theory11 — Magic Tricks & the World's Finest Playing Cards

Who should we emulate, exactly?

Brad Henderson said:
Its easy to make fun of a lot of people, but we don't do it.
Click to expand...

Who's we? For me personally, nothing is too far. Only too soon.

Of course, also consider that I don't see American satirists racing to make fun of Derren and Cyril probably because they're not that big Stateside. Blaine and Angel are much more recognized by us Yankees. They're much more mainstream.
 
I think the video was just the result of a douche bag with a hate-boner for magicians making a joke at the expense of the most well known faces of the industry.

I think the discussion going on is perfectly valid. I just think its funny it spawned from such an odd source.
 
Steer, I don't think there is value in basing positions on one person's sole outlook. While you may feel there are no lines to cross (and I happen to agree with you, though I don't have issues with too soon - funny is funny) it is clear that there is an overall median of what is considered acceptable.

What we are talking about in this thread, is the overall median opinion of what magicians are or should be.

Now, if you want to advocate that we should ignore public opinion and please ourselves (the artists) then we pretty much discount any reason at all to look to someone like angel for anything to emulate. It kind of shoots your and b's position in the foot. I don't think you mean to do that.

There will always be individuals who love magic or hate magic no matter who, what, when or where.

There are not germane to the discussion.

What we are discussing here is the perception of magic and magician at large - particularly as it relates to specific magicians who have managed to catch the public attention and what traits they have worthy of emulation.
 
I really dont want to read this whole thread,I just want to point out what I think the video aims at.
The title is douchebag magicians right? So the makers of this video just wanted to show what makes these top magicians seem douch-y in their opinions. Or what certain aspects of the magician makes them a douche.
Criss angel's is easy. He uses obvious camera tricks and tries to come off as way too hot and cool for people. So that aspect of him was what made him a douche in the video.
David copperfield was made fun of for his "sexy" shows where its almost perverted. Or for that legal trouble he was in a while back ago about doing something sexually inappropriate. I dont know exactly what the story is. But in that sense he was a douche in this video for that. Whether its true or not it doesnt matter. Thats what the audience sees. Its funny either way.
Penn and teller,mostly penn cause teller cant talk, is considered a douche for his rantings on government,religion,etc. They dont care of his rants and just wanna see magic so they killed him.
David blaine is seen as a douche for his stunts. For trying to make something historic. Almost like they view his artistic nature as pretentious. Or that his stunts are simply useless. again,this is what it seems what they think from viewing the videos.
All this about emulating someone is beyond me. Why would you emulate someone? Draw inspiration from others but dont strive to be as great as someone else or in their status. Maybe emulate wasnt the word the thread starter was looking for.
 
Emulate was the word intended.

This thread followed three others which were laden with personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims. Those threads, in part, sought to explore who we should emulate in order that out magic be relevant to the modern public.

Shortly thereafter I saw this video which I found fitting.

But this is in many ways a continuation of another thread of ideas - attempting to remain focused on the issues not personal attacks.
 
Brad Henderson said:
Those threads, in part, sought to explore who we should emulate in order that out magic be relevant to the modern public.
s.
Click to expand...

but see,thats what bugs me. the word emulate. Why would you want to?
emulate means to be egual to or in the same status as someone. It just doesnt make a lick of sense to me that someone would want to do that.
It rings to me as being mediocre. Its like me saying I want to be the next steven spielberg. Why do I want to stop just at that status? Could i not go further? Or would I not want to be my own person instead of the next anything?
On the other hand I ask why concern myself with status or achieving the same fame or recognition as someone else. I just do what I love and do it well. In my own way.
I wouldnt want to be like or the same as someone else. It would make me personally feel unoriginal or mediocre.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And while I am personally inclined to believe something similar, there is value in deciding where on the continuum from popular success to artistic acclaim. One poster suggested magicians have not 'made it' unless they have achieved success of the ilk as has angel and that the path to that success may be emulation of what 'works'.

I would like to question not only if indeed it has worked (as evidence by numbers, critical reviews and satire) but whether or not the only measure of success (let alone talent) is fame.

In short, we are discussing just that. Its part and parcel of the issues bandied about.

Read the thread. You might fund parts of it interesting
 
Brad Henderson said:
And while I am personally inclined to believe something similar, there is value in deciding where on the continuum from popular success to artistic acclaim. One poster suggested magicians have not 'made it' unless they have achieved success of the ilk as has angel and that the path to that success may be emulation of what 'works'.

