While it is true that all magic, even camera tricks, has it's place in the craft my argument against use of such methods stems from trying to steer the young and inexperienced away from that road as it is really low hanging fruit. Cut your teeth on the stage first. Learn the ropes, then take the short cuts only after you know how to travel the long way around.
You Tube videos do not make one a "Magician" -- the "true" Magician can create the miraculous anytime, anywhere under most any set of circumstances -- we are ALWAYS prepared and that doesn't mean that we keep a deck of cards at our beckon call; it means that we have cultivated the skills associated with the craft first and foremost. In my youth that meant that the old timers were slapping us down every time we started talking about big illusions and wanting to become the next Copperfield or Siegfried & Roy in that such was the popular style of magic in that era. Today, thanks to a lack of proper mentoring relationships (due to the lack of hands-on and personable rapport that is physical vs. the virtual interactions of today), an instant gratification social mind-set and the techno-geek sub-culture, we have people conditioned to believe that You Tube, Vemo and other such sites are "it" -- our launching pad to greatness in that a very small handful of people have been "discovered" through said medium.
Do yourself a favor and look at the actual statistics when it comes to the number of people on those sites doing the same exact thing you are doing with these vehicles and the number of individuals that actually became or are becoming a commercial success; the magic world has two key players in that world and the music industry might have about a half dozen discoveries of note. . . not exactly proof of terrific success for the effort made, and when it comes to magic there is a reason, one that Criss Angel proved in spades -- TV Talents aren't real magicians these days; they rely too much on stooges, camera & editing techniques as well as special set-ups that can only be done from a very controlled perspective. Angel faced horrid reviews and negative press when he opened at the Luxor because he couldn't deliver the some level of impossibility he displayed on the tube.
Considering this and how much cash it took to spin said press, what makes anyone think that working towards a TV only audience makes you a "Magician"?
Magician's are and have been throughout history, the epitome of skill & grace -- someone that can take command of the elements and through the action of his/her fingers, create the fantastic with most any borrowed or random item found in their environment.
As I've said, in the past four + decades I've seen hundreds if not over 1,000 magicians perform and out of that fewer than half a dozen have ever come close to being the "real deal' for me. Norm Nielsen's Manipulation act being so elegant as to make me want to cry because of its perfection but I've seen that same majesty in the likes of Shamada, Johnny Thompson, the late Martin Nash and of course John Calvert, none of whom ever played solely for a video audience though they had significant time sharing their craft on all of the major networks and in some cases, a motion picture spot here and there.
I'm rambling at this point in that I really do feel that CGI and other technology-based cheats are not "Magic" as we would recognize such a thing to be. These are things that cannot be done live and without audience controls set into place, let alone a huge budget when it came to paying off stooges and accomplices. It's simply not practical in the real world; if you want to become known as a Magician then learn how to do magic and leave the video crap alone. . . and I mean no disrespect in saying that; video & film "magic" are honorable elements -- a kindred factor to what we do because they do deal with "Illusion" and general deception, BUT they aren't one in the same so why would we want to hurt our craft by relying on the greater lie?
