The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Whats all the fuss about new mentalism effects when same reaction can be get going back to the roots (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3
LoveKey1988
View Profile
Elite user
443 Posts

Profile of LoveKey1988
Something that James Randi said and I agree with this:

"Don't make an act up that just uses a dozen different ways of demonstrating telepathy, and expect the audience to view each method as a miracle. The actual miracle to them is the whole routine as a unit - ' that man can read minds - he did it with a dozen people ' , they will say, not: ' he can read minds - and he did it twelve different ways.' "
Dr Spektor
View Profile
Eternal Order
Carcanis
10719 Posts

Profile of Dr Spektor
Quote:
On 2012-06-30 18:53, LoveKey1988 wrote:
Something that James Randi said and I agree with this:

"Don't make an act up that just uses a dozen different ways of demonstrating telepathy, and expect the audience to view each method as a miracle. The actual miracle to them is the whole routine as a unit - ' that man can read minds - he did it with a dozen people ' , they will say, not: ' he can read minds - and he did it twelve different ways.' "


He did it with twelve different identities
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
LoveKey1988
View Profile
Elite user
443 Posts

Profile of LoveKey1988
Ha ha...thats funny Smile

Quote:
On 2012-06-30 20:00, Dr Spektor wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-30 18:53, LoveKey1988 wrote:
Something that James Randi said and I agree with this:

"Don't make an act up that just uses a dozen different ways of demonstrating telepathy, and expect the audience to view each method as a miracle. The actual miracle to them is the whole routine as a unit - ' that man can read minds - he did it with a dozen people ' , they will say, not: ' he can read minds - and he did it twelve different ways.' "


He did it with twelve different identities
dmkraig
View Profile
Inner circle
1949 Posts

Profile of dmkraig
I disagree with the basic premise of the original question. I think the real issue comes down to the difference between mental magic and mentalism, and the type of performer likely to do either.

By my definition (YMMV), mentalism is an effect or act based on the concept that the performer possesses and/or demonstrates some sort of paranormal abilities. Mental magic is presented as a trick, often part of a series of tricks (often unrelated to anything giving the impression of paranormality), which has something to do with the mind.

Doing an effect where you appear to read minds is mentalism. Doing an act of reading mind, making predictions, etc., it mentalism.
Doing some card tricks, some rope tricks, and then reading someone's mind is mental magic.
I don't want to get into a big discussion about the difference as there have been threads on this, and besides, there is a lot of overlap and no fin line. Many tricks that most people wouldn't call mentalism could be given a presentation that makes them mental magick or part of a mentalism routine.

As a general rule (individuals are always different) magicians who do magic (including a mental effect) are always looking for new secrets and new methods. Many seem more interested in fooling magicians than in entertaining audiences.
As a general rule (individuals are always different) mentalists look to give good effects that fit their presentation or acts, and will use any method, new or old, if it works.

This is not to say that mentalists are "better" than magicians who do mental magic. They just have different approaches.

So I would say that people doing mentalism tend to use the simplest, most direct, and most effective way of achieving an effect. Magicians who do mental effects often look for something new, often with a goal of fooling other magicians.
Shrubsole
View Profile
Inner circle
Kent, England
2444 Posts

Profile of Shrubsole
I always find that the big picture is always ignored on threads like this like the elephant in the room.

Methods, to an audience shouldn't matter at all as they are not meant to see them!

So whether it's the latest electronic gadget you use, some trendy all new move or something that is as old as the hills to achieve mind reading or any other effect, all shouldn't matter one jot to the audience.

So should we not be concentrating totally on what the audience perceives rather than how we do it? So how we do it, is of very little importance and can be new or old or anything inbetween.
Winner of the Dumbringer Award for total incompetence. (All years)
Shrubsole
View Profile
Inner circle
Kent, England
2444 Posts

Profile of Shrubsole
In Richard Osterlind's DVD "Live: Without a net" does he not open with linking rings and then amongst others go on to do Mental Epic Board?

Now Richard is by any sense of the word a Mentalist, not a Mental Magician.

I don't think the lines are as clean cut as some make them out to be.
Winner of the Dumbringer Award for total incompetence. (All years)
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
As has been noted repeatedly over the years, Dunninger himself often opened his performances with the linking rings or an egg bag variant. These demonstrations, however, were clearly presented as magic tricks by a performer who already had a long and established reputation as a mind reader.

It's exceptions, they say, that prove the rule. An unknown performer opening with a magic trick or mixing magic and mentalism will most likely be perceived as a magician.
Peter_turner
View Profile
V.I.P.
Bradford, West Yorkshire
1347 Posts

Profile of Peter_turner
Using magic as a demonstrative comparison would work with the right audience.

You can show one then the other and point out the difference, Richard is a mental magician (I don't care if I get flack for that comment). He is excellent at what he does, as proven by his many followers. I am sure he won't mind me saying that he is a master of both.

The lines are subjectively drawn; you see them as one thing, I might see them as another and neither of us are wrong. Method is of course a relevant factor, if it wasn't, we would use the same method repeatedly to achieve everything. It is not the important factor, but is a factor to consider none the less.

Pete
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5718 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Another way to look at it is just like there are new, more advanced electric guitars made, but they all make music basically...

Just because the older designs are still good, you don't stop people inventing newer designs.

If you don't want to use them, don't.

Don't stop others who want to.

Just remember, it ain't the guitar in the end, it's the music being played. Smile
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
dmkraig
View Profile
Inner circle
1949 Posts

Profile of dmkraig
Quote:
On 2012-07-01 10:04, Shrubsole wrote:
In Richard Osterlind's DVD "Live: Without a net" does he not open with linking rings and then amongst others go on to do Mental Epic Board?

Now Richard is by any sense of the word a Mentalist, not a Mental Magician.

I don't think the lines are as clean cut as some make them out to be.


Which is why I wrote, "there is a lot of overlap and no fine line."
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Whats all the fuss about new mentalism effects when same reaction can be get going back to the roots (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.11 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL