verry well said alex,....i agree.....
I love when you post because they are thought out, you were one of the people I wanted to see in this thread! I really don't know what else to say... You hit the nail right on the head!
Remember to later smack me down when I come back drunk, otherwise we risk the traps I mentioned earlier. I may be aware of the dangers of my mastodonic ego being praised, but that doesn't mean I can't sidestep a pothole only to fall off a bridge.
It seems as though there is no light at the end of the tunnel to be seen. from all my discussions of such topics similar, we have to rely on a few magicians such as yourself to point things out like this, but it will never stop.
There will always be bad artists. Success requires work, and most people lack the ambition for that. I've heard the excuse used that people with talent don't need to practice, and that people with skill are just learning from books and have no heart. I've heard multiple variations on that. It derives from a truism that artists who are largely self-taught tend to have more free-wheeling styles or flexible creative processes.
A few years back I saw an interview with Tuomas Holopainen nd Marco Hietala of the Finnish symphonic metal band Nightwish. When asked how to the two of them worked together as Tuomas was the main songwriter and composer for the group and Marco already had over 20 years of experience with own band Tarot, Marco commented that they learned a lot from each other. Tuomas was mostly self-taught so he puts all of his ideas down on paper first and then starts refining them with input from the band. Marco was formally schooled in music so he has a much more structured approach. Tuomas helped Marco bend the rules a little, and Marco gave Tuomas some organization to his thinking processes.
Both men are incredibly talented, but they also put in countless hours of work to become musicians at all, nevermind internationally famous rock stars. This fact is overlooked by the lazy people who want success without all that nasty business of blood, sweat and tears.
The more you talk to these people, you'll see the multitude of excuses congeal. And once you understand these conceits and rationalizations, you start to understand why the field of professional magic is littered with the bones of those who failed because they never really tried.
So there's the question, how do you really "critic" something that is subjective to each person?
Giving criticism to the technique is understandable. And giving idea's to the presentation should obviously be wanted. But in my opinion, it should not be said that someone's presentation of their art is completely wrong. Because, how can it be really?
You more or less answered your own question. Every media of art has a history. It has a tradition, it has structure, it has rules. You mentioned Pollock, but let us not forget that if you look at his early work, this man mastered the hell out of conventional painting
before he started to innovate.
To reference that blog again, one of the comics the author reviewed was College Roomies from Hell (and no, I'm not typing out the stupid redundant exclamation points). It's one of the most poorly written things I've ever seen in my life and I saw the Wicker Man remake. The author of the blog was attacked in the comments section by fans of the comic for saying that the characters were all 1-dimensional. He responded by challenging the fans to describe one or more of the character's personality in detail. The caveats were of course that you could not describe physical appearance, plot lines from the comic, backstory, hobbies, relationships, etc. These are not the things that define a character. Only one person attempted this, but the above things are all he listed.
That is a rule of writing characters. Characterization is not stuff that happens to them. Batman losing his parents wasn't characterization, it's how he feels about it. Therefore, one can effectively critique a narrative based on the depth of its characters as they relate to the genre of the piece.
There are many magicians out there who don't take criticism well, or take it but just don't follow it. To me, that's stupid because how is that person going to grow as a performer, plus what are forums for? If a member takes zero advice from magicians who have been performing the same trick for years, how could he expect to get better?
It stems from the belief that they're already good enough. They don't want criticism, they want praise. They're not looking to get better, because they believe that there's already no room for improvement, most likely because of some flattery and adoration they received from the teeming masses of the internet already.
