talkmagic.co.uk

I wouldn't like to restrict myself with a label, but I suppose I am a mentalist more so than anything else in magic, I also perform close up magic. It is a discrepancy I am pondering as the effects I perform are strong and resonant anyway, and I still manage to genuinley convince people I have psychological prowess by believing in my abilities with the utmost conviction. I was just curious if there are any magicians out there who include mental effect in their act and how does the audience recieve these effects- do they believe you have any ability or do they think it's trickery?

I include a 'mental element' in my act but I incorporate it as 'tell reading' so it fits in with the pseudo gambling routines and persona I use.

Thanks, I was just curious, because I see magicians who are like 'Look, my hands are empty and a dove appears. Now I will read your mind' and was wondering how an audience percieves this ludicracy.

I'm pretty much 100% Mental.... I usually go down the psychology route, if not then I just leave the mystery unanswered. Reading you, body language, influence, suggestion, mis-direction and showmanship

I never do this at professional gigs but if I'm performing in the pub for mates or a small crowd just for fun I may occasionally go "I started out in all this mind reading stuff by doing ordinary magic, heres an example of how I started" then I go into a magic effect, usually only cards though. I dont use coins, doves, silks ect. If i ever do a magic effect I always make clear its what i USED to do, How i STARTED, and that it is actually a completly SEPERATE thing to my "Mentalism".

P.s. I use the term Mentalism loosely as a blanket term for mental effects in this particular post, please dont get pedantic about its meaning, there are far too many "Your using the term mentalist wrong" threads on this forum

Not only can you combine magic with mentalism you probably should. I have no energy to explain why but then I think I have already explained my reasoning elsewhere.

I absolutely agreem Mark (and, yes, you've made you views very clear on other threads )

To be honest, a lot of card effects actually have a huge potential to all be given a mental spin anyway (stuff like OOTW, ACAAN are pretty much a mental effect to start with!). It's just a case of reappraising your presentation.

I don't see a need to make a distinction between what I used to do and what I do now... to most punters, it's all part of the same family of entertainment.

Ask 100 people to tell you what Derren Brown is and (ignoring the obvious insults!), you'll probably get as many of them describing him as a magician than those who don't....


Sean

David Berglas used to combine Mentalism, Magic, Pickpocketing and...Cigarette manipulation all into one act.

His general idea was that it doesn't matter what you perform, as long as they are all..miracles.

SamGurney wrote:I wouldn't like to restrict myself with a label

Good idea. Labels are for washing instructions, not humans.

SamGurney wrote:Thanks, I was just curious, because I see magicians who are like 'Look, my hands are empty and a dove appears. Now I will read your mind' and was wondering how an audience percieves this ludicracy.

Just filter your choice of material and get rid of anything that doesn't fit. Make sure the presentations you create for the remaining material fit a general and consistent theme that tells your story and off you go into miracle land. Oh, and avoid cliches like the plague

Is this thread proof that there's no need for long, boring, hectoring essays that no one ever really reads anyway? Yes, I think it is. Simples!

Ask 100 people to tell you what Derren Brown is and (ignoring the obvious insults!), you'll probably get as many of them describing him as a magician than those who don't....

I think your right, but if you asked the question a few years ago people would have said that he was a psychological genuis, I personally think it was the lottery routine and his bs explanation which assosiated him moreso to magic. But even those who believe he's a magician which he's quite open about, probably think he is a psychological master.

This is a very sticky issue and sadly, the articles I penned for VISIONS long ago about this issue (sort of) are all archived these days. But let me try to be clear by first suggesting that you look up the sticky on this forum, about Old School vs. New School Mentalism... the PSYCRETS group should still have my essay posted as well, but I'm uncertain. But understanding these differences is what must be set in mind first; Old School philosophy approaches mentalism in a far more "real" feel. As Stephan Minch pointed out years ago we tend to have one foot in the world of the Charlatan and the other in the realm of being a Thespian. . . and understand, this doesn't mean you have to do the New Age or Gypsy sort of thing, Banachek uses this approach (to a more limited degree) as does Derren Brown; they strive towards believability and as Lee Earle points out, eliciting and invoking belief which is not what you find in the "New School" mode of things...kind of...

Commercially Speaking the New School mode of course is a bit more sound when it comes to general venture in that it blurs the lines between the once segregated categories of Mentalism vs. Magic. On most levels it can be described as "Mental Magic" in that it retains a look and feel of being a magic trick or, I should say, the bulk of what is contained within these shows holds to this course of action, employing only nominal aspects of the Old School way of doing things or to say, Mentalism that feels exceptionally real.

There are two key reasons why this new way of thinking (which really isn't that new) is more commercially appealing to those migrating away from traditional magic into mentalism. The first centers on familiarity; the fact that you can get away with "corn" -- routines that employ an obvious set-up such as Casino Royal (one of my favorite pieces, btw), or one of the more dramatic versions to Confabulation like Don Wayne's Dream Vision. Magicians are comfortable with props, what Peter Pit used to refer to as "items to hide behind" They are likewise comfortable with familiar devices such as Playing Cards and thus, see no reason to strive to change card-based routines in ways that use alternative items such as post cards, photos, etc. vs. the pasteboards.

The second reason this "new" way of thinking is more appealing centers on the fact that you book and sell it exactly the same way you market the traditional magic show.

