What is your most visual trick?

[jakubr]

Hi guys!

So I wanted to ask you, what is the most visual piece of magic that you perform? For me it's a trick with the matches, where the spectator draws with the fire imaginary shapes, which then I am guessing. I love performing it during the night, because it looks very visual and easily draws attention of the people passing by. Here is my performance of that trick, if you'd like to see it:

[video=youtube;nSUI0iSb88s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSUI0iSb88s[/video]


I'd love to hear, what is your most visual piece? And do you think that visual tricks have more potential then other ones? Looking forwards to hear your opinion!

 

[nandn4magic]

Hi guys!

So I wanted to ask you, what is the most visual piece of magic that you perform? For me it's a trick with the matches, where the spectator draws with the fire imaginary shapes, which then I am guessing. I love performing it during the night, because it looks very visual and easily draws attention of the people passing by. Here is my performance of that trick, if you'd like to see it:

[video=youtube;nSUI0iSb88s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSUI0iSb88s[/video]


I'd love to hear, what is your most visual piece? And do you think that visual tricks have more potential then other ones? Looking forwards to hear your opinion!

Hey mate i just saw your youtube account you were awsome !! I started learning mentalism and i am still in 13 steps to mentalism and practical mind reading . But can you recommend me some dvds or books other that those two???? And i am sorry i couldnt answer your question

 

[jakubr]

In fact with 13 steps you have enough material for the lifetime But if you're looking for more, I'd recommends books of Bob Cassidy. Thanks!

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

I suppose the most visual thing I do is PK. I don't really strive for visual stuff.

 

[jakubr]

Is it the style you have chosen from the beginning, or do you find people reacting stronger to non-visual stuff?

 

[Steerpike]

Hey mate i just saw your youtube account you were awsome !! I started learning mentalism and i am still in 13 steps to mentalism and practical mind reading . But can you recommend me some dvds or books other that those two???? And i am sorry i couldnt answer your question

http://pittandpendulum.blogspot.com/2010/08/beginners-guide-to-mentalism.html

To address the thread, the obsession over the last few years with everything having to be more visual is getting really old.

 

[Craig Browning]

I'm a Mentalist -- A MIND READER -- what part of that indicates something "visual"?

If you want to do visual magic then go back to traditional magic an stop calling yourself a "Mentalist" . . . 90% of all PK type routines come from traditional magic not Mentalism or it's "darker side" in which spirits & imps create mischief that's any more dramatic than knocking over books or other simple phenomena.

About the only "visual" effect (if you can call it that) I do when working in this arena is when I break out a Pendulum or Talking Board or maybe make tables shake and move about. Granted, I've recently invested in a few things that do include an animated floating wedding band, but only because of how it fits into a love story seance program I've been developing.

In Mentalism the "Visual" element is how we stage things, especially revelations. It's the drama and energy we bring to the table when we do our thing NOT the visual gymnastics or dexterity found in traditional magic work.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Is it the style you have chosen from the beginning, or do you find people reacting stronger to non-visual stuff?

It has developed over time. I find that 'visual' magic is often just a advertising buzzword and not even accurate, and furthermore, that making something visual is often both detrimental to the potential of the effect and also putting the most difficult part of the job at the least intelligent part of the trick. IE: You'll be doing all the difficult sleights when people are staring at the props.

What people think is happening will always be bigger and better than what we can actually show them is happening.

 

[jakubr]

Craig, I think mentalism can be also very visual and there is no problem with that. Obviously it will be different, then visual aspect of traditional magic tricks, but any mental effect can be presented in the visual way through its process (how to I arrive on the revelation?). Often this is also, what makes people believe its real, that's why I think it's important.

Christopher, one thing I've learnt, there's always temptation to do only the things that 'I like', 'I enjoy performing the most', but I think to give to the spectators the best experience, sometimes we need to go a bit against that, or at least find something that will satisfy us and yet be still very powerful to the spectators.

 

[Steerpike]

Often this is also, what makes people believe its real, that's why I think it's important.

No it isn't.

For the sake of argument, how would you propose making a Q&A act "visual?"

