talkmagic.co.uk

Now before I start this discussion I don't want it to be a mentalism vs magician rant or battle thus resulting in a locked thread.So I hope it doesn't anyways.

How many people on the board mix mental magic with sleight of hand magic but present it as a feat of mental ability i.e using persuasion and influence.Do you find it more effective to keep them both seperate like oil and water or do you casually disappear a hanky and follow up with telling them the name of their first kiss?

Do you want the to beleive you have some sort of psychological influence or do you just show what you have and let them arrive at their own conclusion.

The reason I ask is that I absolutley love magic.I love practicing and getting huge reactions with shocked faces etc.I find though that my mentalism material doesn't get quite the shock reaction but it seems to linger in the spectator's head for longer.For instance,many people will come up to me after I've finished and say the magic was good but I know that your good with your hands but that mind reading thing,WTF!!!

Other spectators seem to react more with a super visual trick.I know it's horses for courses and I know that Magic will never ever be perceived as real magic whereas mentalism can cast shadows of doubt to the spectators.

I have a few Magic sets and I have some mentalism stuff in my repetoire.I'm thinking of keeping them both seperate and not mixing them.So perhaps I'll aproach a certain group with just mentalism and another with just magic.

I'd like to know people's views on this but please try not to let it get into something that will inevitably get locked.

Cheers

I am of the opinion that it does not really matter as long as your performance is congruent.

Disappearing a hankie and then identifying the name of their first kiss would feel incongruent to me, however, telling a story of my first love and my first kiss and how the one keepsake I have is the hankie she gave me. Over time I have forgotten her name so use the hankie which is embroidered with the initials of my first loves name to remind me and then the initial's being that of the participants first kiss would work just fine, I would not need them to know I had made the hankie disappear and a different one reappear if necessary and would be happy with the fact that the move had gone unnoticed.

That said however one of the things that has remained with me and always shall was a comment Looch made at Tabular Mentis regarding his performances he said;

"Lead them down the garden path, tell them it's all psychological for example, then at the very end, kick them in the balls."

When doing strolling mentalism (I no longer do close-up) I occasionally swallow a balloon to get their attention. But there it ends; I do not mix magic and mentalism. I think they are different things.

Flood wrote:I absolutley love magic.I love practicing and getting huge reactions with shocked faces etc.I find though that my mentalism material doesn't get quite the shock reaction

I've found quite the opposite. I was just telling Tomo today that I performed a basic hypnotic induction 'on' someone the other day, all the time telling them that I was *not* influencing them etc. After all, I don't believe in hypnotism as such

As he felt himself go under he looked at me with astonishment and burst out laughing.

Hypnotism aside (because it's not my thing), mind tricks get fantastic reactions in my experience. I could bore you with another anecdote about a terrible time I spent with a group of classic amateur magicians and some 'punters', but that will have to wait. God, I sound like Mark Lewis

I try to look out from mixing magic and mentalism, but when I do I try to make clear that now I'm doing magic, as opposed to 'psychology tricks'.

Mind reading and mentalism is just another form of entertainment and making amazing predictions and pretending you have incredible powers has always been very much a part of magic so there is no reason why they cannot be mixed.

Some people will venture the opinion that the only way to get the public to believe they have amazing powers of mentalism is to keep it serious and not do any 'conjuring' with it. But I if you can do it all well then I personally see no reason not to mix it up and provide variety entertainment, unless you insist on specialising only in it like the big mind reading acts of the 1940s and 50s. Its up to you.

Some people mix balloon modelling with magic - and why not if it adds to the fun?

V.E. Day wrote:Some people will venture the opinion that the only way to get the public to believe they have amazing powers of mentalism is to keep it serious and not do any 'conjuring' with it.

Some other people believe that a good mentalism performance does not demonstrate that the performer has powers, but indicates that the participants may have innate special abilities and so on.

Bank Nite effects are a good example. They are essentially gambling routines in which the spectators make a decision. I'm sure most here have seen John Archer perform his excellent version on Pen and Teller's show. Derren occasionally does something similar and Max Maven teaches a funny one on his Nothing DVD.

I've also seen a very good Smash and Stab routine, which was funny. A participant made at least some of the decisions so this suggests no super powers and no playing it serious, just really good fun.

T.

Ah, mentalism and magic. Two faces of the same coin. Have a read of these articles ('scuse spelling mistakes):

http://www.online-visions.com/jonthomps ... alism.html
http://www.online-visions.com/jonthomps ... cards.html

I'm known for discouraging this practice UNLESS one uses proper segregation so as to allow Mentalism to have the psychological edge it is supposed to have in place for optimum strength. As Lee Earle has pointed out countless times the two art-forms are "kindred" but not one in the same; Magic is presented in a manner in which an agreement exists between patron and performer, the patron knowing that it's all tricks, silliness and skill for the sake of amusement. On the other hand, Mentalism requires the suspension of disbelief and an actual investment of belief in order to know maximum impact. Thus, the two art forms are opposites to one another; cousins but not one in the same.

