talkmagic.co.uk

Please don't get me wrong in what I've said... I know how it sounds but that's not entirely what I mean.

I honestly meant what I said, that I concede and will not try to divert people's thoughts any longer on this issue... just like my own kids, you're going to do what you want so why do I need to make it a bigger issue than it needs to be. Sooner of later, just like my kids, most of you will wake up to the fact that some of my arguments hold more than a bit of water and you'll begin to realize, via your own experiences, what my point(s) have been and why.

The other side of this particular coin centers on the fact that most of you are still looking at Mentalism in particular, based on what you've seen on TV and the commercial idea surrounding it vs. the areas of exposure I've known over the years. Just as everyone wanted a Lion's Cage and a dozen or two major Illusions twenty years ago so they could mimic Copperfield or Lance or those two guys from Germany... today everyone fancies themselves a Derren, Gerry or worse... a Criss or David.

I've heard this "contention" for some time, how things change, etc. but I also note that I hear it from folks that didnt' even known how to spell the world MENTALISM less than a decade ago. Most of the material they've learned from was composed and published within the past decade and most of that material has been produced by magicians jumping onto the Psychic Entertainment bandwagon and selling the suckers a bag of goods (and trust me, many of them actually see their patrons in just said light).

I'm also very aware of all the classic examples in which you will find reference to card tricks at the hand of the "masters" of Mentalism... but you also forget that if you are to sell a successful book, video or lecture in magic it better have card tricks in it! That's not an exaggeration, I've heard far too many magic buffs complain when a visiting lecturer don't include several card bits in their program. This is a fact that few every consider when looking at the greater whole of the magic portrait.

BTW... I have and do use playing cards from time to time in my programs when it makes sense and they "fit" what it is I do. Even at that I have yet to hear audience members after my show or even a Maven show, not refer to said things as what they are... CARD TRICKS. The only folks that think otherwise are the magicians doing them.

I don't expect everyone to see or do things the way I "preach" but I do hold out hope that they will look at the older resources and wiegh some of the perspectives put forth. My only "issue" being my own attempt at understanding why anyone would want to approach something in a way that creates a greater chance of failure vs. stacking the proverbial deck to one's favor when it comes to presentation adn program content/theme. It's just not logical to me and that's really the point.

that's all fair enough Craig ...

none of us have ever said "hey i run out into the audience and scream 'bend' in their face as a fork bends, then i produce a fountain of cards from my anus whilst producing a dove from my armpit..." imagine the paper cuts for one thing...

i think most of us try to treat it all with the respect it deserves and build our own "Geist" around ourselves...

isn't it nice though that we are all so passionate about what we define as our art(s) that we feel comfortable enough to disagree with a pro...i think so anyway...

i will continue to use some elegant card work within what i do, especially considering the history of playing cards, from what i've read they were kind of a derivative of the tarot in the first place...

then the history of the Ace of Spades, taxes to kings, the psychology of the use of them in Vietnam...all kinds of things (for me at least) are potent little nuggets to drop into conversations whilst performing that can suggest or elivate our humble pasteboards just enough to carry our magic(k) further...

i do value your input on here Craig, i've learnt alot from some of what you said, thoroughly disagreed with others; but it doesnt mean anything else...i still work my nuts off trying to be better at what i do, if i make mistakes, then fine..i'll learn the hard way...they're usually the best lessons anyway...

When I was a kid and knew absolutely nothing about magic, I used to love watching Paul Daniels and his ilk sawing people in half, pushing swords through baskets containing volunteers etc. I also loved those weird looking guys in black roll-neck sweaters and funny little beards who could actually read people's minds. In my young eyes I saw no difference in the two types of performance - they were both "magic", only one was performed by a "Mr. Light Entertainment" and one by a "Mr. Mystery". I thought that "Mr. Mystery" was more spooky, so I tended to prefer their performances.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the folk in the street see all magikal performers (be they mentalists, magicians or psychic entertainers) in the same light. To your average spec they're all magicians. They don't care if you do a sponge ball routine or read their minds. But you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll get a bigger kick from you reading their minds.

If you're magician who doesn't incorporate some mentalism (and vice versa), surely you're selling yourself, the audience, and your performance short? If you can be more entertaining by mixing genres, then I think it's your duty to mix things up because at the end of the day we're all supposed to be ENTERTAINERS. So let's entertain to the best of our ability and with the best routines we can possibly dream up.

the folk in the street see all magikal performers (be they mentalists, magicians or psychic entertainers) in the same light.

Again, it depends upon the setting.

Why do so many people see John Edward or even James VanPraagh as being real vs. their being "Magicians" as so many in our world wish they'd just admit to being?

It's framing... it's the setting and manner around what they perform.

Kreskin has proven it for years, the idea that you can make people see you as being real or as a corn ball, based on the setting you choose to work in and how everything is marketed. But, George also proved to us that you don't want to get caught doing the same popular material all the local Magicians are doing in their shows, when you come to town with your program.

