The other day, this article showed up in my twitter feed:
Congress considers bill to declare magic acts “art”
On a side note, I was kind of surprised it wasn’t tweeted by one of the several indie magicians I follow, but actually one of the several indie film studios I follow. It’s at this point I realize I tend to follow independent entertainment over mainstream. But I digress.
You might not know this about me, but I am hobbyist illusionist. (Another random side note: I prefer the term illusionist, but I’m not to picky about being called a magician. Sometimes I even call myself one, despite the preference. Also, just to be clear, I don’t mind that most others in this line of work call themselves magicians. That’s the last side note, don’t worry.)
I say hobbyist, but I’ve thought about “going pro” a couple times and actually ordering business cards, compiling sets, and trying to get gigs. When I have time, (ha!) I may end up actually doing that.
Back to the article in question, I don’t mind David Copperfield considering his craft an art. We are in agreement there, in fact, and I would have less respect for him if he didn’t consider what he did the work of an artist. (whether he’s a very good artist is a completely different debate, that involves an in depth description of the industry behind magicians today, and that’s a subject for another blog post)
I am more annoyed that Copperfield thinks we need some sort of ruling to make it “officially” an art.
I don’t know whether he just wants his work to be validated through law so he can feel good about himself, or if it’s the about the grant money that magicians could start raking in. I’d guess it’s the latter, because, you know, money.
But let me say this as a fellow artist in the same craft, one who is supposedly the prime target for such grant money: I find the idea of this bill degrading to the art.
I understand the argument for taxpayer money going to artists, despite being vehemently against this concept. But the very ideas behind the performance of these particular artists, and the ‘tricks’ and ‘magic’ they create, is to create a connection with the audience. (Really all artists should do this, but from what I’ve seen, there seems to be less agreement about this among other mediums.)
There are too many young magicians getting into this art simply because they like tricking people, simply getting them to believe something happened when it didn’t. They miss the point. The audience is not someone you want to simply “trick” and be done with, the audience is what you want to impact. If you have no impact on your audience, (impact can be almost anything, from making them laugh, to making them think) then you are simply not a very good artist, at least in my book.
I tolerate these ‘magicians’, because the way I see it, they will want out of people tolerating being made fools of at some point, and therefore they will run out of gigs. They will either have to learn to connect with their audience, or give up the art.
This bill however, says they are artists anyway. Even if they know and believe they aren’t, simply because they hold a deck of cards and know how to do a trick. And taxpayers will become a captive audience, one they don’t have to connect with, only have to fill out the proper paperwork and meet the “artist” requirements.
Should this bill get passed, will people take advantage of this system? Undoubtedly; similar systems passed for other arts have had the same effect. But will it be a net gain on this small but growing community of artists in this field? I would guess no, but in the end I don’t think any sort of trade off in this way is a good idea.
You see, illusion is a unique art in that any performance you see could vastly effect how all future performances you see. If you see a bad painting of a tree, and then see a good painting of the same tree, the bad painting will only make the good painting seem even better. But if you see a bad performance of a card trick that gives away the whole thing, and then a great performance of the same card trick, it will degrade the good performance’s impact.
Now, part of this is due to the lack of original creations and discovery of unique mediums within this art, but again, that’s a subject for a completely different blog post. (I didn’t realize how many thoughts I had on this subject… maybe I’ll write a sequel to this blog post when I’m done writing this one)
Anyway, I don’t know Copperfield, he may simply want to make it easier on those performers starting out in this craft. His intentions may be good. But I have this thing, whenever someone says that they want the government to be doing something about anything, I translate it in my head. For example:
“I want the people who run the DMV to make a way for new artists to get off the ground.”
As an artist, not only do I find that demeaning, I find it annoying, and a little scary. I counter David Copperfield’s plans with this idea, and this applies to all arts, not just illusion:
“I want successful artists to make a way new artists to get off the ground.”
From what I hear, he’s already been doing this, quite successfully in fact. Think about it, when was the last time you heard an artist giving an acceptance speech for an award saying: “I’d like to thank the government, who gave me money.” Never They thank the artists that inspired them, both directly and indirectly.
Mr. Copperfield, if you’re reading this, how you make something an art is not by legislation or public validation, but by making more of it, and doing it well.
~Toby
(This is the first installment in a blog post series, where I talk about my thoughts on art. In case you didn’t guess, the name of the series is “thoughts on art”)
A Geek of Many Trades 