As I said, there are proven ways by which to mix and mingle the two and when it comes to the traditional fans of magic the most recognized mixer is what is known as "Mental Magic" which is in fact, more commercial than straight Mentalism. This is something I've had many long discussions on with some rather noted "legends" out there with some, like Larry Becker, jokingly pointing out that Mental Magic is what sells the show because of how it allows for "production value" in a show. The "Mentalism" such as a solid Q&A or even Blindfold bit, are the bits that leave that uncertainty in the publics mind, leading them to give credit to the performer for being "real" regardless of his/her "theme" (being an expert of some kind, a gifted psychic, etc. )

Another element that gets ignored when this topic comes up is Hypnosis and how many legends of Magic used this second cousin to their craft, as the "second half" of their stage program as well as being part of a full-evening feature. The great Ormond McGill as well as his cohort in crime, Arnold Furst have both written volumes on this point as well as demonstrated it in their shows with other "legit" skills likewise coming into play such a the "Master Mind" (mnemonic) acts, the human computer and lie-detector. For that matter, any facet of Mentalism that can be presented in a manner that frames it as a learned skill -- something that you've invested time in for the sake of study, etc.

Long ago when VISIONS eZine was still in its infancy I penned a few articles about how I had incorporated large scale illusions into a "Mentalism" program and how such things allow for that all so necessary "Production Value" and being able to fill a large stage. Even Dunninger was known to have made his appearance on stage (as part of a segue) by way of a Thayer Mummy Cabinet -- the "theme" to a show segment that explored the mysticism of ancient Egypt. Interestingly, Rick Maue pointed something out to me in a phone conversation several months ago and that's the fact that ALL Magic comes from a Paranormal or "Mental" foundation.

Think about how the old timers used the idea of mesmerism and either the will of the mind or the aid of spirits so as to levitate a young lady; the urban legend tied to Houdini's ability to dematerialize in order to effect his escapes or walk through solid block walls. . . even the old Rope Trick and Linking Rings have similar associations. . . even at the theatrical level. . .

History reveals a hint of the fact that many of our foreparents met some harsh times of torture, imprisonment, etc. at the hands of the god-fearing and kind christians some time back. In order to escape such torments conjurers began distancing themselves from the more traditional modes of shamanic or cabalistic presentation and tossing in a more "Disneyesque" course of action if you would -- they "neutered" their craft for the sake of survival and then, as the mid-20th century came about Magic was turned into a "Kiddie Show" vehicle for marketing groups (thank you Mark Wilson). . . Mark is only the better known from that era to have successfully done this though you will find that Howard Thurston and those prior to his time, were likewise gaining corporate support (the Saw used by Thurston for the Sawing is inscribed "To Howard Thurston for Sawing a Lady in Half from the Swift Meat Packing Co." to give you an example.

Following WWII Mentalism likewise had a serious shift when it came to how it was marketed; moving away from the "original" occult/spiritualist and even "expose" modes common throughout the 19th and early 20th century and closer to the auspices of traditional magic even though a rather large number of Mentalists chose to hold to the older "proven" mode of doing things, what I refer to as "Old School Mentalism" vs. what became the "Dunninger Mold" and then the current incarnation (New School Mentalism) in which we find a melding of Bizarre Magick, Science Experiments and traditional magic ham-strung together under a single ill-disciplined manner.

Bottom Line Is However, (at least to my mind) one probably wants to gain the strongest possible advantage when performing Mentalism and that typically comes from a more pronounced separation from traditional magic. That doesn't mean you can no longer do "tricks" only that (depending on which theme or style of Mentalism you choose to do) you have the stronger performance edge when you make the magic "secondary" and less a part of your general image.

The reason you find so many in the magic world defending the magician's "right" to mix the two can be viewed from several positions but the primary explanation tends to be the fact that Magic Hobbyists want their cake and eat it too; Because trickery is used in aspects of Mentalism they want to insist that it is one and the same as magic -- a Trick is a trick! An ego-driven concept simply because magicians, as a matter of our nature, have a lust for any effect that makes us look "better" and "more powerful" (or at least equal to) than others in our craft -- look at the movie "The Raven" and you may catch on as to how well known this head-trip is as well as how antiquated its history seems to be; especially when you look at the issue anthropologically and how, even today, the shaman of one group will gladly kill off any conjurer who presents greater or more perfected "Magic" than he/she -- this was brought out in an issue of the UTNE Reader at least a dozen years ago, when it featured an article about a young magician's travels through the South Pacific islands doing simple Close-Up Magic.

