What changed him from the rank of "Master Magician" to his current role of "outdated cleche"?
As I reread this post, I began to wonder if the emphasis on clothing was not were you are going. Are all magician's outdated cliches?
I think the answer is yes, but no, but yes again. Let me explain.
What do most people think of when they think of a magician? The guy from Frosty the Snowman? The clown (sometimes literally) that did magic tricks at their six year old birthday party? Weird Uncle Rufus who pulls coins from their ears? Let's start with the iconic and cliche image from Frosty the Snowman. Well, that actually isn't far from the kids birthday party magician. The problem here is that magicians are relying on what worked in the past. For effects they use brightly colored props that, well you can only get in a magic shop - Hippity Hoppity Rabbits, Run Rabbit Run, Stratosphere (sorry Rick), Dove Pan, Magic Candy Maker and the more creative ones, a red and orange Circle Square or Temple Screen. Most of those effects came out before I was born, in a time where there were all sorts of "inventions" and many toys were made from wood and paint. They were relevant, but no longer are. The problem is that the presentation hasn't changed either. If anything, the performances are more influenced by English Panto and Punch and Judy performances today due to performers / teachers with that style like David Kaye and David Ginn. The magic is secondary to the comedy, or more appropriately buffoonery (think look don't see and magician in trouble). The shows are entertaining, but not really magical. Kaye and Ginn both subscribe to the journey (the gags and jokes and by-play along the way) is more important than the destination (the magic). I disagree. The magic must be of primary importance and the presentation must be designed to emphasize the magic.
Maybe people think of the performers on [INSERT COUNTRY'S NAME] Got Talent. OK, we've got the guy with the cat pulling cards out of his ear (yeah, weird Uncle Rufus comes to mind). We've got the illusionists that burn through an illusion a minute without saying a word (After seeing Horace Goldin perfom in this manner, P.T. Selbit remarked "Silence is Goldin"). Then there are the rest of the performers that focus on the trick with the only justification being that they can do something the audience can. Even if people have seen live magic shows with "professionals" (loosely defined as anyone who gets paid for performing), it isn't much better. I saw two professional magic shows in the last month -- both of them performed Kevin James' bowling ball production -- silently. Both performed Losander's floating table -- nearly identically. How many times have I seen a magician perform Metamorphosis doing nothing but explaining what they are doing. I blame Fitzkee or more accurately most people's reading of Fitzkee for much of what is wrong in magic. People follow the advice written for folks in the 1940 rather than understanding the spirit of that advice.
And now for the NO part. David Blaine and Criss Angel did do something different by changing the image and "taking magic back to the streets." I do question whether it would be as effective without the camera crew following them, but that is another issue. However, THAT has become cliche. Sorry, but it has. Worse, their performances reinforce the idea of just performing an effect without any presentation -- merely narrating what the performer is doing. Yep. Say-do-see patter. Sportscasting. Cooking show presentation ("and now I'm going to add two cups of flous..."). So that brings me back to YES again. I think that performing style has become a cliche, just as the Youtube magician performing at crotch level for a webcam a trick he learned ten minutes ago has become a cliche.
So here is the question... how do you break out of the cliche?
