Oh my goodness. I think you started on a legitimate misunderstanding, but it's finally hit me that you have progressed to a point where you actually have no clue about anything you've just said...
Combining Mentalism and Sleight Of Hand...
- Thread starter Luis Vega
- Start date
Oh my goodness. I think you started on a legitimate misunderstanding, but it's finally hit me that you have progressed to a point where you actually have no clue about anything you've just said...
So nobody ever became successful with genuine talent and integrity? And since when was selling out a free pass to the keys to the kingdom? Whether or not you have integrity is not going to affect your prospects of success most of the time. Even among the sellout crowd, the field is littered with the bones of those who tried for the throne and failed.
And what does this have to do with anything again? Why was this brought up in the first place?
There are a lot of negative stereotypes about magicians, but it's mostly our own god damn fault.
Makes you wonder how I ever booked a seance, huh? Could it be there's something you're not thinking of?
I have no idea where the hell any of this is going. What the point of it all is. Hell, I can barely remember how this got started. So what is the connection here exactly? I am not in the mood to argue the history of rock and metal with you, I just want to know what the damn point is. Because at this point, I'm not certain even you know what you're trying to accomplish with this.
i will say sorry if im not clear. im not here to confuse.
i never said u cant book a seance but the point is it is not as popular as it once was as i just said. it is not normal to have someone having one in their house these days (well at least in the uk).
that was my point that magicians have hurt themselves to the public. u asked of which one i was saying. if i wanted to revive the past or if u cant. I was saying u cant because we are from a different setting and we are different people. that is what i was on about when i said 'I was on about me being me experiencing what i have shapes what i do and make.' u cant recreate because of this but u can learn. u said i was knee capping myself creating an ideal that is not possible. i was only trying to explain that i dont feel i was because i understand that is not possible.
i never said that nobody ever became successful with genuine talent and integrity. I said people without it will 9 times of of 10 will make more. If u will do anything to make money u can make more. You can not tell me that it is easy to make money after leaving school with an art degree, (all my lecturers all say that most of us will not have a job in the arts at all).that is why the phase selling out exists. throwing away your artist integrity to make more money.
lets forget all this because im just confusing
my point was that as u said there are a lot of negative stereotypes about magicians, but it's mostly our own god damn fault. That there are lessons from the past that have been forgotten about.
i never said u cant book a seance but the point is it is not as popular as it once was as i just said. it is not normal to have someone having one in their house these days (well at least in the uk).
that was my point that magicians have hurt themselves to the public. u asked of which one i was saying. if i wanted to revive the past or if u cant. I was saying u cant because we are from a different setting and we are different people. that is what i was on about when i said 'I was on about me being me experiencing what i have shapes what i do and make.' u cant recreate because of this but u can learn. u said i was knee capping myself creating an ideal that is not possible. i was only trying to explain that i dont feel i was because i understand that is not possible.
i never said that nobody ever became successful with genuine talent and integrity. I said people without it will 9 times of of 10 will make more. If u will do anything to make money u can make more. You can not tell me that it is easy to make money after leaving school with an art degree, (all my lecturers all say that most of us will not have a job in the arts at all).that is why the phase selling out exists. throwing away your artist integrity to make more money.
lets forget all this because im just confusing
my point was that as u said there are a lot of negative stereotypes about magicians, but it's mostly our own god damn fault. That there are lessons from the past that have been forgotten about.
No, they really don't. People who submit to trends or the daily grind and compromise whatever sense of integrity they have, no matter how laughable, typically end up with little more than a half-way decent dayjob. Which is the same a typical artist can get if they just do a little networking. For every success story of a sellout, there are a million more who tried and failed. So I suggest you get this 9 out of 10 business out of your head.
First of all, who is this quote from? Second...
What? That is some serious bull**** right there. Classification is very important in artistic endeavors.
From what I can discern, this portion is the crux of the argument:
This is nonsense. Magic does not have a monopoly on visually pleasing aesthetics, for one thing. And I think the attitude reflects a very jaded outlook. That you're not happy unless the show has special effects presented by Industrial Light and Magic.
Now, if you're one of those people that insists, nay demands that everything must be more visually appealing and loaded with spectacle, then rip off Sean Fields. He's been able to effectively add more sensory indulgence to mentalism without turning it into mental magic. That's fine. But I reject the idea that one must perform mental magic in order for mind reading to live up to the potential that Mr. Anonymous here asserts it has.
