April 08 :: XCM / Cardistry?

[waynehouchin]

Greetings! This months topic is one that several members have expressed interest in discussing / debating. Where does XCM fit within the art of magic? Does it have a place within the context of a magic performance? Is XCM nothing more than juggling with cards? I think that these are all great questions and I think this debate will be a very interesting one.

So... what do I think? I personally see Cardistry as an art in and of itself. It can certainly be used to enhance a magic routine but I have personally seen Cardistry or XCM stand on it's own - with no magic at all. But does XCM belong in a magic routine? This is a very old debate - many will argue that showing that kind of skill with a deck of playing cards will tip the audience off that what you are doing is not magic - I can certainly appreciate this line of reasoning. It is my personal opinion that the answer to this questions depends upon what you want your audience to think of your magic. If you truly want your audience to believe that you may indeed have some form of magical power, then XCM could certainly work against that image. If, however, you want your audience to believe that you are a skilled sleight of hand artist who creates the illusion of magic then, it is my experience, that XCM or Cardistry can be a fantastic addition to an act or routine.

One other thing to keep in mind is that from your average layman's perspective fanning the cards to have a "card selected" is just as "flourishy" as performing a Sybil. Laymen do not make the same distinctions between the two arts that we do - sure the distinctions exist, but that line is very blurred in the eyes of a layman.

Those are my thoughts - what are yours?

[dejavu05]

I think that flourishing can add a nice touch to your magic, but at the same time I don't think you should over do it so that the focus is just on the flourishing. I don't do that much flourishing though.

[Shanku]

Thank god this isn't another discussion about whether this art should be called Cardistry or XCM. :D

In my opinion, small, quick and flashy flourishes can be optional in a magical performance. You don't want to be doing armspreads and aerial catches (unless it's a revelation like a hot-shot cut revelation or something) during a magical performance. Save that for a Cardistry/XCM/Flourishing/whatever-you-want-to-call-it performance.

I agree about how laymen find a good pressure fan just as hard-hitting and a thousand-mile-an-hour Sybil-tasitc-super-sundae-double-choc-chip-nacho-cheese-combo. Simple flourishes like ribbon spreads and pressure fans (and also aerials) are the most effective on laymen. Save the Sybil's and the plethora of complicated two-handed cuts for you videos and other members of the art.

[drorange]

i think dan and dave add the right amount of flourishy moves in their tricks

[James1Wise]

Greetings! This months topic is one that several members have expressed interest in discussing / debating. Where does XCM fit within the art of magic? Does it have a place within the context of a magic performance? Is XCM nothing more than juggling with cards? I think that these are all great questions and I think this debate will be a very interesting one.

So... what do I think? I personally see Cardistry as an art in and of itself. It can certainly be used to enhance a magic routine but I have personally seen Cardistry or XCM stand on it's own - with no magic at all. But does XCM belong in a magic routine? This is a very old debate - many will argue that showing that kind of skill with a deck of playing cards will tip the audience off that what you are doing is not magic - I can certainly appreciate this line of reasoning. It is my personal opinion that the answer to this questions depends upon what you want your audience to think of your magic. If you truly want your audience to believe that you may indeed have some form of magical power, then XCM could certainly work against that image. If, however, you want your audience to believe that you are a skilled sleight of hand artist who creates the illusion of magic then, it is my experience, that XCM or Cardistry can be a fantastic addition to an act or routine.

One other thing to keep in mind is that from your average layman's perspective fanning the cards to have a "card selected" is just as "flourishy" as performing a Sybil. Laymen do not make the same distinctions between the two arts that we do - sure the distinctions exist, but that line is very blurred in the eyes of a layman.

Those are my thoughts - what are yours?

I do agree with you wayne, saying that XCM is an art form. I think that combining art is something very important. When an artist paints something, he doesn't just paint 1 type of perspective, he paints many, he combines different kinds of ways to make his painting which I belive is very important in magic as well. See you can perform and do a few tricks and that's great, but if while you're performing you do it in a flashy way, I think it makes the expecience for your audience even better and more memerable. I don't, that's just my 2 cents.

[LBarnes]

I whole heartedly agree with Wayne.

Take these situations for example.

A magician showing simple yet effective card magic, goes up to specs to show them some stuff, after he's done the audience are left saying things along the lines of "Wow, how the heck did he do that? was that real magic?" basically left in awe.

A flourisher performing XCM and magic walks up to specs, does XCM mixed with magic, after he's done, the audience will be left sayin "that guys is REALLY good with a deck of cards" they are left impressed, yet not left amazed.

At the end of the day, both the flourisher and the magician entertain people, but in two different ways, it's up to you as a performer to decide what you want from your audience.

Just my two cents anyway =)

Lloyd

[DannyT]

I think Cardistry and Xcming is art by themselves.
If you took a picture for every cut position you make when flourishing, it looks like pure art. When fanning the deck, getting each card to separate to see the borders of the card, it looks like art.

Cardistry and Xcming definitely hold up on their own.
Where would they fit in a routine?
Well, I agree with Wayne about the specs thinking that your good at sleight of hand after flourishing and moving onto a trick.
I think that everyone should have at least a little flourishing in their routines. When your specs begin to get bored with you, throw some crazy cuts in there to win them back over.

I would sometimes do some false cuts after a false shuffle, if I think my specs know what's going on.

After I do a flourish like the Madonna, and end it at the fan flip, they don't know what's going on. All they know that the deck is defiantly shuffled.

;)

[word]

anyone who says flourishing doesnt belong is sticking to an archaic view of magic. I would invite them to watch some of the media on this site and then say its not an art form.

Now i can also say that there are good artists and those who arent good, so a persons take on it will vary on the performer. That goes with any type of magic or performance.

Flourishing and xcm can blend nicely if used appropriately. benjamin earle has a great gambling demonstration. I would imagine if one can cause a spectator to believe a trick is being accomplished thru card manipulation then have a method that doesnt involve it or a trick that is done in the hands of spectator would just add to the astonishment.