I would like to question not only if indeed it has worked (as evidence by numbers, critical reviews and satire) but whether or not the only measure of success (let alone talent) is fame.
Click to expand...

well there is two frames off thought of success. I fall into the category of success is doing what it is you want for a living and living well off it.
Some people say success is by having chunks of money. Even if your not happy your rich so who cares right? I dont agree with that side.
Criss angel is doing what he wants for a living and is rich. That is successful in both terms.
 
Steerpike said:
A praetoritevong said, that depends largely on the individual, does it not? On general principle, I find it expedient to listen to all opinions and create a sort of tableau. I watch for patterns to emerge and from there I can adapt.
Click to expand...

"A praetoritevong said?" Crap man, haven't you learned the difference between Oriental and Asian?
 
visualartist said:
well there is two frames off thought of success. I fall into the category of success is doing what it is you want for a living and living well off it.
Some people say success is by having chunks of money. Even if your not happy your rich so who cares right? I dont agree with that side.
Criss angel is doing what he wants for a living and is rich. That is successful in both terms.
Click to expand...

Oh my lord. You got it perfect besides there are more than 2 things. It isn't that simple. Even though I'm not rich or famous. The one thing that makes a man happy in life is his girl. (Even if she doesn't like your magic tricks).

Peace.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sir FansAlot said:
Let's do this. Close this thread down. It is stupid, and by that I mean it is stupider than even me. What a CLUSTER!
Click to expand...

or you could get off the computer and go out and play something called a sport,or have a conversation that you think isnt stupid. If you dont want to participate in a conversation and/or think its stupid just get out of here then.
 
Sir FansAlot said:
Let's do this. Close this thread down. It is stupid, and by that I mean it is stupider than even me. What a CLUSTER!
Click to expand...

I am sorry this thread has angered you. If it bothers you, just avoid it.

I'm sure lots of people think lots of threads are pointless.

Thank goodness we can choose the ones we read.
 
Brad Henderson said:
Steer, I don't think there is value in basing positions on one person's sole outlook.
Click to expand...

Reading a bit too much into it Brad. Just pointing out that we're all getting a bit too free with the plurals. I did however also give you another consideration for why the satirists here in the States aren't going after Derren and Cyril. I think it's worth addressing.
 
Steerpike said:
Reading a bit too much into it Brad. Just pointing out that we're all getting a bit too free with the plurals. I did however also give you another consideration for why the satirists here in the States aren't going after Derren and Cyril. I think it's worth addressing.
Click to expand...

Because there's nothing in their character or way of performing to really make fun of or call douch-y?
Cyril puts on a great show as a very approachable,suave,cool guy. He simply does great magic with no futzing around like others.
You could use a very similar argument for Derren.
David,penn & teller, and especially criss are so easy to make fun of in various ways.
Thats how I see it,not sure if im right.
 
William Draven said:
Oh don't think that Derren and Cyril are above satire. They both can be made fun of just as easily as any of our state side magicians. They just aren't well known in the states enough for people to care. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

Which may be true, but satire is not limited to the United States' borders. One would think there'd be as much desire from their respective countrymen to skewer them as we do Blaine or Angel, no?

Could it be that the public doesn't care about them enough to bother? Or are they simply enjoyed more than they are not "over there?" Or some other reason?

I'm not suggesting I have the answers, but this is interesting to consider.
 
Brad Henderson said:
I think the public is ok with us using tricks. People like tricks.

I think they might be pushing back when we are screaming at them that what we are doing is dangerous or real, when at heart they know it's a tv show and it's all staged.
Click to expand...

I think this is a great point and speaks to us using tricks for performance or flat out lying to tug at the audience's heart strings.

There is an obvious line about comedy that says (paraphrasing): If you have to explain the joke, it's probably not funny. We could change that to "If you have to tell me it's dangerous and real, it's probably not really dangerous."

I love in Penn and Teller's show when, during a juggling piece, Penn spits out the Do Not Try This At Home warning through gritted teeth because he has to, though he tells us that he knows we're not dumb enough to believe we should go home and try to replicate what he's doing.

He's not telling us it's dangerous to get us to believe him, but because he has to. It's not obvious trickery. Someone might really go home and try that.
 
Steer,

Of course cyril and derren are less well known here. But it would seem that they would be lampooned in their own countries, which I have seen none of relating to cyril and only minor jabs at derren - jokes about mind reading linked to him but nothing close to vitrial we see hurled toward angel and blaine. Likewise, blaine went to england and was laughed out of the country. So, why did the english people as a whole embrave derren but torment and ridicular blaine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.