talkmagic.co.uk

samstorey wrote:nicely said, but do you think that magic and mentalism can't go together at all?

Tomo is correct but let me take it just a hint further...

MAGIC when performed is presented in a manner in which the audience is aware that it is trickery and they are there to be fooled and amazed via what is already recognized as tricks for the eyes and mind.

MENTALISM by its nature and roots, does not host that sort of "agreement" with the public but instead invokes belief and investment -- suspension of disbelief -- e.g. if you were to blend the two you end up short changing yourself (as well as your patrons and the art itself) because you have negated the psychological factors that help make mentalism work at its optimum state.

Yes, there is a grotesque movement that's practically evangelic in nature, to do away with this segregation and logic divide. Many of the more cynically inclined would rather diminish Mentalisms psychological edge and sell it all as being nothing but tricks and hype vs. letting go of their magician's guilt and bogus piety and learn how to present it according to the flow that it was originally based on. My personal opinion being that they didn't learn the lesson that is to be had, when we see how the "modernization" of magic cost it a great deal of respect and positive reputation within society.... but hey, it's all tricks e.g. everyone shouldn't only know that, let's let them ALL know how it ALL works while we're at it... and I'm not speaking of the expose' forums, and TV shows when I say that. Rather the ignored acts of expose and innuendo we find from within the more outspoken of the cynic's world, that reveals how Mentalists work; attitudes and actions that hurt the mentalist when I'm not aware of the opposite course of terror being true.

Yes, to some extent I do believe that the merging of the two or more specifically, the rediscovery of the psychological edge that mentalists & bizarrists have used for generations by the typical mage and hobbyist, is a good thing to some degree; it is restoring the mystery and intrigue to magic that people of the mid-20th century choose to throw away (see my points above about diminishing magic by promoting it as all being tricks). I think that the "Urban Shaman" theme is most excellent and am guilty of playing with it myself but my personal journey, experimentation, etc. has lead me more towards the older modes of thought allied with Mentalism vs. my former position as a magician (Illusionist... and I don't mean hand props I mean BIG STAGE MAGIC when I use that term).

THERE ARE MANY ASPECTS TO MENTALISM that few consider in today's world and I believe that is due to the mixing and melding of things. Aside from the issue of Old School vs. New there are the multiple modes of approach, the marketing and venue issues as well as the conflict we all go through when it comes to what we want to do and what the market we're in will support... lots of contrasts, lots of "little things" that create challenge and shifts... STUFF that nurtures one path of practice over another, most of course, flowing with the course of least resistance and of course in that, the course the demand the least out of them when it comes to effort in learning and self-application; so long as they can find those that will co-sign their course of self-will, deterioration's of the craft does not matter... at least to those riding the waves of the current trend (I just thank the gods that this trend is passing and soon all those overnight "experts" in mentalism will be back where they belong, playing with their cards and coins.)

Yes, that was an "elitist" comment... I'm old school, I loathe the current invasion and long for those when there was about 200 full time pros bearing the title MENTALIST world wide vs. what we have today, where anyone that can spell the word and has paid their $10.00 for a copy of Corinda believes themselves worthy of the classification.

Anywho... don't let my two-cents worth detour you or upset you. I've only been doing this stuff for nearly 20 years and you are about to hear from a ton of experts, most of whom have done less than a dozen shows in the past three years, that will convince you that they know more than I do on this topic... so make your choice and as Docc Hilford says, make sure you have some fun at it...

Merit-based inclusivity might be a better way to understand this item.

Forums are either invite only, or have a mix of open and closed areas. Committed, sensible, and constructive posters generally get invited at some point. On other forums, posters can apply for membership after a minimum threshold of posts and even then are vetted for admission.

Not quite sure what was meant by 'screaming to the world' in Craig's post, but there are other forums out there and they all have different entry requirements ranging from formal 'CV style' application to questionnaires about the particular subdiscipline of the field. TM's policy is analogous to these other forums.

misterblack wrote:Interesting discussion. I don't have much more to add; I'm not at all convinced thus far that it isn't an elitist and illogical thing, but I don't care enough about it to want to argue. Just a note to say that to avoid suspicions of elitism, you might want to be more careful with the term 'VIP'

Which is why I said 'a kind of VIP room'.

There really is nothing in there that anyone who doesn't have access should be concerned about. i.e. if you're not going to benefit, you probably won't be invited.

..just for anyone reading this and thinking..."hmmm, you're not telling us everything..."

its definately not an instant derren-brown reveal-o-secret-cauldron...

personally speaking only - its were i can discuss theories and ideas and routines that i personally have come up with...so there's an inbuilt stench of trust will the fellow members...and that trust is built on a foundation of everyone performs a certain amount, has a level of morals and most importantly, respects others views and approaches...

and trust that if i stick up a routine, you dont pinch it, you dont blab about it openly or pass it off as your own...im not saying that you in particular would..but some might...(look at YouPube for instance)...

if you get access to the Mentalist or other restricted areas, treat it with respect and contribute properly...

