continued from above
No one is saying that you should emulate Criss Angel or anyone just because they are famous, that was not the point of the other two threads.
The point was that it is stupid and ignorant to ignore it just because we dont like it. The truth is that Criss Angel has gotten further then most magicians could ever dream of and many magicians would love to be in his place and no matter how much we or the public think he sucks he still has a lot of people who likes him.
Its stupid to just ignore that fact instead of asking, What did he do to get the recognition he got, WHY did it work? and what can i learn from it and do with it. That was the point.
Its pretty damn obvious what most other magicians is NOT working either, and its obvious that what he did worked better then anything other magicians ever did. Why ignore the truth?
Dont come on and attack me because i dont like Criss Angel, i thinks hes embaresing. But the reality is that hes where we would want to be and we are not, and its stupid to ignore that reality.
Im pretty sure most serious musicians and film makers hates whats on the top charts, but they do take notice anyways.
First, Walmott should not be the subject of personal attacks because he asked a question.
But There are some assumptions in here that I think are worth thinking about.
First the idea that looking at what he did in order that one may also do it is emulation. But that semantic issue aside, I think the bigger picture is to ask - is this what we want to emulate?
Criss is famous. Celebrities are people who are famous for being well known. (Wish I could remember who wrote that.) And if you want to be a celebrity then I think that following Criss's path is a valid one. Of course, so is Paris Hilton's and Kim Kardashian's.
Taking that path has a price. Most people are not willing to have sex on tape just to be known and get into the best clubs. Criss Angel is - metaphorically speaking.
Likewise, there are many magicians whose sole goal is to make money. I have known many of them. Some of them are average magicians, many not even that. But they do know how to market and sell and work a lot of shows - once. The buy things like the Dave Dee courses and simply grind out, sometimes, a healthy living.
But ultimately are these people magicians, or are they people who are selling a magic act? Is Criss a magician, or a celebrity who is using magic as his gimmick.
Now, if your goal is to make money or be famous - the path is there.
But some people have other goals. Some people get into magic because they love the art, because it can be a vehicle for self expression, because they enjoy entertaining an audience, because they want to do something interesting.
These people may never be famous in the public consciousness, but at the end of their lives, they might end up having GIVEN more to people, GIVEN more to magic, made more interesting choices than someone who is only in it in order to achieve fame or money.
Many of the great artists we revere died penniless. How much more barren our cultures would be if they were told not to follow their vision - in spite of the financial consequences, but to emulate the popular and successful.
These are the people who, when their stories are told, are looked upon with respect even by laypeople. There have been many histories of magic told (most aired right before many of you would have been born). After their airing when people would hire me, they would do so because they saw something special in magic, they wanted to talk about its history and how it worked (big picture.) They didn't use words like douche, or greasy, or even camera tricks.
Those were the days.
Now some people may use the argument of numbers and claim that the artists represented on those histories were failures because thousands of people did not know who they are - like they do Paris Hilton or Heidi or Spencer or a mom that had a lot of kids.
But when we look back at our lives and ask, did we leave this place better or worse than when we found it, I think most of them can put a check in the 'better' box.
In short, not everyone wants to be where Criss is and to call that a "reality" is simply speculation fueled by unfounded mind reading.
Now collegehumor is not the ultimate thermometer of the entertainment world, but I do think that it represents a lot of the commentary to be found.
Here are the articles on Criss from TMZ:
http://www.tmz.com/person/criss-angel/
Again, these guys are known to be snarky, but again, this is what a lot of the entertainment industry think about Criss.
So, we are left with the question, how did Criss get where he got? Well, lots of people get famous for lots of reasons. Some people buy their own shows, have enough money behind them to get the advertising and even fake the numbers. Did you know there is a NYT bestseller broker? For the right money, he will guarantee your book a spot on the NYT best seller list.
We can't believe everything we read in someone's press kit. There are a lot of back room deals and business that goes into the business of show - that are completely independent of talent. And tv seems less and less concerned with talent. They like trainwrecks. And once you have built a person to the point of having name recognition (which Criss does among a small slice of the populace) then you are invested. It is hard to walk away from an investment, no matter how badly it may tank. - - - Just ask Cirque.
If anything, reality tv has taught us that some people will watch anything and there is money to be made advertising to every demographic. The opening episode of the last mindfreak series pulled in 1.2 million people - peanuts in the tv world - but still a valuable sector for advertising. (Steer, talk to Rick ,he will tell you all about the role of advertising to demographics and the value per customer that networks place on their viewership.)
Of course, we also have to remember that different shows pull different demographics. Criss is NOT loved by everyone - and I am not just talking about magicians. (for the record, I think the 'magicians hate his style' line is old. I, for one, was very excited the first time I saw Criss work. I thought the illusions were inventive and the look really creative. While I found the rocker magician character uninspired - tons of those - what he did with his magic was novel. So the issue is not style (and for the record, I think goth girls are totally hot), it is with unskillfully executed magic, poorly constructed plots, a now one dimensional character, and a lack of relevance to anything meaningful to sentient adults - yelling that something is 'extreme' to the camera is hardly drama or showmanship.)
The fact that Criss has received such scathing reviews and is lampooned as strongly as he is is testament to the fact that for a large population, Criss is NOT relevant in spite of Steer's claim.
So, does it make sense to suggest we should advocate emulating a man whose choices clearly do NOT resonate with a large percentage of the population simply because - for whatever reason - he managed to land a tv show.
I can't say that I think that is the smartest position - UNLESS you want to target the same demographic in which case he is a model worth studying.
I don't.
So, aside from how his work impacts future generations of magicians and their relationship with the tv audience, he is largely irrelevant to me. Hate is not the opposite of love. Indifference is.
I will confess that I am concerned about how Criss has privileged his own needs over those of the trust built between magician and tv audience over decades and find this irresponsible and reprehensible.
But that may not be important to many of you.
I tend to be a big picture guy.
But let's leave Criss and look at the bigger picture - why are so many magicians lampooned and our art not taken seriously? Why are there only one or two magicians in the public eye at a time?
Has this historically been true?
Has TV changed things and how, why?
Is the very notion of "many magicians" antithetical to the concept of "magic" as an art that is, and I use this word in it's most literal sense, super-natural?
Why did Copperfield opt to not participate in the WGM specials? Why did he opt to not have his one man specials while they were popular?
Could the reason behind the limited number of magicians in the popular mind somehow systemic to the underlying message behind the art itself?
Could a magician be "completely normal" and still be a successful magician? Is that what the public even wants?
And is TV really the measure of success for a magician or any artist? Is popular, commercial success the yardstick by which we should measure someone's worth? And is magic - a media which requires the experienced discrepancy between what one knows cannot happen and what one is actively experiencing to have happened - ever really succeed in anything but a live environment?
When we talk about magic on tv - are we, even in the best of instances, talking about magic at all. Or is it a picture of magic?
Is a picture of a Van Gogh a Van Gogh?
Having unexpectedly turned the corner at the MOMA and nearly walked into Starry Night - an image I had seen hundred of times in books and on posters - only to have my breath literally taken away when I saw it in person, I can tell you that I do not think it is the same.
Maybe what Criss is offering is not magic. It lacks that palpable discrepancy. It is a picture of a picture of a magic show.
Which doesn't mean it doesn't succeed for some people as a tv show - but I don't think that's what a "magician" wants to emulate.