[Gui42]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA April 8 is my birthday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well anyway, i think carditry is something that from the espactadors oint of view is very good hands and some kind of dance...

when cardistry is used for magic it is the perfect combination... that is what Dan and Dave did... people believe that if you learn the secret you can already perform it.... well we now that it is not true but if you are talking to somebody dumb that is what they think... but with cardistry no if you shom the secret to somebody they will still be amzed by the hand control you have.... Tivo 2.0 is a great example....


i personally am not good at cardistry... but in magic the nice part is tp show that you did not just read a book with instructions and know something that they dont know... XCM show that you are acctually something else

[Gui42]

is Wayne the only artist that posts on Cerca Trova Posts???

i would love to see a Dan or Dave post in this one

[sky_lark]

In my opinion, it all follows one sentence:

Magic is the main course, cardistry is the side meal, and XCM is the salad.

In other words, having mainly magic, some cardistry, and a little bit of XCM, you're good to go.

[copperfield 14]

In my opinion, it all follows one sentence:

Magic is the main course, cardistry is the side meal, and XCM is the salad.

In other words, having mainly magic, some cardistry, and a little bit of XCM, you're good to go.

Cardistry and xcm are the same. Some people might do it the other way around. :p

[RichmanMatthew]

I think flourishing should be used to enhance magic.

[Jakeh]

Sometimes I'll do a little flashy thing in an off-beat moment, but I don't really find it necessary.

[2ndDeal]

anyone who says flourishing doesnt belong is sticking to an archaic view of magic. I would invite them to watch some of the media on this site and then say its not an art form.

I say flourishing (I mean real flourishing, not a pressure fan category) doesn't belong to magic. I took your invitation, and after re-watching those awesome displays of skills my opinion has only strenghtened.


I believe that there are three equally important aspects in magic. Effect, Method, and Presentation.
Good magic needs to have those three aspects in balance, otherwise it doesn't work as well as it could.

Without a method, it is not a magic trick, it is a story. Performer presents an effect, but because he lacks a method to make it into reality, he has to describe it. It can be entertaining, but it's not magic.

Without presentation, it is not magic, it is a puzzle.

Without effect, with only method (in this example, sleight of hand) and presentation, we have cardistry. It can certainly be entertaining, and artful, but it's not magic.

Flourishes are sleight of hand, or the method. I think that added, unneccessary flourishes take away space from effect and presentation. Method (sleight of hand) outshines them, resulting unbalanced magic trick.

[PhilTheMagician]

Controversial post:

I doubt that anyone who sees a magician perform a card trick thinks it is "real magic" instead of someone being really good at slight of hand. So why not add some flourishing to your effects. I am constantly fanning cards, doing double charliers, flipping cards and dropping cards...lol.

I put "real magic" in quotes because.....I have yet to see someone who believes in magic. I'm talking magic in the fairy tale sort of way, not in the "I can't explain what happened" sort of way. Probably children are the only ones who still believe in "real magic". Just from my experiences of performing and watching the crowd react from other performances.

[hyo]

Whenever People see me flourish, they want to see a card trick. I hate it. For me it is a completely different thing. Of course Cardistry can enhance a Magic Routine, but don't overdo it...
To much of that flashy stuff will kill the Magic Moment. They'll only watch what you do with the deck and forget the reason of the "Trick".

-hyo

[Shodan]

I've been thinking some thoughts lately that tie into this topic. Being primarily a card magician, every now and then I have a bit of a freak out - "card tricks" just aren't that magical! A lot of the time we frame card magic with jokes, stories, "magician in trouble" plots or indeed flourishy stuff; a little voice inside reminds us that the trick really isn't enough on its own...

Think of it like a movie; you can get away with having a weak plot and lousy acting if you throw in special effects or lots of comedy - slapstick or otherwise - or if you stick to the ever popular premise that "sex sells". At the end of the day though, the film will be pretty forgettable because the important bit isn't there - a well acted, well executed plot. Substance.

Where does XCM fit into this analogy? Flash. Special effects. Style over substance. Enjoyable to watch? Certainly. Throw it into a magic set and you can get away with not actually doing anything too...magical. Your spectators will still be impressed and amazed because you can do something they cannot.

For myself, I want to start concentrating more on the substance of a magic act. To perform something that is close to the soul of what we all think magic should be. Is there anything deeply magical about making a coin penetrate a bottle? On the surface of it you might say yes. To me, it feels like more of a cool stunt than a magical moment. Do people believe in "real magic"? Of course not. They're still interested in seeing someone create the appearance of real magic though!

Once you strip away the special effects, the jokes, the glitter and the sex, you are left with the bit that's hardest to get right. But if you do get it right, you have something memorable, something moving, something lasting. I can't possibly see how the inclusion of fancy flourishes, XCM etc. can live in harmony with this goal.

[Big George]

If your audience is entertained, then you have got the right mix of "magic" and XCM. I will say that audiences generally want to see other stuff rather than just cards.
G

[word]

I say flourishing (I mean real flourishing, not a pressure fan category) doesn't belong to magic. I took your invitation, and after re-watching those awesome displays of skills my opinion has only strenghtened.


I believe that there are three equally important aspects in magic. Effect, Method, and Presentation.
Good magic needs to have those three aspects in balance, otherwise it doesn't work as well as it could.

Without a method, it is not a magic trick, it is a story. Performer presents an effect, but because he lacks a method to make it into reality, he has to describe it. It can be entertaining, but it's not magic.

Without presentation, it is not magic, it is a puzzle.

Without effect, with only method (in this example, sleight of hand) and presentation, we have cardistry. It can certainly be entertaining, and artful, but it's not magic.

Flourishes are sleight of hand, or the method. I think that added, unneccessary flourishes take away space from effect and presentation. Method (sleight of hand) outshines them, resulting unbalanced magic trick.

i totally agree. excessive flourishing can take away from the wonderment of a trick. my post was to state that xcm belongs in magic. From my take on the original post, some people see card magic as red and flourishing as yellow. there are just two colors and can never be an orange. Should there be an orange?

I say not incorporating cardistry into a routine under the belief that you need to appear clumsy in presentation to deffer any suspicion that you used a sleight for the method would infact entertain more suspicion in the mind of the spectator. So wouldnt it be useful to show a little flash, then do something that doesnt include any flash. wouldnt that add to the wonderment. Who would like a tomato when you can get an orange?

[copperfield 14]

Controversial post:

I doubt that anyone who sees a magician perform a card trick thinks it is "real magic" instead of someone being really good at slight of hand. So why not add some flourishing to your effects. I am constantly fanning cards, doing double charliers, flipping cards and dropping cards...lol.