We can try to justify what we do all we want but it does not mean we are "correct" with our pov. What we need to actually consider and do so honestly, is how those past and present, did couple the two art forms so as to gain optimum advantage psychologically, theatrically and in a way that sustained their personal "vision" -- that egocentric side we all share as entertainers striving to express ourselves in a creative manner that is uniquely our own. Between following my own advice in this case, and talking with those that have been at it for 20 or more years, comparing what each such act and reference shared in common. . . well, that's how I became the stick-in-the-mud I tend to be when it comes to this question. I leave it to you to consider and hopefully, echo.

Very good comments from everyone.

A lot of people bring up Derren Brown when I perform magic.Does this mean that they see his mentalism and general magic as being one entity?

I had a discussion with a girl about David Blaine and she was saying how amazing his lottery prediction trick was,she didn't mention anything about his magic,she was just astounded by it.Even when you see top mentalist on tv the presenter often says ''Ok so are you going to show us a trick''.I've seen people saying this to the likes of Derren and Keith Barry etc.It seems to be always perceived as a trick.

No matter how you present yourself and your 'demonstrations' people often walk away thinking about how good that 'trick' was.

In Mind Mysteries act 1 Richard Osterlind finishes his act with linking 3 borrowed finger rings together.Is this not a make or break trick.Does this not tip to the audience that it's all just a trick.You can talk about the linking rings as being a mentalism type effect but I think we all know that it really falls under the category of 'magic trick'.

Maybe there is nothing you can say or do to convince the individual of your ability.Some people refuse to beleive no matter how astounding your revelation is and there is also some people who will grasp onto anything you say like a sucker and just believe cause they want to believe.I don't think people believe in what makes sense or what doesn't rather I think people believe what they want to believe as that might appeal to them more as being comforting.

I regularly and sucessfully mix close-up magic and mental magic, (prop-based, such as BIP2, "predicting" cards they will cut to, Powerball60 etc.)
Not so sure that "mentalism" can be mixed with close-up, but have seen e.g. posket-writing used to stunning effect as part of a table-magic set.
Bruce

BrucUK wrote:Not so sure that "mentalism" can be mixed with close-up

I'd have thought that if stage mentalism can be mixed with stage magic then close-up versions of both might be compatible too. What do you think are the differences?

Tomo wrote:Ah, mentalism and magic. Two faces of the same coin. Have a read of these articles ('scuse spelling mistakes):

http://www.online-visions.com/jonthomps ... alism.html
http://www.online-visions.com/jonthomps ... cards.html

I totally agree with these articles - its totally what you make of the situation and more often than not the spectator will bend and twist what ACTUALLY happened (ie when they tell their friends) during the trick - an ambitious card routine for example may have a slight element of mind reading to it if the magician desired, which when recalled could read like "I picked a card and signed it, then he read my mind to see what it was, used his mind of control it in the deck and then I mentally projected what pocket it would be in and it was - IN HIS WALLET TOO"

This is indeed a deep thinker of a theory though - I just do tricks which I think fit my style, if there is an element of mind reading / mentalism in it then I always (without even meaning to sometimes) present it as something slightly dark, mysterious etc ... always leaves a strong impression and I do often get the whole "I know that the card part was sleight of hand, but when you read my mind, WOW", even though the result could be obtained from some form of sleight. However, sometimes I get things like "so the suggestion was just influencing me to say XY or Z, but the card in your mouth, WOW"

Now my head hurts

Dan

I'd have thought that if stage mentalism can be mixed with stage magic then close-up versions of both might be compatible too. What do you think are the differences?

For me, neither mixes particularly well.
For me anyway, "mentalism" is relatively "propless" - perhaps billets and a few small bits and pieces, not a lot more. Graham Jolley (for example) mixes stage "mental magic" and "mentalism", and whilst it is entertaining, I feel it's a little disjointed sometimes.
I think Osterlinds linking rings is a poor closer - it's a "trick", and think it weakens everything that has come before.
I'd much rather see a Q&A, or drawing dup.
Bruce

Most of what i do is what we call Mental Magic. As Jay Sankey once said combine slight of hand with Mentalism and you have a powerfull tool. At the end of the day one is just trying to jiggle their neurons in a particular way... as long as it works for audience that all that matters.

Actually my latest routine is three stages, the first part requires some sleight but not knuckle busting. The other two parts use no sleights but 4 different Chinese coins and a pack of cards and a numerology theme as the occult seems to bind people in . I tried this on some Swedish guy at Intrnational Magic the other week and he was fried so its looking up

I like to use props that are not gaffed but take the heat off other things, like the old coins i use as mentoned above. In Max Mavens new vid he hardly makes the distinction between Mnt & MGk and i think he is also more of a a Mental Magic guy the more i see of him.