Sadly, this approach and the very up-front admission to being a magician (which is what you are) will cost you those key advantages used by the Old School adherents of pure Mentalism; the Home PSI Party and Reading venues and being able to work a far more full, low profile schedule as you choose vs. the mercy of agents, talent buyers, etc.

The New School/Dunninger Mold group looks down at such things and given that most are likewise cynics... self-proclaimed "skeptics" and pseudo-debunkers it becomes evident that this attitude sustains a particular agenda, part of which will ultimately cost our world some of the deeper, less known secrets and nuances associated with pure mentalism.


As to That Article... I challenged the then "new" and growing element that had just started discovering Mentalism (thanks to Criss Angel and David Blaine) to graduate away from the things we found in Corinda, Dunninger and all the classics and consider how to place production value into a psychic themed program. This is kind of a recap to what I mentioned previously about Mental Magic in that such routines generate a visible excitement to a program. In my examples however, I was pointing out how much in the world of things Psychic, Paranormal and Metaphysical we don't address and asked why... why hadn't we looked at the technology tied to grand illusion (for example) and used it as a tool via which to demonstrate and/or explore (explain) things like the Aura, Past Lives, Mental Creation, etc.

All of these things are practical when looking at the commercial touring show that is designed for theater or large stage, so it's not something for everyone, but it's certainly a solid mold for someone that wants to couple the two art forms.

As I said, this is a very huge issue that is much debated and likewise, one of the chief reasons there's been a rather large chasm between the Mentalism world vs. Magic for generations. To put it kindly, too much "solid" mentalism became trivialized by way of adaptation by magicians... two well known victims of this trespass being the Mental Epic of old followed by the current Smash & Stab craze... or my favorite irritation, the white faced clown featuring MoAB in their kiddie birthday shows

An old axiom states rather wisely that No one can serve two masters... there's a huge truth to this and thus, we must learn to define exactly what it is we are, what our goals/vision is, and what is going to be the best and most logical course of action for getting us there. It's not the same for everyone but no one can get anyone without focus and discipline, it's that simple.

The type of magic I do depends purely on the type of event, and the working environment.

My walkaround close-up material is magic - not mentalism - as I find wedding receptions and restaurants to be noisy places where you have to shout to impart all the instructions required for a successful mentalism performance. Audiences in a mix and mingle environment are mid-conversation or have their attentions split two or three ways, so I go for something visual that's self-explanatory, easily understood, and outright daft.

I have a small arsenal of close-up mindreading stunts, but they're just that - stunts. They're quick and snappy and fun.

My stand-up platform and stage work is all mentalism - not magic. But it's all material that I've worked in comedy clubs and designed to be fun. I go for mentalism rather than magic, because I can present it as 'a bit of weird' rather than magic, and I can have a bit more fun with things that way.

My kids show is a kids show - stupid, silly and daft.

That said, I was recently asked to do a mindreading show at a ten-year-old's birthday party, because the birthday boy didn't want 'anything too childish'. It went down a storm.

All that might seem very contradictory and confused, but it all makes perfect sense to me. It's all about the kind of material that fits my persona in each performing situaltion. I'm the same Pete across the board...

Pete

The audience wants to be entertained, Magicians and mentalists are stuck on the labels. If you are trying to convince the audience that you are a mentalist the call yourself a psychic.

call yourself a psychic.

I think that brings the fraudulent mediums act into the picture unnecessirly for some entertainment. Anyway, I use a psychological explanation.

SamGurney wrote:

call yourself a psychic.

I think that brings the fraudulent mediums act into the picture unnecessirly for some entertainment. Anyway, I use a psychological explanation.

Admittedly, I'm not versed in UK Law but if said act is anything like those in the U.S. there are some rather broad loop-holes through which one can jump that would permit the A-lusion of being a Psychic.

Prior to the mid-1970s (roughly) Mentalists generally worked without disclaimers of any kind while calling themselves Telepathist, Clairvoyant, etc. but without stepping across those invented moral/ethics issues tabled by the cynical right. These SHOW PEOPLE gave the public credit for being intelligent enough to understand they were doing AN ACT... it was after all in a night club or theater and promoted as a "show". For generations this is how it worked, with few exceptions. Those that did exist were cross over acts; magicians that were doing demonstrative talks about charlatans or special performances in which they had to distance themselves from the "occult" more than anything else (bear in mind, we're talking about times when the majority of the public was still ultra religious and thus, superstitious).

The whole hoopla over disclaimers and pseudo-ethics more or less came to the fore and gained momentum between the late 1960s into the mid-1970s... I believe Cassidy notes this as has Minch and a few others; the transition period that was influenced by the nay-sayers but likewise, how culture was turning... how people were walking away from the dogmacy of religion and discovering their own "beliefs", etc. I guess in some ways we could blame the inception of the New Age movement

The point is, if you have an established background as a magician and theatrical performer and you're not running some kind of storefront parlor or tent revival operation, you will probably be in the clear. The alternative is to simply create an alter-ego -- a stage persona and "character" that is a mystic... this is actually why I stress so often in my marketing material that what I do is Experiential Theater and/or Historic Re-enactments of programs common to the Victorian age into the mid-1940s. That's about as much of a disclaimer anyone needs if you feel you need to cover your butt on the legal front. For artistic reasons however, I've started to step things up from there by moving "backwards" and actually creating that stage identity who allows me to blend the bizarre, side show elements and mentalism under one single banner where it actually makes sense... but that's another story

All I'm really trying to convey here, is that you needn't sweat the small stuff. Just be wise in how you word your marketing material and all should be well and good.