by Mr_Grue » Jan 26th, '11, 11:50
When called on, I always describe mentalism as "a branch of magic that focuses on the power of the mind."
I agree with the above point that "mixers" tend to be magicians rather than mentalists. I think that the superiority complex is largely a myth, though. Most of the mentalists I know are mentalists mainly because the rest of magic doesn't appeal; that might seem snooty to some, but it's just a matter of taste. And they all seem keen audience members for a bit of close-up. What's more, I don't know a single mentalist who won't show you a card transposition or a coin trick or two should the mood take them. That's not in performance, though, so doesn't count.
The fly in this ointment, of course, is that most of the big big mentalists have performed other forms of magic. Berglas did. Brown has his Smoke. Knepper seems to be regarded by the community as a mentalist, despite the fact that most of his act is wizardry. <bait>
It's akin to the dread subject of card-use in mentalism. Some might argue that the use of playing cards in mentalism undermines it completely, but like Buddha, who asks the grieving mother to find three grains of rice from a household that has not been touched by grief before he can resurrect her dead child, one would be hard-pressed to find a reknowned mainstream mentalist that has not messed around with paste-boards once in a while.</bait>
Indeed there seems to be a trend at the moment for people who enjoy card magic moving on to mentalism rather than coins and spongeballs. For some this is the more natural progression; for others not.
Last edited by
Mr_Grue on Jan 26th, '11, 12:16, edited 1 time in total.
Simon Scott
If the spectator doesn't engage in the effect,
then the only thing left is the method.
tiny.cc/Grue