talkmagic.co.uk

magicmindben wrote:When the magcian links the ringgs together the audience knows its a trick,

Not all of them will. Believe me, some of the audience will believe it is real magic.

In the "real" world (ie what's going on outside your window right now), magic is magic is magic. Whether it's Derren Brown, Tommy Cooper or old Ma McCredie down the road with her tea leaves.

People in the real world have more to worry about than whether me correctly predicting the name they've written on a piece of paper is psychic, mentalism, or psychological trickery. Normal people don't care. It's all magic. Those who want to believe, will believe. Those who think it's all a big con will continue think it's all a big con. But they won't lose any sleep over it.

May I suggest we follow the lead of normal people?

Every magician and mentalist wants the audience to leave the performance, feeling that they've witnessed something unusual, strange, even supernaturual.

ANY performer that reduces magic or mentalism to the level of 'trick' is doing their art a disservice.

If it's purely a case of 'look what I can do', or 'I know a secret that you don't', then it's nothing more than self-gratification and ego massage for one.

Engage the audience's imaginations and suspend their disbelief to a point where they don't know where reality stops and fantasy begins. THEN you've given them an experience that will stay with them for a long time.

I don't care what sort of deceit you present, if the only question a spectator asks is 'how did you do that?', then the performance was little more than feat of juggling (but probably far less skillful).

If their initial reaction is one of 'wow'. And it takes them a good few minutes to even consider a 'how', you've hit all the right nerves and left them with something meaningful.

And that applies equally to mentalism and mainstream magic.

Chung Ling Soo wasn't a chinaman.

Rocky Raccoon isn't alive.

Psychic powers are as real as you want them to be. Audiences can call me a mindreader, a svengali or a charlatan and I'll be happy. So long as they don't call me boring or rubbish!

pcwells wrote: Audiences can call me a mindreader, a svengali or a charlatan and I'll be happy. So long as they don't call me boring or rubbish!

A man after my own heart. Here here!

pcwells wrote:
Psychic powers are as real as you want them to be. Audiences can call me a mindreader, a svengali or a charlatan and I'll be happy. So long as they don't call me boring or rubbish!

I believe this is where our thoughts on it differ. I believe that when I want the audience to belive I am a psychic, I loose my dignity with my honesty.

I know many people who are still amazed, even knowing the performer is just in some way tricking them.
They don't find it boring. It is still entertaining and amazing.

You also said it was a disgrace to present it being what it is, trickery.
So appearntly, to you, it is a disgrace to be honest and entertaining. People know that magic isn't real. So should iI convince them as much as I can that it is? That is what you said I should do. Whenever a magician says that it's real, and go take it seriesly, I have heard people laugh about it. That's the real rubbish. People aren't that stupid.

I believe that mentalism, like magic, can be shown as trickery and also be amazing.

Derren brown makes it clear that he is using psycological trickery in his stage show, yet the audience is still amazed and entertained. I will be honest about that in the end, for the audience as well. I will stay that way, as I imagine each person will stay their way, whichever it will be.
Interesting to hear your takes on it,

-Ben

I will be honest about that in the end

You can be honest but then you could be revealing everything. You've got to find the right line, people who believe they are psychic, are being as honest as they can when they tell you they've contacted a spirit.

Honest is a hard word to throw around in the Magic/Psychic business, be carefull how you use it!

By honest I mean, if they ask me if I have real Psychic powers I say no. Not that I just tell them how everything is done. I believe there is a clear difference between an entertainer and a charletton.

magicmindben wrote:
Derren brown makes it clear that he is using psycological trickery in his stage show, yet the audience is still amazed and entertained.

Yes, but Derren Brown is lying. It's part of his act. It's his "back story". He's using the same techniques that we've all been using for centuries.

magicmindben wrote: I believe there is a clear difference between an entertainer and a charletton.

Then I fear you will be sorely disappointed in the lax morals of our illustrious forefathers. Magic and mentalism right up to the 1970's was driven by "charlatans", snake oil salesmen, and ne'er do wells.

I believe we consider different people our "Forefathers".

magicmindben wrote:I believe we consider different people our "Forefathers".

Indeed.

Regardless of the tone you take to your mentalism, the idea of 'false explanation' is key.

If you take the psychic route, you invite skeptics the audience to explain your effects in psychological terms - effectively achieving the same goals as the 'psychological' mentalist.

Interestingly, many people that instsit that Derren Brown is a genuine psychic - but either doesn't know it or doesn't admit to it.

Even James Randi has been accused of being a real psychic - and inventing humbug explanations to hide the fact! You just can't win against people that are determined to believe.

But while we're on the subject of ethics, I'd also point out that a purely 'psychological' presentation - if done well - can often serve to guide 'emotionally needy' spectators into other aspects of pseudoscience which are every bit as contentious as palmistry, tarot, scrying or dowsing. The moment you extrapolate the theatrical path laid out by 'psychological' mentalists, you're led towards practices such as NLP and Thought Field Therapy, which have received just as much ridicule and criticism as the new age practices you're trying to avoid.

I've heard it said that NLP works, but not for the reasons that many people think. Can't the same be said for 'readings' and new age stuff?

Good or bad, I think the real problem is that people look to NLP and other psychological practices as an external DIY fix for internal problems. Look at the number of NLP-related self-help books that exist. Their appeal lies in the suggestion that mirroring somebody's body language or using the right words and mannerisms will win over the ladies, get you a promotion and make life all rosy and sweet. It's suggestion that you can bend the world to your agenda - and that's not only impractical but a recipe for emotional disaster.

There's little difference between the people that consult readers and those that consult 'psychological' self-help books. They're all looking the same things - and I don't necessarily believe that the self-help bookreaders are getting a better deal.

Okay, that's a long rant, but my point (or, more appropriately, my opinion) is this:
Presenting mentalism in purely psychological terms is no more ethical than taking a 'psychic' approach.

The bottom line is that you're providing entertainment. You're engaging the audience in a mystery. You're leaving them with a sense of wonder.

Openly tell them that it's all a big con, and you're effectively stealing the wonder and mystery out from under their nose - and, in the process, devaluing the entertainment.

So long as you don't sell people a philosophy, give advice, buy votes or get people to invest in timeshare property, you'll be able to sleep at night.

Pete

Okay, let me condense my last post into a couple of sentences:

Think about what you're inviting your audiences to believe in. You must either take responsibility for the interests they develop as a result, or give them credit for being able to make their own decisions and get on with being an entertainer.

I think that there is a line when it comes to mentalism and how you present it. If you're doing a mentalism effect like mind reading, a prediction or what ever then there really is no harm in comming across as psychic. I often claim that I can see things in people's auras, nearly all my mental magic is based around the pretense of me reading shapes and colours in the specs aura.

When a mentalist\psychic\medium starts making money out of claiming to be able to speak to a dead relative, that it taking advantage and that to me is when the moral line is crossed.

themagicwand wrote:I have decided to abstain from this discussion on the grounds that I already know what is going to happen.

There you go, we DO have a genuine psychic amongst us LOL.

It is always a fascinating discussion that typically ends in a blue, I do agree it very much depends on how you define "psychic".

magicmindben wrote:It's not about the disclaimer.
When the magcian links the ringgs together the audience knows its a trick, whereas an audince might more easily believe you have true psychic powers. I personally belive it is immoral to do such things. Just not to the grounds that I will argue against other entertainers about using that claim.
-Ben

Ben, there is a difference between using one's "powers" to extort and using one's powers to "entertain". However DB might arrive at his mind reading conclusions, no one asks for their money back because they got their money's worth.