talkmagic.co.uk

Gone are the days when the so called mentalist can present himself as some sort of super brain character basking in intelligence, while those they play for, are moronic sheep looking for a shepard.

Todays audiences are hip, knowledgeable and wanting, not only to watch as one reads minds, but to experience it first hand. We need only look to effects like OOTW and the like to understand how true this statement is. when we are able to impart the "power" on to our participants the heat is off us as performers as we take on the role of facilitator, rather than one who would be challenged. It all becomes a game and as such is more enjoyable to those involved. The question turns from "how did he do that" to "how did I do that", a most advantageous position for the performer to be in.

There is also now a logical connection to why we are performing at all. As researchers we are interested in how the populous is progressing psychically these days. No more would we have to battle the questions of well "why didn't you see catastrophe coming" or "if your so psychic, why haven't you won the lotto?"

The pseudo explanations of psychology, NLP, hypnosis, body reading or whatever, become a more viable and thereby real revelation of how we do what we do. Since the audience is now in on the modus, he has no call to look for explanation. What we are doing is now real in the minds of the spectators and all that's left is to enjoy not only what I as the mentalist is doing, but what you as my participants can do.

This is what I'm experiencing in my performances. You may not? However I do think this is the way mentalism is moving in the real world no matter how we try to hang on to the super brain presentations.

Just something to think about?

Hmm. So the pseudo-NLP/body language isn't promoting himself as a "super brain" with knowledge accrued from years of study?

themagicwand wrote:Hmm. So the pseudo-NLP/body language isn't promoting himself as a "super brain" with knowledge accrued from years of study?

I don't think so. I think those things just say one is well educated, which is how I view my audiences. Even if not book smart so to speak, they are able to access so much info via the net that to think them stupid just begs for conflict and confrontation. While that makes for good reality TV and some might say good board discussions, I don't want to foster it in my shows.

While I might agree that, to some level, some performers of mentalism are moving into the psychological/body language realm of presentation, I cannot disagree more with your opening statement, and even a cursory look at some of the legends of the mentalism craft will entirely contradict it.

There is not one reputable performer who would EVER condone a presentational style that considers their audiences to be moronic sheep, or paint themselves as "superior" to those audiences.

In fact, in all my studies, this is one of the first (and most important) things performers are told NOT to do.

I also appreciate your concept of turning the question inward - but performers presenting themselves as psychics/mind readers/etc. have been doing the same thing for centuries, so the concept of getting your audience to ask "how did I do that?" is not something new.

Demitri wrote:There is not one reputable performer who would EVER condone a presentational style that considers their audiences to be moronic sheep, or paint themselves as "superior" to those audiences.

In fact, in all my studies, this is one of the first (and most important) things performers are told NOT to do.

I also appreciate your concept of turning the question inward - but performers presenting themselves as psychics/mind readers/etc. have been doing the same thing for centuries, so the concept of getting your audience to ask "how did I do that?" is not something new.

Many a performer use that exact style setting themselves up as all knowing. I would list who they are but it would certainly cause a distraction from the topic at hand. But as an illustration we could use Dunninger? His approach was to "readminds", but what exactly is that? To know the thoughts of another at the time they think them. This is a power position, or a position of strength. Would it not be more comfortable to the audience that instead the performer take a more relaxed position of say "observist", a word I plan to copyright, with the "power" being observation, as opposed to something from the great beyond? I just think it insults the intelligence of modern man, when we impose upon ourselves great power which we know is false. No matter how good a showman, they know its false to.

The old days when everybody wanted to believe are indeed gone. Yes there are still a few stragglers who may want to believe, but with so much exposed, those with even a modicum of intelligence will dismiss such claims. I'm talking from my experience, and perhaps I'm working for an upscale clientele, but I don't think so? It seems more likely that the times they are a changing, and if we are to survive and be successful, so will we!

jdmagic357 wrote:Yes there are still a few stragglers who may want to believe, but with so much exposed, those with even a modicum of intelligence will dismiss such claims.

This is not my experience.

Is it not true for magic in general, that we are having to alter our approach to presentation. As society changes their demands as an audience change and it is any performers responsibility to move with the times or die.

Look at other areas of entertainment, ballroom dancing for example became a joke followed by a minority. It has now changed with the times, some think for the good others not, but it has changed and there has been a revival in people trying to learn ballroom dancing and watching it.

So how can we not expect some change in not just mentalism but also magic as a whole

Nic

Yawn...wonder where this thread will end up...

Without getting in to the whole debate that will ensue, I think that today's mentalist presents himself more as the all knowing brain character that you suggest than any psychic type would. Derren Brown seems like a perfect example. What is he supposed to be if not extremely knowledgeable, with his 'years' of studying psychology and NLP...

People doing the psychic thing (whatever that may be) would be more inclined to admit they don't know everything and can't explain everything.

The whole pyschic researcher thing is a clever presentational angle. It doesn't mean it's the only model that 'intelligent' people should like.

I also found your comments about people who choose to have different beliefs to you extremely rude...

jdmagic357 wrote: It all becomes a game and as such is more enjoyable to those involved. The question turns from "how did he do that" to "how did I do that", a most advantageous position for the performer to be in.

Is that not just your style? If you choose to go down this route it may lead people to ask these questions. As for people wanting to believe, there are a lot of people who have alsorts of beliefs and even more people who want to believe in something for a variety of reasons. This does not mean they are of a lesser intelligence than the next person.

Is it advantageous to the performer if your audience is in any of these positions? I think not, it all comes down to the performer and their style.

Nic

kartoffelngeist wrote:Derren Brown seems like a perfect example. What is he supposed to be if not extremely knowledgeable, with his 'years' of studying psychology and NLP...

Yet at the same time he drops in the occasional self deprecating remark. More than once in performance he's said, as an aside. 'I'm not a mindreader y'know!' and he loves making 'in jokes' which only magicians would understand. In a sense that's giving great respect for the great variety of audience understandings and avoiding the pomposity which can otherwise be assumed from a lofty performance.

kartoffelngeist wrote:Yawn...wonder where this thread will end up...

I also found your comments about people who choose to have different beliefs to you extremely rude...

Interesting how one who would be so rude, would make reference to rudeness? Sort of the pot calling the kettle but there are always a few who would try to distract rather than contribute.

It takes all kinds I guess?

jdmagic357 wrote:

kartoffelngeist wrote:Yawn...wonder where this thread will end up...

I also found your comments about people who choose to have different beliefs to you extremely rude...

Interesting how one who would be so rude, would make reference to rudeness? Sort of the pot calling the kettle but there are always a few who would try to distract rather than contribute.

It takes all kinds I guess?

I thought it was a nicer word to use than offensive...