If you're a mentalist you already know what's in there !

In essence, the Restricted Areas were created to have somewhere relatively free from the ping pong of silly argument which hijacks and eventually locks many a thread in the open areas. They're restricted for a reason but not in any sense for dubious reasons.

Craig Browning wrote:MAGIC when performed is presented in a manner in which the audience is aware that it is trickery and they are there to be fooled and amazed via what is already recognized as tricks for the eyes and mind.

MENTALISM by its nature and roots, does not host that sort of "agreement" with the public but instead invokes belief and investment -- suspension of disbelief -- e.g. if you were to blend the two you end up short changing yourself (as well as your patrons and the art itself) because you have negated the psychological factors that help make mentalism work at its optimum state.

Can you clarify this? Are you advocating mentalists deliberately leading people into false beliefs about how something is done rather than simply leaving it a mystery? If not, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding exactly what distinction you are making here (other than the usual distinctions between mentalism and other forms of magic).

Edd - all i'll say to you is, when you feel very strongly about something, continue the discusion via PMs, otherwise useful threads get locked or Sinbinned...

We've had this debate several times before y'see and neither side, nor any hybrid inbetween-ess will ever change their own personal views...just like religion really...

Sure, in which case I'll assume the way I interpreted it was probably right and leave it at that

well, as it wasnt me who said it...i dunno!

This is an interesting thread but not because of its primary subject. What appears to be happening is a questioning as to why should some have preferential access and others not.

On other forums (on very different subjects to around here) we have overcome the problem of people feeling left out by making all the restricted areas invisible unless you have membership of them. It's very easy to do and people are quite content when they don't even know there is another set of sub-forums or even a hidden web site tucked away.

It is human nature to be inquisitive and t want to know about things, especially when they appear to be secret or whatever. It just adds to the intrigue. This is also at the crux as to why Mentalism has to be treated a little differently than other forms of magic.

Mentalism is based (in most cases) around subterfuge and careful wordplay rather than props. It also relies heavily upon specs not knowing or understanding the processes they are being subjected/entertained with. They may have ideas but don't have outright knowledge therefore their imaginations can be played with and misdirected.

Whereas it is obvious that no natter how talented a magician performing card tricks or amazing stage illusions is they are performing tricks and the specs accept that but within mentalism there are elements which rely upon the specs wondering whether there is a trick or not; could it actually be real etc. Add to this that psychics and similar are 'sometimes' known to use the same effects but would certainly not wish for that to be exposed such performers need to be able to discuss their practices without the gaze of anyone with access to Google and too much spare time.

I can certainly see why mentalism beyond the usual guessing how a certain routine was done etc should be discussed in the shadows as it relies more on its mystery and mystique than other forms of magic as well as having some practitioners who would not want to be publicly associated with the World of magic.

From what I can see on this site and others there are places where generic conversation can be carried out. I also see some discussions giving away perhaps a little too much at times but that is I suppose fair game as only those with a serious interest are likely to hang around sites like this for any amount of time before drifting off to pastures new. Unfortunately mentalism relies totally upon specs ignorance, misinterpretation etc so cannot risk being as open when discussing methods or interpretation. I tend to agree with Craig in that I do not like to see what i percieve as magicians doing mentalism tricks ie if a Magician does it, it must be a trick as that is what magicians do. If I want to experience mentalism I want to see a specialist do it so it does not appear to necessarily be a trick. Whether that mentalist portrays themselves as a mind-magic act, medium, paranormalist or whatever I don't care but I don't want them to be a 'magician' because of the linked perceptions i have (and I believe most people have) with regard to the difference between the likes of say Derren Brown and Paul Daniels just to pluck two names everyone will recognise. Derren has that mystery edge, paul, even when doing mind reading etc is a magician doing a trick.

I'm relatively new to this site and have only recently decided I wanted to renew my interest in magic. It may be tantamount to heresy in these parts but although I love to see card & coin magic etc performed I really don't want to perform them myself. As someone who works in the psychology business my primary interest falls into the area covered by mentalism as there are some close (if not always obvious) links. I'd certainly not wish to discuss those too openly where potential clients could see that - even if this is a relatively obscure corner of the web. I'm not a member of any special section on this site and I honestly don't know whether any such section would be of any further use to me than those parts we can all access. It does not really matter; especially as I was not aware of the hidden elements before.

As said earlier, what I find interesting is that the fact that people are aware of something which is closed or beyond them causes such emotions or thought patterns to be stirred.

I believe it has already been answered that all the other areas of magic do have invitation only areas on this site albeit with less identifiable titles or 'invisible' apart from to their members. Others have given a variety of reasons as to why mentalism should be regarded as somewhat different to other forms of magic. That answers the original post IMO.

Membership is so elitist, there is so few of us in there that conversations rarely take place

I.D wrote:Membership is so elitist, there is so few of us in there that conversations rarely take place

nah...there is just no need for words...we read eachother's minds!