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

I'm going to agree with Steerpike here. I don't think a visual aspect makes people believe it's real. I think a visual aspect can, at times, make people think it's fake. Because, as I said, you can't live up to what they can imagine. So if you present, visually, something they imagined differently, they only have their imagination to compare it to and that may cause them to think it's fake.

I perform things that are not exactly what I want for spectators all the time. But you'll always perform something you like and 'believe' in better than you'll perform something just to make people happy. I can do a sponge ball routine that gets people flipping out and making noise, but I don't care about it and they can tell. It's a trick and they know it.

Visual is not the answer to everything. I think the really powerful stuff is often the stuff that isn't visual.

 

[Steerpike]

Visual is not the answer to everything. I think the really powerful stuff is often the stuff that isn't visual.

To add to that, everyone's heard, "Show, don't tell." But the corollary most forget is, "Imply, don't show."

 

[jakubr]

When I'm talking about the visual aspect of mentalism I think about something completely different then the visual aspect of magic. You can have a routine, which uses no props and yet is very visual. It's what the audience sees, all the process. Your gestures, how you arrive to know something, your behavior - all of this can become powerful things which add the visual aspect to the performance (instead of just writing the word on the board, without showing all the process).

 

[Steerpike]

When I'm talking about the visual aspect of mentalism I think about something completely different then the visual aspect of magic. You can have a routine, which uses no props and yet is very visual. It's what the audience sees, all the process. Your gestures, how you arrive to know something, your behavior - all of this can become powerful things which add the visual aspect to the performance (instead of just writing the word on the board, without showing all the process).

That's a very roundabout way of saying, "lol i dunno."

 

[jakubr]

That's how many mentalists and mental magicians see it, e.g. Derren Brown.

 

[Steerpike]

That's how many mentalists and mental magicians see it, e.g. Derren Brown.

Derren Brown is a very eloquent man. I somehow doubt if asked to explain the performance theory of mentalism, he would use quite as much hot air as you did.

I asked a question directly and you didn't answer it, so I can only assume that you don't have an answer. You're just operating under the logic "visual = good" so you keep the definition of visual as vague as possible to make everything conform to it.

 

[Craig Browning]

I'm going to agree with Steerpike here. I don't think a visual aspect makes people believe it's real. I think a visual aspect can, at times, make people think it's fake. Because, as I said, you can't live up to what they can imagine. So if you present, visually, something they imagined differently, they only have their imagination to compare it to and that may cause them to think it's fake.

You are 110% on mark with this observation, my friend. . . Dunninger's famed comment about how every prop lowers your perceived value by 10% is very true. While you need some "flash" set into your show there is a serious limit to it when it comes to generating believability -- less is more!

Bob Cassidy has pointed out that making too many claims also creates a lack of believability or, as I've pointed out so often, the fact that very few working psychics ever claim more than one or two major skills with up to 3 secondary abilities that THEY ARE WORKING ON (taking classes, performing exercises, etc.)

How one reveals a prediction or whatever can be showy but you don't want to be too showy. . . pragmatism has its advantages.

I featured bendings, watch stopping, lighting up light bulbs, etc. years ago and after two seasons came to accept that it was all masturbation that my audiences tolerated but didn't really enjoy or buy into -- the higher percentage of people saw such things as "tricks" . . . not because I didn't present them well but because they'd seen too many magicians do the same thing . . . this is something a lot of us never weigh when developing an act or show and it is far more difficult to distance yourself from such associations than you'd think . . . and I'm of that old school mind-set that says that it's best to keep your distance. Sadly, it's not really possible for me, but I do the best I can.

 

[jakubr]

I'd say visual = good, provided we understand visual as I explained before. It's not necessarily about showing flashy things, in fact you can use no props at all and still provide a visual performance. It's about showing the process - I'm thinking especially here about the mentalism. Looking at the visual aspect from this perspective, also Q&A can become a very visual demonstration.
DB did speak about this in those categories as well (in fact he is the one from whom I adapted this view). As far as I remember, he speaks about it in one of his early dvds and also in the Pure Effect.

 

[Steerpike]

It's about showing the process

You keep saying that, and yet you have not provided any examples or even bothered to contextualize or develop that thought.