If you can't do a proper Q&A act without visual gimmickry, than you can't do a Q&A act either way.
Then perhaps I need some more context because that paragraph alone sounds like a weird thing to come out of Derren. I've never seen him try to spice up a mind reading show with more bells and whistles than it needs. A commercial touch here and there never hurts, but I doubt that Derren is saying that you should try and liven up your mind reading show with a zigzag illusion or a biddle trick.
I'm still confused by the assertion that one should not be concerned by divisions of classifications. There's a reason we have a genre system.
Steer, whilst I can't confirm the context or the source of the quote, I do recall reading something along those lines, and it sounds vaguely familiar.
From my memory of that passage, I believe the context was Derren talking about giving mind-reading a visual process - letting the audience see exactly when you're reading someone's mind. I think your initial reaction to the quote was thus, compared to the actual context, something of an exaggeration. Not to say that there must be bells and whistles and lights and sounds - but you must admit, something other than "think of your card, say it over and over to yourself in your head" would be nice! I think Derren was talking more about physicality than "visual" in the context of magic, like a "visual change".
From my memory of that passage, I believe the context was Derren talking about giving mind-reading a visual process - letting the audience see exactly when you're reading someone's mind. I think your initial reaction to the quote was thus, compared to the actual context, something of an exaggeration. Not to say that there must be bells and whistles and lights and sounds - but you must admit, something other than "think of your card, say it over and over to yourself in your head" would be nice! I think Derren was talking more about physicality than "visual" in the context of magic, like a "visual change".
Okay, that I can get behind. Creating the appearance that something is happening. Yeah, that's a good thing. Though I would argue that most magic lacks that as well, but that's another conversation entirely.
I guess I'm a bit jaded toward the word "Visual." It's been reduced to nothing more than a marketing buzzword and in that cynicism it seems I'm developing a knee-jerk reaction to it.
I guess I'm a bit jaded toward the word "Visual." It's been reduced to nothing more than a marketing buzzword and in that cynicism it seems I'm developing a knee-jerk reaction to it.
I believe the actual context, or thrust of his argument, is to add more mental effects to magic, as opposed to adding more magic to mentalism. His focus in these opening chapters is to be open to challenging your spectators and he argues that mind reading effects are an excellent way to do this. Keep in mind this book was written in 2002(actually the 1st ed. was 2001 I believe.) At that time he was still performing more traditional parlour and residency magic.
Never the less I do think the thrust of what he is saying is captured in the quote. If you watch his work I think you may see his open mindedness about magic and mentalism if you look close enough. Russian Roulette, for example. I'm about 90% sure he used some form of electronic device to divine the location of the bullet. In other words,the entire "selection process" was simply good theater. Using mentalism as a presentational device to cloak a high tech magicy gadget. I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that he is to smart a guy to trust his life to the methods that he claimed.
In my own experience I have had great success in using certain "Magic Gimmicks" and presenting them as if what I was doing was a trick of the mind. Ex. I use Alex Lourado's "Captivated", an effect where two bottle caps change locations, but I present it as "hypnosis." The reactions take it far beyond the reactions I get when I present it as magic.
So While I wouldn't try to add some visual effect to a psychological effect like a Q and A routine, I will happily take any visual effect and add a psychological component to it if I can find the justification to do so. That is why I agree that classifications are simple minded. Not that you shouldn't consider them but if you adhere to them too rigidly it stifles your ability to think outside the box you just nailed shut.
Never the less I do think the thrust of what he is saying is captured in the quote. If you watch his work I think you may see his open mindedness about magic and mentalism if you look close enough. Russian Roulette, for example. I'm about 90% sure he used some form of electronic device to divine the location of the bullet. In other words,the entire "selection process" was simply good theater. Using mentalism as a presentational device to cloak a high tech magicy gadget. I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that he is to smart a guy to trust his life to the methods that he claimed.
In my own experience I have had great success in using certain "Magic Gimmicks" and presenting them as if what I was doing was a trick of the mind. Ex. I use Alex Lourado's "Captivated", an effect where two bottle caps change locations, but I present it as "hypnosis." The reactions take it far beyond the reactions I get when I present it as magic.
So While I wouldn't try to add some visual effect to a psychological effect like a Q and A routine, I will happily take any visual effect and add a psychological component to it if I can find the justification to do so. That is why I agree that classifications are simple minded. Not that you shouldn't consider them but if you adhere to them too rigidly it stifles your ability to think outside the box you just nailed shut.