The public I cater to know about my magic background and ties to the trade as an effects developer. I don't conceal it at any level and do in fact invoke that pedigree as part of my programs, be it a public talk or performance, so that folks can understand how I've researched "all sides to the issue". Then, just like some of those yesteryear greats, I turn right around and prove to them that I'm not just doing parlor tricks...

In my experience and that of many others that came along before me, the general public will see you as being "genuine" if you have distanced yourself from the more traditional elements allied with magic and magicians. Richard Webster, Ron Martin, Mark Strivings and a ton of others make mention of this time and again in their writings and it has proven itself to me more times than I dare count.

i suppose it depends on who your heroes are too...some of mine are david berglas, kreskin and derren brown...

i was re-reading "secrets of the amazing kreskin" last night, he says his act is 85% mental effects, 15% traditional magic...

i really love all three because of their variety of work, it all seems amazing, baffling and on occasion out 'n out freaky...i love the combination of the arts that they manage to fit together to make them who they are...

david berglas, suave, mystical, gentlemanly, an absolute genius in my book..i keep promising myself that limited edition book he published a while back...i think its available via Martin Breese if memory serves...

David Berglas finishes his mental act with pickpocketing! God alone knows what Craig thinks of THAT!

Well if you must know Mark, from what I've read of Berglas I'd have to place him on par with Ted Lesley... another Mental Magician for the most part. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's just not my style; If I wanted to do magic tricks that looked like magic tricks I'd kept my Thin Model Sawing and Origami Box...

I do have to admit though, I've used Pick Pocketing in my act a few times, as a comedy means of explaining how I could pick up so much information on a total stranger... I was inspired by the ger Herman (Munster) and a gag he did a few short decades back...

i shall sum up my comments and feelings within this post as follows

Like a tunnel that you follow,
To a tunnel of its own,
Down a hollow to a cavern,
Where the sun has never shone,
Like a door that keeps revolving,
In a half-forgotten dream,
Or the ripples from a pebble,
Someone tosses in a stream,
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping,
Past the minutes of its face,
And the world is like an apple,
Whirling silently in space,
Like the circles that you find,
In the windmills of your mind...

I would suggest some Scottish poetry by Robert Burns which to me is just as applicable to this subject.

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
to see oursels as ithers see us"

No doubt the various Caledonians on this board will translate if it is deemed necessary.

That was cracking reverend....

Craig Browning wrote:BTW...Even at that I have yet to hear audience members after my show or even a Maven show, not refer to said things as what they are... CARD TRICKS.

Just a thought - and I don't mean to start a debate again - but just because they refer to them as 'card tricks', does that mean that is what they perceive them to be? We as magicians have very strict definitions in our art after all, but the public's definitions are quite loose indeed. So could it not be - for some people, at least - that the most natural thing for them to call them is 'card tricks', while understanding completely that these are not card tricks in the magicians' sense?

If it is made clear that we use card purely because they are something which people readily identify to etc. etc. and state that we do not employ any of the magicians tools - sleight of hand, special devices - and the effects we perform make this totally apparent, then surely they can't see them in the same light as a magicians' card magic (i.e. hands-on, skilled handling of the cards etc. etc.)?

Yes, I do think that the general public tend to call things that magicians do "tricks" simply because they can't think of anything else to call them.

I've never known magicians to adhere to a "strict: anything... this "discussion" sustains that fact

My point is very simple; if I use the devices common in association with the stage magician/illusionist THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PUBLIC IS GONG TO CONCLUDE THAT I'm DOING... either that's a reality or the whole associative mind idea attached to mnemomics or NLP anchoring is totally bogus and a myth... we can't have it both ways folks.

When I see playing cards I think of two things and two things only; gambling and magic tricks. I believe you'll find the same to be true with most folks NOT involved in magic. You'll also find that their connected memory about magic frequently relates to a corny fellow of their past that did really bad card tricks... in other words, few in the laity appreciate such demonstrations even from the exceptionally skilled. But then my personal bias towards the pasteboards centers on one chief issue -- they are over used and depended upon far too much by the average magic buff and as an end result, few venture very far from them... it's got to do with being allowed to play with your deck in public I guess...

That's very true about NLP, and anchors; but such things can be changed. An anchor can be removed, or altered. Perceptions can be changed.

By your argument when people hear you are a psychic entertainer a lot will associate that with being a fake. If you, Craig, as you say, use card TRICKS - or things which your audience perceive to be card tricks -in your show, then why should they suppose that you aren't using trickery for your other bits and pieces? Like you say, you can't have it both ways.

In my experience people LOVE to see card magic...for someone so well versed in philosophy you shouldn't go making so many a posteriori statements as if they were a priori ones .

Sorry to butt in here, but I'm beginning to get irritated by the circular, dogmatic nature of this argument, I'm sober when I shouldn't be on a Saturday afternoon, and my piles are killing me:

When I perform for people, if it's a card trick then fine, it's a card trick; the focus is clearly on the cards. When I perform a mental effect that uses a deck of cards then the deck is just a forum for the demonstration. The focus is not the damned deck. It becomes secondary. It's just acting as a familiar and well understood environment for demonstrating something very unfamiliar.