Blapsing_Beard wrote:

I.D wrote:Membership is so elitist, there is so few of us in there that conversations rarely take place

nah...there is just no need for words...we read eachother's minds!

I was just thinking the same thing

I.D wrote:

Blapsing_Beard wrote:

I.D wrote:Membership is so elitist, there is so few of us in there that conversations rarely take place

nah...there is just no need for words...we read eachother's minds!

I was just thinking the same thing

I know

edd wrote:

Craig Browning wrote:MAGIC when performed is presented in a manner in which the audience is aware that it is trickery and they are there to be fooled and amazed via what is already recognized as tricks for the eyes and mind.

MENTALISM by its nature and roots, does not host that sort of "agreement" with the public but instead invokes belief and investment -- suspension of disbelief -- e.g. if you were to blend the two you end up short changing yourself (as well as your patrons and the art itself) because you have negated the psychological factors that help make mentalism work at its optimum state.

Can you clarify this? Are you advocating mentalists deliberately leading people into false beliefs about how something is done rather than simply leaving it a mystery? If not, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding exactly what distinction you are making here (other than the usual distinctions between mentalism and other forms of magic).

Why don't you take that question to Lee Earle... it's nearly word for word what he's taught in his lectures over the past 15 or so years.

YES Mentalist deliberately walk the line between charlatan and showman those who can't typically stink and most of them run back to the comfort of their playing cards and sponge balls within a short period of time or,as we've seen, they raise hell justifying half-measures and doing "Mental Magic Tricks" vs. creating awe and enchantment.

When Richard Webster, Bob Cassidy, John Riggs or I call ourselves "Psychics" it is not a lie nor misleading based on how we clarify that fact through our shows and related literature. Same is true with all the NLP experts out there. The difference is, Bob, John and I have all actually studied what we claim and few of the NLPers out there know more than what Kenton or Luke have to say on the subject.

Which is the bigger lie?

I use FACS techniques in my show but I'm not going to call myself a "expert" in that field nor would I say that I have some dead person whispering in my ear what it what. The truth of the matter is we have more "skeptics" deceiving the public today claiming that they are using this or that "scientific" technique than we have Spiritualists and New Age types. So you might want to look as who is doing what and before you object too heavily because their is a significant amount of smelly ooze coming from either side of said fence.

Stephan Minch pointed out decades ago that Mentalism isn't for pansies that want to cling to some bogus morality that don't exist. You will hear this echoes in many of the older tomes and even in the course of some of the more contemporary folks like John Riggs and to some level, Richard Webster. The fact that so many "magicians" want to channel Houdini for the sake of seeing their name in print (and that really is the biggest reason most of you take the more cynical position -- it's "right" thing to do according to a handful of high profiled jerks so to "fit in" you'll go with the flow vs. questioning these self-made authorities).

Oooo... I guess that crushed a few toes...

Sorry, but I'd lay money on it that if the cynical role wasn't in vogue and a visible aspect of today's magic trends 90% of you would be supporting a different kind of gospel. But I don't want to go down that road; my point is very simple however, the truest aspects of mentalism invoke and promote belief and evoke the imagination. We are not belittling what we do by calling it tricks and if you look at history the more successful in this field (and I'm not talking about the over-hyped headliners, that's a different kind of "success") distanced themselves from the magic side of this coin and the reason they did so are for many of the reasons you all have heard me complain about for the past couple of years; the deliberate theft of concepts, the lack of respect for the art itself, and the lack of general integrity when it comes to creating the singular image of being a Mentalist vs. the Jack of All Trades ego-idea so many embrace in today's world.

I WAS at one time a "Magician" -- a worker of Grand Illusion... that is in the past and no longer who I am. Today I AM a Mentalist e.g. I don't do tricks and though I may from time to time "enhance" a routine so that it is more grand and appropriate to the venue (big stage, bigger stuff) I do my best to retain that air of mystery that allows my audience to leave uncertain... and by the way so does Banachek, Jermay, Knepper, Maven and countless others... THAT'S OUR JOB!

Contrary to popular opinion we are not the conscience of society and it is not our obligation to sell them on the idea that NOTHING EXISTS... that's not only rude and cruel it is far from what the traditions of Mentalism support, which has always been the premise of neither confirming nor negating the possibility of the fantastic or phenomenal be it communion with the dearly departed or incorporating scientific discovery as a means to replicate clairvoyance, etc.

Horse Pucky is horse pucky regardless the approach you take to sell it and if I hear one more 15-25 year old screaming at me for misleading the public because I use a New Age/Psychic angle in my performances while they are claiming to be Ericksonian and NLP experts... I can assure you, someone is going to get verbally castrated really fast. I was studying those fields 25 years ago and I can assure you most of it has far more garbage woven into it than anything metaphysical does... and that's an opinion shared by your fellow cynics, not just me. So think before you open your mouth