Thoughts on color changes

[Hgagnon]

I think the main thing is that spectators don't care what the trick is categorized as.

I agree they just like to be amazed

 

[RealityOne]

So there is definitely an overlap, right?

There shouldn't be an overlap from a presentational perspective. Mentalism is presented as real, magic is presented as an illusion. It is plausible that someone can discern a thought of card using muscle reading but it is not plausible that someone can use their mind to turn over the card they are thinking of in the deck (e.g. Invisible Deck). The first is mentalism, (purported demonstration of a skill) the second is mental magic (a magic trick with a psychic phenomenon presentation).

Further, you shouldn't do something that is portrayed as being real (disclaimers or not) followed by something that is clearly a trick. Think of it this way, if someone performed a palm reading for you and then performed a pick-a-card trick, the trick would diminish the strength of the palm reading. Similarly, if you do a drawing duplication based on reading the image that the spectator is thinking of as they draw and then follow it by making a rabbit appear from a hat, the duplication looks like a trick.

I think the main thing is that spectators don't care what the trick is categorized as.

But they can tell the difference between pure mentalism (demonstration of mental powers) and mental magic (magic trick with psychic presentation). The first is believable and the second is a trick with a good, but not believable, presentation. The difference is between the audience leaving with the thought "do you think that was real?" compared with the the thought "I wonder how he did that?"

I've been to a show done by a mediocre mentalist where the other members of the audience left wondering if it was real and shows by a famous magician where the mental effects were MORE POWERFUL AND BETTER PERFORMED but the audience left speculating how it was done.

Now, all this is being said by someone who performs as a magician but who has studied mentalism to understand how we can use those concepts to improve magic.

I agree they just like to be amazed

But understanding the differences between the mentalism and mental magic allows us to structure our presentations for the maximum effect. Just taking a mediocre magic trick and using a presentation that talks about mental powers doesn't necessarily make it better. The lack of plausibility in most mental magic presentations actually diminishes the power of the effect -- not only is it viewed as trick but the explanation is viewed as borderline insulting to the audience's attention. "I've had the ability to make cards in the deck turn over without anyone noticing using solely my mental powers since I was five year old." Yes, that is an exaggeration but a lot of descriptions of mental magic come close.

Finally, even mentalists fall into the trap of the lack of credibility in their explanations. A mentalist should be able to demonstrate one or two skills, not every skill in the book (e.g. foresight, mind reading, influence, muscle reading, clairvoyance, etc.). Less is more.

Understanding how your presentation actually affects your audience is what makes magic, mental magic and mentalism amazing.

 

[Rise Above]

I agree that your presentation affects your audience. If you determine someone's selected card, no matter what the method is, some may think you can read minds, some may think you can see through the card with your magical powers that you received by selling your soul to the devil, and card cheats may think you marked the cards or peaked/forced the card. Back on topic, my favorite color change is the twirl change.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Apologies if this ends up being long.

I think the distinction is that magic is the illusion of the impossible and mentalism the illusion of the possible.

Another good way of putting it, yes.

If we define "tricks" as methods, I think both magicians and mentalist use tricks. In a mentalism context, you can enhance those tricks through methods -- or as Banachek terms it, subtleties. I know what you do does rely more on the employment of methods (cold reading, hypnosis, "energy", etc.) but I think that is the exception rather than the rule. A Q&A is the use of a method with subtleties. A Dead or Alive routine is the use of a method with subtleties.

I think this really depends on how "deep" you go in regards to mentalism. Most mentalists that we are exposed to through videos and such, have a similar style of mentalism which is, for lack of a better term, in the shallow end. The reason for this is that if you want to be a famous mentalist, you have to find the balance between material that is both unique and personally satisfying, as well as commercially viable. While one can make a very good living when they've delved into the deep end of mentalism, you'll never gain national fame that way. It's too esoteric - most people can't really connect to it.

Yes and no. Both magic and mentalism should be focused on character and presentation. Too often the performers of both genres fall short.

I agree that all 'mystery' performers should have a well established character and that most don't, even very successful ones in many cases. However, I do feel that a magician can get away with less character development than a mentalist. A poorly developed mentalist character is ... well, usually very boring.

My distinction is that mentalism is a demonstration of a psychic skill where mental magic is the demonstration of a magical skill with a psychic presentation. For example, mentalism is determining the word that someone has selected from a book, mental magic is having that word appear on the person's arm. Mentalism is telling someone how much money they have in their wallet, mental magic is having someone order from a dinner menu with the resulting bill equaling the money in your wallet.

I would prefer to use the phrasing, "mentalism is the demonstration of highly developed mental abilities" to cover the non-supernatural options.

I really think the distinction doesn't come from the material but from the approach to the material. If you really break it down, Derren Brown uses a lot of magic tricks in his mentalism. But he does it very convincingly and congruently with the concept of mind reading and influence. "A 20 year career based on two skills - the ability to pluck a thought out of your mind, and the ability to put a thought into your mind." That's Derren Brown summed up in one sentence. He doesn't care what method he uses, as long as it's in line with that character concept.

So it's not simply a matter of the presentations. For instance, I could make a word appear on someone's arm, but if I do it in such a way that only they can see it - that is mental influence creating a hallucination. That's right in line with how I perform ... and, actually .. I might figure out a method for that. Hmm.

@ChristopherT - We have to write that book, "The Mentalist and the Magician."

I'd love to.

I think the main thing is that spectators don't care what the trick is categorized as.

I agree. All of these labels are, in my opinion, purely for the magic world to ponder over. The audience only cares about whether the show was any good. That being said - there is a usefulness to keeping these things in mind. If you're trying to create certain emotional experiences, you need to understand how the ebb and flow of the performance will create those reactions. If you mix up your claims and switch things around halfway through the show with no motivation, the audience senses that and they are less engaged.

In the end, what we call ourselves is pretty irrelevant. The audience will decide what they call you on their own. You can try to put a label on yourself and build a brand around that (ie: Witch Doctor) - that does not guarantee everyone will call you that.