As most people interested in mentalism would know, there are two main types, Sure-fire, and sugestion and I think there is something to be said about both of them, I'd like to hear your opinions/preferences
As most people interested in mentalism would know, there are two main types, Sure-fire, and sugestion and I think there is something to be said about both of them, I'd like to hear your opinions/preferences
Both are equally important. My general approach is to integrate suggestions into surefire mentalism effects, ensuring that if my suggestions fail, the surefire effect would not.
A lot of psychology and presentation goes into mentalism, and I guess it is what makes it fun, especially for suggestive effects, we as magicians take pleasure out of succeeding in a challenge (as do most people), and using suggestive magic gives us much more pleasure compared to sure-fire effects.
That's what i reckon IMO at least.
Are there two types? As most people would know? I don't think that's true. I'd say that that is a gross simplification, and based on a common beginner's misconception about mentalism, namely, the Derren Brown style mentalist who relies almost completely on NLP and suggestion. That said, I will simply say this: if you're afraid of risk in mentalism, learn sponge ball magic, mentalism is not for you. And I can't say I agree at all with JDEN's simplistic post either. There's a lot more to spectators than a simple classification. And a lot more to magic in general, and performance. A knowledgable mentalist will use psychology and suggestion to every possible advantage. This does not mean the mentalist is trying to force the four of diamonds every effect! Many so called "sure-fire" effects utilise suggestion and psychological principles to augment the effect of magic.
I second this - I'm happy to say know a fair amount of mentalism and not much at all relies purely on suggestion.
There tends always to be a layer in there of common magician style deception! (Not that many pure mentalists would acknowledge their similarities to magicians!! )
Mentalism is something which requires a lot of study, and more than anything alot of trial and error!
It's not generally about the methods at all, look at it from a spectator's point of view, method is nothing - If you say that you are subliminally influencing them to think a certain way, that's what they'll believe.
I started performing Heirloom not too long ago, and I've had one several occasions:
How did you make me think of that card?
throughout the reactive comments!
The fact that Derren Brown is so popular allows the majority of people to come to the conclusion that these are the methods we are using, no matter what is the case.
Peeks are good. Forces are good.
Suggestion is the next tier where you'll learn to build on these things.
D.
I second this - I'm happy to say know a fair amount of mentalism and not much at all relies purely on suggestion.
There tends always to be a layer in there of common magician style deception! (Not that many pure mentalists would acknowledge their similarities to magicians!! )
Mentalism is something which requires a lot of study, and more than anything alot of trial and error!
It's not generally about the methods at all, look at it from a spectator's point of view, method is nothing - If you say that you are subliminally influencing them to think a certain way, that's what they'll believe.
I started performing Heirloom not too long ago, and I've had one several occasions:
How did you make me think of that card?
throughout the reactive comments!
The fact that Derren Brown is so popular allows the majority of people to come to the conclusion that these are the methods we are using, no matter what is the case.
Peeks are good. Forces are good.
Suggestion is the next tier where you'll learn to build on these things.
D.
It's not generally about the methods at all, look at it from a spectator's point of view, method is nothing - If you say that you are subliminally influencing them to think a certain way, that's what they'll believe.
As long as the trick it's self fits and links logically with an influence premise, I don't see a problem with it at all, the bad thing is when some one riffle forces a card and claims that they subliminally suggested the card thru their scripting, etc. That just doesn't make sense at all!
D.
Dee,
That's the exact type of thing I'm talking about. Good example. I think there are a number of effects that fit well the influence premise, and other effects that don't. I personally don't use it as a premise for any effects but it can be great when used well. It seems so many mentalists are jumping on this bandwagon without giving it any real thought.
Very true - sadly there are simply too many magicians calling themselves mentalists with no real idea about mentalism itself, except Derren Brown's presentations (and chances are he's using something that's buried in The Jinx but seems completely impractical).
Is there sure fire mentalisim? I always figured that ALL mentalisim was suggestion based and about making gut decisions and going with the flow. Rather than being 100% sure fire like a Rifle or hindu shuffle force.
the only explanation is that whhat you are doing is real.
I've mentioned in the past the 'whole' performance, suggestion lies in what you wear, your accent, your gestures, it's in everything. As D ICE R will know, and some others reading this, suggestion is built up of many different aspects, use all the senses, think of each thing you do during the performance as a brick suggestion and build the spectator a path to follow.
Is there sure fire mentalisim? I always figured that ALL mentalisim was suggestion based and about making gut decisions and going with the flow. Rather than being 100% sure fire like a Rifle or hindu shuffle force.