort of required, i.e. Rush. They use digital samplers that they trigger while playing to accurately recreate the studio version. If they didn't the songs would sound -very- different and/or they'd have to hire twenty more people. People can incorperate that into their arguements however they wish. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-02-27 00:04, Philemon Vanderbeck wrote: YES! I have been trumpeting this from the rooftops and till recent events everyone seemed to think I was wrong. Actually I think that any method in which it is obvious it is the ONLY way it is done, I find sort of weak. Either NO explination, or many, but never just the only one possible. Stooges aside. I hold no double standard, I have always said this.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Arnon Inner circle 1320 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-02-26 23:34, Arnon wrote: Quote:
On 2008-02-27 00:18, Dannydoyle wrote: Dannydoyle: My earlier post was not aimed only at your posts, but also at others' posts that stated that stooging is a stratagem of mentalism, and not a stranger to mentalism. I happen to agree with that - stooging has earned its place in the arsenal of the mentalist. On the other hand, how far must one go before the line between appropriate use and inappropriate use of stooges is crossed? It seems that the consensus on this forum is that Criss Angel crosses that line. I wondered how one defines that line - or is there a double standard when measuring certain mentalists as opposed to this unpopular one (Criss A)? For instance, without identifying the video since this is not a private forum, Marc Salem performs an effect that must employ a stooge. I would bet my bottom dollar that he does so, but I also acknowledge that the way he integrates the stooge into his performance is very, very subtle, and the way he also implicitly negates the use of a stooge is very, very clever. There is no doubt that the performance demonstrated the adept use of a stooge to pull off a seeming miracle. Knowledgeable mentalists were fooled, until I explained to them the many subtleties used to conceal the stooging. Nevertheless, according to Philemon's standard, Marc Salem crossed the line by performing an effect that was only possible through the use of a stooge. The only difference from Philemon's stated standard is that Marc Salem only used one stooge for that one effect, rather than multiple stooges for multiple effects. Is that a difference without a true distinction? Is Marc Salem in the same category as Criss Angel? Arnon |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
My only standard is the same for any secret, tool, method or whatever you want to call it.
Don't get caught doing card slights, don't get tip the gafs on boxes, don't show the wires, trap doors, mirrors, and any other sort of things. Don't get caught using stooges. IF you get away with it, then in my opinion it is as valid as any other form of magic. BUT Criss in my opinion goes way too far as a HUGE percentage of the laity know full well what he is doing. By the way this is my same philisophy for camera editing. I think it is pretty easy to figure really. There is no grey area here in my mind. JUST DON'T GET CAUGHT! Any method is valid.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
Yep... not a double standard- just CA used Stooges way to much and in ways it was bleeding obvious.... just as if he was NW and leaving the NW in plain view (like Uri did)...
Any effect that makes someone think auto "it was a stooge!" hopefully has not used a stooge .... or it has been done badly.
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
Harry Lorayne 1926 - 2023 New York City 8558 Posts |
To quote myself (from REPUTATION-MAKERS) - Yes, you can do miracles using a stooge, but then there will always be at least one person who knows that you're not such a genius after all! HL
[email]harrylorayne@earthlink.net[/email]
http://www.harrylorayne.com http://www.harryloraynemagic.com |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magic names and the media » » Phenomenon and Stooging and other classic things (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [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 < |