I put "real magic" in quotes because.....I have yet to see someone who believes in magic. I'm talking magic in the fairy tale sort of way, not in the "I can't explain what happened" sort of way. Probably children are the only ones who still believe in "real magic". Just from my experiences of performing and watching the crowd react from other performances.

Finally someone says it.

[2ndDeal]

I doubt that anyone who sees a magician perform a card trick thinks it is "real magic" instead of someone being really good at slight of hand. So why not add some flourishing to your effects

I do agree that nobody (at least I hope so) believes that magician really has some magical powers. But, I disagree on that everytime spectator sees a card trick he explains it with sleight of hand.

Let's use a one part of ACR as an example.
Magician shows the top card, puts it into the middle of the deck, and a moment later, it's on top.

Magician can do this with a couple of different ways. He can show the card, talk a little how special that card is by it's nature. Then put it clearly in the middle of the deck. After stating that card has jumped on top because of its ambition, he shows it on top.
Other way to do this is to show the card, flip-flap it around (I believe Cardists call that twirling) put it into middle, then square the deck with one hand, and then do a fancy one-handed turnover of the top card.

Both ways rely on sleight of hand, but on latter magician shows that this is sleight of hand. On upper example, spectator has no explanation. He might think that it is sleight of hand, but still, magician didn't do anything that explains it.

[PhilTheMagician]

Let's use a one part of ACR as an example.
Magician shows the top card, puts it into the middle of the deck, and a moment later, it's on top.

Magician can do this with a couple of different ways. He can show the card, talk a little how special that card is by it's nature. Then put it clearly in the middle of the deck. After stating that card has jumped on top because of its ambition, he shows it on top.
Other way to do this is to show the card, flip-flap it around (I believe Cardists call that twirling) put it into middle, then square the deck with one hand, and then do a fancy one-handed turnover of the top card.

Both ways rely on sleight of hand, but on latter magician shows that this is sleight of hand. On upper example, spectator has no explanation. He might think that it is sleight of hand, but still, magician didn't do anything that explains it.

Hmmm...It's funny. I don't perform an ACR because I have been asked tooooooooooo many times to "see" the card's face after i place it in the middle. I've even had spectators bend down and peek under (I've turned the deck away, obviously)....but....my point is that the ACR as an example is completely screaming slight of hand to a spectator (again, not 100% of the time, but quite frequently)....to me, and let me say that again... TO ME the standard ACR is one of the tricks that are obviously done with slight of hand (I was never impressed by it even before I got into magic and didn't know the secrets. The version I use on rare occasion is the one (don't know who originally came up with it...Deryl?) where their card is bent at the end, and it VISUALLY pops up at the top. Again, I'm more about the visual part of magic....things that just look ridiculously freaky.

I much prefer using a card force in a quick mentalism routine, or doing an extremely visual colour change. I also love tricks that all of the "moves" are done before you even start. I mean those tricks that you're at least 2 steps ahead of what you're saying, so that by the time the spectators are looking for that slight or that funny move, it's been done long ago.

[jjtee]

I hate to take the view of relativism in any subject, let alone magic, but I fear that its ugly head may have to rise here.

We are all individuals. We perform tricks, either our own or others, yet we all peform differently. We use different methods, different patter, different styles and different ideas. Why would the incorporation of XCM be any different? Some may use it others may not, surely it depends on our own gut feeling of how we want to peform and what we think the spectators might like to see peformed?

I hate taking this halfway viewpoint, but I believe it to be important in this case. Magic is an individual thing and whatever we choose to add to it only adds to our interpretation of what the trick ought to be like. XCM is no different matter. It's how we act that counts, not what we do. So by all means XCM if you feel it adds to the show. In many cases I could see why it wouldn't be necessary. A simple trick for a child wouldn't need XCM, it would be lost on them. Older generations may know that we have skill in sleight of hand, so showing it to them wouldn't tip any method.

So this lead to the view on real magic. Paul Harris covered this idea rather well in his coining of the usage of "astonishment". What we thought was real magic as a child is merely the unexplained wonderment that we invoke to explain what we can't make sense of. This wonderment is in fact equal to astonishment, be it as a child or to an adult. We are astonished by tricks that confound us. We realise we are being fooled, and that we may try and make sense of a method, but the fact remains that in that moment of time we were astonished. That is what I feel we magicians do. We astonish. The moment maybe brief, maybe drawn out, but it is a moment that we all strive for. In the end all adults are cynical/scientific (I could go on) to the degree that magic is not real. We know it is a trick. It doesn't stop us being astonished by something. Astonishment is the twin sister of Magic, if you will. I do believe however that this invokation of the true ideals of magic is doable. That we can reach a perfection of a trick in all aspects, whatever aspects it may be, that we go beyond astonishment. That for that split second in time we are torn from the physical world, and have no inclination of method. That moment of suspension of belief to create real magic. Something beyond real.

In many ways that is the scope of many mentalists, however they constrain their false explanations (if indeed false) to something real and believable-otherwise (obvious sentence alert) it would not be believable and would seem like nothing like a trick. I think that real magic is attainable in the eyes of many. We just have to search hard enough.

If any of you have seen Mr Houchin's control DVD, the spectators suspend their belief to the point where they see him dead. His pulse stops. Reality is bent, and the notion that it is merely a trick is gone.
This is not the only example of a trick that achieves this perfect moment, but merely one I think many would have seen.

So where does this leave XCM in this world of relativistic views, and lack of faith in magic? While it is indeed a portrayal of skill, an art in itself, the problem is that it brings the work back to reality. It displays that what we are about to see is an astonishing moment brought about by skill, not magic. And while this may suit many, whether through cards, money, minds, it doesn't satisfy me. XCM is merely another tool, one that may be needed to keep sharp, but one that doesn't change the gardener or the garden. You choose what you want to sculpt, what type of magician you want to be.

But for God's sake, strive for magic and nothing less.

[darosa.justin]

When your specs begin to get bored with you, throw some crazy cuts in there to win them back over.



If you need to flourish to win your spectators over, then I think you've got problems with your magic.

ANd about the 'magic' thing...of course getting your spectators to beleive in your 'magic' is extremely difficult, but if you're able to suspend their disbelief, and amke them emotionally react to the magic- you're about as close as you can get to amazement.

Nowadays, in our spectator's eyes, magic is amazement, with any explanation behind it.

BUt take away that explanation, and you've got *almost* magic.

I think simple flourishing can be encorpotated to magic, but full-on flourishing should be left as an art by itself.

However, making 'flashy' magic like Dan and Dave is great for the visual aspect.

[waynehouchin]

I do agree that nobody (at least I hope so) believes that magician really has some magical powers. But, I disagree on that everytime spectator sees a card trick he explains it with sleight of hand.
.

Great points so far guys - I can tell you, however, that there are plenty of laymen spectators who will question whether or not what they experienced is real. This of course depends on the presentation - but magic has the power to change lives. It has the power to cause someone to questions their beliefs...

I've seen people brought to tears because of a "card trick."

[I_KnowMagic]

I think that it is an art itself. In a trick, spectators no something is going on when you start making cards juggle left and right opposed to a nice, clean shuffle. Also I have found, through experience, that flourishing is not all that amusing to the spectator. It is great in the eyes of other flourishers but it just looks like a weird, long, and overdue shuffle to spectators. This is why I have never been a fan of XCM of cardisty, it's really just a weird, long, overdue shuffle or at least that is exactly how I see it.

[Aris.SA]

Great points so far guys - I can tell you, however, that there are plenty of laymen spectators who will question whether or not what they experienced is real. This of course depends on the presentation - but magic has the power to change lives. It has the power to cause someone to questions their beliefs...

I've seen people brought to tears because of a "card trick."
Because u can turn a 21 card trick into a hard hitting effect :P

its the performer not the trick :P

[PhilTheMagician]

Hmm....ok...I guess I was a bit foolish with my first post here.

I have had that "WHAT THE????" moment several times with card tricks, and I am very good at figuring tricks out. So, if a card trick can completely floor me, I can understand how a spectator / layman would feel. I think what I meant was that the reactions I get with a lot of tricks is that I've got such fast hands....that it's great slight of hand. Every once in a while I get that :| stare which is the best reaction possible!

[2ndDeal]

Hmm....ok...I guess I was a bit foolish with my first post here.

No you weren't. Your view has just changed, it doesn't mean you were foolish before;)


I have had that "WHAT THE????" moment several times with card tricks, and I am very good at figuring tricks out. So, if a card trick can completely floor me, I can understand how a spectator / layman would feel.
Actually, avarage magician is sometimes much easier to fool than a layman. If magician doesn't understand everything in the trick, he feels fooled. If layman understands just 5% of the trick, he "has figured it out". Magicians are fooled easily with out-of-the box thinking, but laymen don't have that box.

I think what I meant was that the reactions I get with a lot of tricks is that I've got such fast hands....that it's great slight of hand. Every once in a while I get that :| stare which is the best reaction possible!
I agree.

Boris Wild told that when he was young, he used to get "wow fast hands" reaction, and he hated it. Then he reworked his routines, and today, nothing he does is explainable with sleight of hand from viewpoint of avarage spectator.

So, I think that "wow you have fast hands" reaction can be avoided by performer simply with selection of material. If you perform some effect by Dan and Dave, or anything with flourishing vowen in, you defenantly have fast hands. But, if you perform instead Juan Tamariz' Neither Blind nor Stupid, it's a miracle, because it just can't be explained with sleight of hand.

[Sean_Raf]

Because u can turn a 21 card trick into a hard hitting effect :P

If you were being sarcastic then you probably haven't seen Chris Kenner's version of it called 'Must be 21 to enter'. That will blow anyone who's seen the so-called 21 card trick away. Magicians too if they don't know the method.

- Sean

[Aos]

wow this is boring to read
everybody is saying the exact same thing
let me mix things up

personally
they are unrelated and should be kept as far as possible from one another
card magic has been around forever and has thoroughly established itself
i think its time for card flinging to stand on its own
independent of magic
and shortly wither away and die
if your goal is to entertain people show them a couple of card effects
if your goal is to show off then show them your fancy shuffling
or dont
because its boring
but if you must make a video instead
add fancy editing and music
then it becomes somewhat more tolerable to withstand
i think card flinging comes out of card magicians wanting to show off skill while amazing people
the problem is that watching somebody shuffle for 10 minutes gets stale
after the first 30 seconds
i think bucks got it right
their magic perfectly fills the spot card flinging was supposed to take but failed to
viciously hard moves that boggle peoples minds
moves for people who really enjoy practicing
and will be thoroughly rewarded for it
tivo 2.0 is sick
its very hard to get down smooth
but the results are insane
meanwhile im sure its harder to do westcoast chaos or something like that
but it is much less impressive looking to a non-cardmagician
which is the whole point of performing with cards...
there is no debate here
if your goal is to entertain as much people as possible with cards you should spend your time on learning tricks
the benefits of card flinging are only seen in the form of finger exercise
if on the other hand you still want to fling cards around
dont be like EVERYBODY ELSE and be smug about it
also if you can do me a favor
dont do the move i ALWAYS see where people clip cards in their fingers and then wave their hands around in circles
it look horrendous
my eyes bleed when i see it
and a piece of me dies
fin

[Sean_Raf]

Woah, get AoS playing devils advocate there :p

I am inclined to agree on the part about the Bucks getting the right mixture of magic and flourishing. The Queens is a perfect example of this in my opinion, I love watching performances of this because it's such a cool thing to watch, not only is it magically aesthetic but it's visually aesthetic too.

Of course we all have our own styles and that's what makes us unique in our performances. Some people like the classic flat-out sleight of hand magic, others prefer flourishing as a way of pleasing peoples eyes.

I guess it's all a matter of preference really, as long as you enjoy what you do and that genuinely shows when you perform then I feel that others will also feel the same way. You'd be surprised how empathetic people can be with performers.

- Sean

[Aos]

that definitely makes sense
you have to create a mix of the two that is right for you
but you have to make sure you know what your audience is thinking
i think the problem with card flinging is that its not a performance art
the audience is completely cut out
i prefer bucks mixture where the flourishing is done in between and during effects
that way it is still engaging

[Evgeny_Pluzhnikov]

I tgink that using flourishes with magic TRIX it's cool. IT looks more beauty than just trix.

[2ndDeal]

Hmmm...It's funny. I don't perform an ACR because I have been asked tooooooooooo many times to "see" the card's face after i place it in the middle.
I used to agree, but then I found moves that solve that problem.


my point is that the ACR as an looking for that slight or that funny move, it's been done long agexample is completely screaming slight of hand to a spectator (again, not 100% of the time, but quite frequently)....to me, and let me say that again... TO ME the standard ACR is one of the tricks that are obviously done with slight of hand


I don't think we should consider how things look to us but how they loook to the audience. Tommy Wonder, for example, does it so cleanly at the end, that there simply cannot be sleight of hand (from audiences viewpoint). Also, Daryl's Ultimate Ambition Improved eliminates every possibility for a sleight of hand. Most of the Ambitious Card Routinesare showing of with controls. It's a routine that needs a good amount of thought, though.

The version I use on rare occasion is the one (don't know who originally came up with it...Deryl?) where their card is bent at the end, and it VISUALLY pops up at the top.

Frederick Braue, I believe. That is one of the best endings for Ambitious Card, if you want to keep your routine unified.

EDIT:Sorry about off topic....

[2ndDeal]

I tgink that using flourishes with magic TRIX it's cool. IT looks more beauty than just trix.

That way of thinking is something Darwin Ortiz calls Fitzkees Fallacy. Magic can and should be entertaining alone. It doesn't need flourishes or pretty stage assistants or whatever.

[Brad Henderson]

Have not read the whole thread, but wanted to share an experience I just had that might be an interesting topic of discussion:

I saw a young man perform last night. He did a lot of "cardistry" as well as magic. Problem was, I don't think he knew which was which. The magic got lost in the mix and many times he presented magic techniques as magic effects.

Could someone use both well in performance? Possibly.

But it was clear from this person's performance that he had not come to understand the difference, or how to present either clearly and to full effect. All we as an audience got was a lot of movement and moments of confusion.

Brad Henderson

[UnknownEnemyZero]

If it's good enough for Houdini it's good enough for me.

Nuff said.

A person who says to practice flourishes without the EYE of a laymen is better off being a laymen with a deck of cards.

[waynehouchin]

Have not read the whole thread, but wanted to share an experience I just had that might be an interesting topic of discussion:

I saw a young man perform last night. He did a lot of "cardistry" as well as magic. Problem was, I don't think he knew which was which. The magic got lost in the mix and many times he presented magic techniques as magic effects.

Could someone use both well in performance? Possibly.

But it was clear from this person's performance that he had not come to understand the difference, or how to present either clearly and to full effect. All we as an audience got was a lot of movement and moments of confusion.

Brad Henderson

I have certainly seen this happen as well. Separately - they can both be beautiful arts. Bringing them together, however, is not just as simple as it may initially seem.

I have seen some beautiful flourish / magic effects performed for lay audiences way too fast. Consider this example: I have performed (and still do) many school performances - elementary schools, high schools, colleges, etc. Almost every time that I pull out a deck of cards in front of one of those audiences and give the deck just a normal riffle shuffle with a bridge - the audience literally goes "oooooh." Something as simple as a bridge can impress a lay audience & cause them to react.

In a smaller close-up setting the audience may not audibly react, but they are still impressed none the less. A lay audience is incredibly different from a room full of magicians. My point is that if a simple bridge can cause a moment of reaction (whether or not that reaction is audible or overt) think about what a Sybil will do... If you are performing for a lay audience YOU MUST take into account the fact that everything must be done slowly and clearly to make room for your audiences internal or external reactions. When they see a sybil they will react in some way and if you as a performer don't make room for that reaction - and you rush right into the effect - chances are likely that your audience will miss it. Your entire routine will blur together into a whirlwind of motion and confusion.

[Brad Henderson]

A well done fan, a simple spring - even a ribbon spread and turn over - can be incredibly "magical" moments for real people. Excellent point and very true. I started doing the Houdin Shrinking Fan and then the vanishing pips last year. We all know it, but to real people, it's a jaw dropper.

As to Sybil cuts. I learned from Kenner's book way back when. Did it (5 faces) very slowly and got good reactions when I would demo it. Then I saw one of the "flourish guys" do his sybil thing at a convention. (I won't say his name, but he is not associated with this forum.) He was doing it SO fast it really looked like he was just lifting up one packet and wiggling it up and down. You could not tell what he was doing and I left thinking - idiot. I am sure he spent hours getting it that fast, but the end result was worthless.

People enjoy seeing anything done well. But there is an art to it - an aesthetic. Japanese calligraphy can be very simple. But it is the sheer artistry in the single stroke that makes it beautiful. Far better to do a simple thing with beauty than a hard thing with nothing.

Brad Henderson

[copperfield 14]

A well done fan, a simple spring - even a ribbon spread and turn over - can be incredibly "magical" moments for real people. Excellent point and very true. I started doing the Houdin Shrinking Fan and then the vanishing pips last year. We all know it, but to real people, it's a jaw dropper.

As to Sybil cuts. I learned from Kenner's book way back when. Did it (5 faces) very slowly and got good reactions when I would demo it. Then I saw one of the "flourish guys" do his sybil thing at a convention. (I won't say his name, but he is not associated with this forum.) He was doing it SO fast it really looked like he was just lifting up one packet and wiggling it up and down. You could not tell what he was doing and I left thinking - idiot. I am sure he spent hours getting it that fast, but the end result was worthless.

People enjoy seeing anything done well. But there is an art to it - an aesthetic. Japanese calligraphy can be very simple. But it is the sheer artistry in the single stroke that makes it beautiful. Far better to do a simple thing with beauty than a hard thing with nothing.

Brad Henderson

Funny that I showed a few of my friends a fast and slow sybil, and they perfered the fast one.

[toadwiked]

I think that there is a line for xcm in magic. i think that wayne is right about how do you want the specs to see you. i have been working on something with a friend of mine. it is a acr kind of thing bu the patter is that of I can control the card instead of if i just give a snap. He does Xcm and i am more of a trick guy so working together has been a treat we both have learned a lot from each other and i now have a greater respect for his art than i did. xcm should be in magic but if you want the specs to think you have magic powers the less the better. i use very small quick bursts in some of the things i do. i try to keep the big moves to the guys that have put hundreds of hours into it.

[Ampersan5340]

They're two diffrent bowls of ice cream here

One's tasty to your audience and they'll ask for it again ask for again.

The other would be your favourite ice cream that you use to eat a lot.

i personally practice magic and flourishing 50/50 but i love them both to death. It's amazing what you can do with a deck of card's and a head full of knowledge

[Brad Henderson]

Funny that I showed a few of my friends a fast and slow sybil, and they perfered the fast one.

I do not know how fast you perform your sybil, but the person I saw was performing it so fast it merely looked like he was moving a packet of cards up and down - something anyone could do. This is not about the gradient of fast and slow, but the line where doing what you do becomes unclear.

[Aris.SA]

I do not know how fast you perform your sybil, but the person I saw was performing it so fast it merely looked like he was moving a packet of cards up and down - something anyone could do. This is not about the gradient of fast and slow, but the line where doing what you do becomes unclear.
The flourishes should be done SMOOTH :p they can be fast but if they are smooth, everyone can clearly see what you are doing, and it's not going to look like you are moving a packet of cards up and down..

[Brad Henderson]

He was smooth. Looked effortless in his hands. The problem was, you couldn't tell the packets were changing places....too fast...made it meaningless....

[Ben Morris-Rains]

I think a lot of people are dismissing Brad's points because of the current trend/fad in magic that is flourishing.

Since going as fast as you can is what makes you a pro instead of a "noob", everyone is not going to see your point Brad.

I for one know what your talking about and have seen this same reaction. I've shown a friend some flourishing videos and his response was "So what, hes just moving the cards all around, that not magic."

I have the same reaction to flourishing, its fun to watch but does nothing for me. It doesn't inspire me physically or creativly.

I think a nice thumb fan or charlier cut is good enough for me, although I can do a couple of "fancy" cuts.

[QbanLinx]

I totally agree with wayne's opinion.

Cardistry and XCM have been able to stand on it's own as an art which demonstrates dexterity and skill with pack of cards. In a routine that shows how well of an sleight of hand artist your are with a pack of cards is amazing on it's own. But when it comes to coinciding with you magic that's another story put together.

When performing magic for your audience, performing your more than standard flourish in the middle of a routine can distract, and possibly kill the moment of mystifiying the impossible. Like Wayne said, just fanning the cards and having a spectator choose a card is just as powerful as a sybil cut. In my own experience, that and the use of some false cuts like the butterfly cut and swivel cut, and the dribble is just as powerful because it's the simple things that brings that awe to your audience. I even sometimes use Daryl's Hot Shot cut as a revelation, which is another Cardistry/XCM technique used.

Dan and Dave are a perfect example to using simple flourishing techniques in their magic. The moves are very visual and complement the trick at the same time. It just simply eye candy.

[Brad Henderson]

Has any one here ever presented professionally a show of just flourishes?

Curious,

Brad

[kyarox]

To me cardistry is an art by itself.
Just look at this pictures, isnt this ART guys????
http://www.boneho.com/photos/
But of course it can be combined with magic, not in excess to make magic a bit more spicy...
Kyarox

[PlethZorb]

To me, flourishing is definitely a means of enhancing magic. It is an interesting thing to do when people are watching, the Bucks do this really well, where they do tricks as well as amazing flourishes to keep people captivated. In addition, flourishing really improves your deck control and handling skills by great amounts.

[filth0013]

wow this is boring to read
everybody is saying the exact same thing
let me mix things up

personally
they are unrelated and should be kept as far as possible from one another
card magic has been around forever and has thoroughly established itself
i think its time for card flinging to stand on its own
independent of magic
and shortly wither away and die
if your goal is to entertain people show them a couple of card effects
if your goal is to show off then show them your fancy shuffling
or dont
because its boring
but if you must make a video instead
add fancy editing and music
then it becomes somewhat more tolerable to withstand
i think card flinging comes out of card magicians wanting to show off skill while amazing people
the problem is that watching somebody shuffle for 10 minutes gets stale
after the first 30 seconds
i think bucks got it right
their magic perfectly fills the spot card flinging was supposed to take but failed to
viciously hard moves that boggle peoples minds
moves for people who really enjoy practicing
and will be thoroughly rewarded for it
tivo 2.0 is sick
its very hard to get down smooth
but the results are insane
meanwhile im sure its harder to do westcoast chaos or something like that
but it is much less impressive looking to a non-cardmagician
which is the whole point of performing with cards...
there is no debate here
if your goal is to entertain as much people as possible with cards you should spend your time on learning tricks
the benefits of card flinging are only seen in the form of finger exercise
if on the other hand you still want to fling cards around
dont be like EVERYBODY ELSE and be smug about it
also if you can do me a favor
dont do the move i ALWAYS see where people clip cards in their fingers and then wave their hands around in circles
it look horrendous
my eyes bleed when i see it
and a piece of me dies
fin



100% agreement.:)

[d00m5day]

A well done fan, a simple spring - even a ribbon spread and turn over - can be incredibly "magical" moments for real people. Excellent point and very true. I started doing the Houdin Shrinking Fan and then the vanishing pips last year. We all know it, but to real people, it's a jaw dropper.

As to Sybil cuts. I learned from Kenner's book way back when. Did it (5 faces) very slowly and got good reactions when I would demo it. Then I saw one of the "flourish guys" do his sybil thing at a convention. (I won't say his name, but he is not associated with this forum.) He was doing it SO fast it really looked like he was just lifting up one packet and wiggling it up and down. You could not tell what he was doing and I left thinking - idiot. I am sure he spent hours getting it that fast, but the end result was worthless.

People enjoy seeing anything done well. But there is an art to it - an aesthetic. Japanese calligraphy can be very simple. But it is the sheer artistry in the single stroke that makes it beautiful. Far better to do a simple thing with beauty than a hard thing with nothing.

Brad Henderson

Wow... I'm really fascinated with this discussion going on...

I 100% agree with Brad, everybody keeps thinking: "Fast is pro, slow is noob." but to the spectators, a super smooth fast sybil would look like nothing. nice fans, ribbon spreads, and easy cuts that you can perform smoothly and nicely are good, but anything too "fast" or way too cardistry would confuse a spectator.

I don't do flourishes a lot, but if I were to become really good at it, I would NEVER let it into my trick. I would do it after a trick, when everybody's relaxing, and they would "probably" go "wow, that looks sick" you know, so its not a central focal point, or it becomes pointless.

I agree that cardistry is an art, but too excessive would be like metal music to soft rock listeners. its too much, and many laymen dont understand the beauty of it.

there are too many things on my mind about this topic, and this is what i remember from reading all six pages so far. cheers =)

BTW, chinese calligraphy is actually more well known than japanese calligraphy... well... both are equally well known. just decided to mention it since im chinese :D

[jjtee]

Right...some off topic banter going on here, not that I'm complaining at all!

Back to the discussion. Some of you have expressed a little more than dislike towards XCM, with a somewhat agressive tone. While constructive criticism is a useful tool, the complete shutting down of ones interest is a little disheartening. If someone were to tell me that I'm wasting my time with magic and it looks horrible, then I wouldn't take it all too lightly or on the chin. While I'm not a huge fan of XCM why don't we try and get along without any obvious negative attacks on XCM, I know I personally wouldn't be very happy. At the end of the day treat anybody's interest with respect, no matter what it be. Don't be too hasty to judge someone.

I'd hate to bring up some relativistic views again, but I think its necessary. While your opinion matters, so does everybody elses, whether or not you support XCM. What's the point of a discussion if it doesn't forward the question with some decent answers. Saying XCM looks like a bunch of twits rolling their hands is hardly productive.

I've said it before, but I'd say it again. While your experience of what a spectator sees in XCM is one thing, be it good or bad, just realise that its only a select proportion of the population. Not all people enjoy the same things, and that goes for spectators too. I except many of you are at school/college or University (like myself) and test ideas and XCM and magic on your friends, an admirable and sensible thing to do. The fact remains that who you are peforming to are bias, they are within a narrow band of people. I've found that the younger generation are more receptive to XCM and the skills involved, especially those who have been exposed to magic a little more than others. Just bear in mind that what matters most is whether you audience enjoyed the show, whether it was or included XCM. Ask for feedback and their favourite moments. Remember that from the moment we started learning magic/XCM we became different from the spectator and how we perceive magic. We accept it for its skill and elegance. They accept it for the astonishment.

XCM has a place in magic. If you want to peform it, or your spectators wish to see it.

[UnknownEnemyZero]

Has any one here ever presented professionally a show of just flourishes?

Curious,

Brad

De'vo and Jerry Cestowski have been recognized for doing so, if you'd be able to find footage of such is beyond me, although some of the haters will just shoot it down and say it's impossible and that there is no such footage. Joe Cossari has an entire act of nothing but routined flourishes and is printed in the Joe Cossari Card Act: King of Cards. Jerry has mentioned the routine is usable for actual performances.

The eyes of a layman and the eyes of a magician. Always better to have eyes of a laymen than a magician if you want to be performing non-magical card manipulations. APPARENT DIFFICULTY is very important for performing any flourish. Something can seem so difficult but relatively easy to the performer. Milking it for all it's worth is key. No turnover down armspread catch is a very key example. The cards seems to be just floating in mid air for a second that seems as if they're all going to hit the ground. Then you swiftly catch each and every single card. One comment you'll probably going to get every time with this move is: "Man, I would have dropped every single one of those cards." Even though it seems very impressive this is relatively simple and you can pretty much do it blindfolded once you learn BASIC armspread technique.

[Josh Clarke]

While I agree that a small amount of cardistry/xcm looks amazing, most of it doesn't impress me. How could a laymen appreciate the skill (which I believe is what cardists are trying to put forth) of cardistry/xcm, if they've never and never will try to do it themselves? In my opinion, cardistry/xcm was created to allow magicians (and I use the word magicians lightly) to impress other magicians. I'll stick with my natural ability to barely handle a deck of cards to make my audience feel like children again for a few seconds instead of making them feel inferior to my abilities.

P.S. I really wish it would've been called 'ecm'.

[UnknownEnemyZero]

While I agree that a small amount of cardistry/xcm looks amazing, most of it doesn't impress me. How could a laymen appreciate the skill (which I believe is what cardists are trying to put forth) of cardistry/xcm, if they've never and never will try to do it themselves? In my opinion, cardistry/xcm was created to allow magicians (and I use the word magicians lightly) to impress other magicians. I'll stick with my natural ability to barely handle a deck of cards to make my audience feel like children again for a few seconds instead of making them feel inferior to my abilities.

P.S. I really wish it would've been called 'ecm'.

Why would a person want to be pelted with cups and balls when they don't care where the ball is? Why would someone care to be "tricked" and "lied to" and never really be in on the secret? There's a reason why magic will never be in the media like it used to over ten years ago. It's placed in a subgenre with circus, clowns, and mimes which probably don't get much exposure either. Why? Nobody really likes being left out. Which is why there's always been these magic revealed specials for everyone to look at. Although EVEN these programs aren't very often seen and don't really get a lot of ratings and everyone would rather be watching Lost or Dancing with the Stars.

The reason why XCM/Cardistry has so much interest in forums today is because, you can skip the mystery/magic/I like fairy dust/my grandpa show me this/could you squeeze my red balls. Just the thought of amazing with only ability and no presentation is an ideal people dream of. Anyone can appreciate skill. Would Ricky Smith Jr be getting as many TV appearances if it weren't for his ability to throw playing cards 200+ feet and beat world records? I'm pretty sure Ricky's gotten a lot more exposure than a majority of professional magicians. Even Ricky himself is a magician, but TV shows aren't asking him to do magic that's for sure.

[Andrei]

Well.....the same reason that people wouldn't want to watch the performer cut a deck of cards 300 different ways...oh am I being one sided? Pardon me...I forgot that there is more to XCM/Cardistry than that! Kind of like...there is more to magic than Sponge Balls and Cups and Balls. Get what I'm saying?

UEZ didn't give enough justice to magic whatsoever. I've always asked myself this question...would I rather see someone throw a card 200+ feet or see someone levitate a car? (Personally I'd love to see the card throwing)
I would try to answer this from a laymen's perspective. I take both arts to the maximum ability and from my research I've come to conclude that magic smashes XCM/Cardistry when it comes to full potential.

Personally I am a Cardist/XCM'er but I'm not biased in being able to make clear judgements.

Regarding Ricky Jay's "popularity"...well I've came up to 10 random people and asked them if they knew who Ricky Smith Jr., Criss Angel, and David Blaine were...they replied "Who's Ricky Smith Jr.?" yep...all 10 of them.

I believe it's already been said...it all depends on what you're trying to achieve. When I perform magic, I leave Cardistry OUT. I want my audience to believe in what I do as opposed to leaving them with a logical explanation of unbelievable skill. However...when I perform Cardistry/XCM, I leave magic OUT. They both have their place and if utilized together then ultimately the magic should compliment the cardistry/xcm or vice versa.

[dasuprememep]

Isn't it Ricky Jay?

[Brad Henderson]

Why would a person want to be pelted with cups and balls when they don't care where the ball is? Why would someone care to be "tricked" and "lied to" and never really be in on the secret? There's a reason why magic will never be in the media like it used to over ten years ago. It's placed in a subgenre with circus, clowns, and mimes which probably don't get much exposure either. Why? Nobody really likes being left out. Which is why there's always been these magic revealed specials for everyone to look at. Although EVEN these programs aren't very often seen and don't really get a lot of ratings and everyone would rather be watching Lost or Dancing with the Stars.

The reason why XCM/Cardistry has so much interest in forums today is because, you can skip the mystery/magic/I like fairy dust/my grandpa show me this/could you squeeze my red balls. Just the thought of amazing with only ability and no presentation is an ideal people dream of. Anyone can appreciate skill. Would Ricky Smith Jr be getting as many TV appearances if it weren't for his ability to throw playing cards 200+ feet and beat world records? I'm pretty sure Ricky's gotten a lot more exposure than a majority of professional magicians. Even Ricky himself is a magician, but TV shows aren't asking him to do magic that's for sure.

If your performance is only about "tricking people" then there is no wonder people seem not to be interested. Magic is about more than being a sharp stick with which to poke people and point out their ignorance.

First, the notion that circus gets little exposure is interesting compared to the incredibly WORLD WIDE success of Cirque du Soliel. Second, the exposure shows you mentioned had a short run a few years ago when magic specials on TV were common and pulling in high ratings. It was a producers attempt to cash in on the SUCCESS of magic. If magic were not succesful, there would have been no cause to make the exposure shows. Why make a show about something no one cares about? At that time, magic was HOT.

I think the Ricky Smith/Ricky Jay confusion is interesting. They both throw cards. One has been on a number of "human oddity/human talent TV show appearances mostly lasting under 5 minutes. The other has had two Broadway shows, a succesful touring show, has had their own HBO special, has had (I believe) two full network specials, and has become the world's leading consultant for adding magical effects into movies and shows.

That Ricky is Ricky Jay who is and always has featured MAGIC in his act.

People love magic when presented intelligently. Being a mere trickster revels in magic's most base instincts.

People appreciate skill, but there is no wonder. It is jugglery. It can be artistic jugglery, but it is essentially jugglery. Magic - done well - can create moments of wonder that are equal to that of the greatest theater and reveal wonders comparable to that in the deepest works of literature. People don't 'poo-poo' the end of the first half of Wicked as "fairy dust and my grandpa show me this.' No, some tear up, many applaud, but they all FEEL because that magic - that effect - points to something larger. Great magic does that. Skill as skill alone ends at itself.

Brad Henderson

[Josh Clarke]

I guess I should've elaborated more in my last post.

Poorly done magic is just a skill someone uses to show off. Cardistry/xcm, no matter how well done, is also only used to show off skill. I just haven't seen any presentation yet to convince me otherwise. The 'art' aspect of videos I have seen comes in the form of filming and editing, not the actual cardistry/xcm. I think part of my opinion comes from the fact that I've never tried to learn any cardistry/xcm material. That is where laymen come from. They have no experience in cardistry/xcm therefore they can't appreciate it. Magic, on the other hand, evokes a primordial response in humans (if it's done well). I think that is where the difference lies. I'm not amazed by cardistry/xcm because I don't know how the moves are performed. Other cardists may appreciate the 'art' of it because they know the work that's been put in to achieve the end result. I just don't think the end result on its own is amazing to laymen. Most people have tried to juggle balls before and that is why when they see someone juggle they are amazed. Also, controlling more than two objects flying through the air looks difficult. Moving cards around between your two hands doesn't look difficult because most of the time it's so fast the spectator can't see anything other than quickly moving cards. Anybody can move cards quickly around in their hands. Most people can't make a dollar bill float, a card change, objects disappear, etc.

[UnknownEnemyZero]

Ricky Jay, was the record holder for throwing cards long distance for years until Ricky Smith Jr popped up at the turn of the century. Confusing just because of the first name.

Poorly presented card manipulation is just that poorly presented card manipulation.

Magic presented properly is great, but there's been so many laymen to have that bad experience with magic. Little brothers coming up to you to show some lame ass card trick and you just sit there watching the card counting and wondering where the hell did he learn this. But so many laymen experience this kind of familiarity. Stage magic is in a league of it's own, cause it's freaking stage magic. What about the card/coin magicians? They get the bad wrap thanks to every so often experiences with geeky crappy lemme look this up magic. So presentation styles of "clumsy everyday kind of man just doing magical things cause I felt like it" have a hard time getting the ball rolling on your strolling runs. Any presentation of skill leaves out any doubt that you are not some geek who looked up something on a website(although you probably did anyway). Long distance spinners, hot shot cuts, fans, expanded displays, it's hard for people to look at that and say, "Oh my brother just tried to show me something like that the other day."

Non-magical card manipulation has a sort of fresh feeling in that you're really not trying make anyone believe in what your doing. As Jeff Mcbride put it, flourishes/XCM appeals more to the beauty side of the brain, while magic deals more with the logic side of the brain. People know the difference. Do a giant fan, and just hold it, you don't even have to say anything and people will give attention to it.

Clarke: If you've never tried to show a nice fan or one-hand shuffle to a laymen audience, then how will you really know?

"They have no experience in cardistry/xcm therefore they can't appreciate it."

They do actually, I'm pretty sure laymen have seen playing cards at least once or twice and probably played card games too, otherwise your card magic would be under appreciated from the start anyway. All cards games require the deck to be shuffled in some way and cut. Your just picking the fancy ways to accomplish common feats which appeal to the audience. Common objects is always necessary for any close-up magic or manipulation. Anybody can look up the secret to effects and buy the gimmick if they wanted to use it themselves, but it takes time and effort to accomplish feats of skill rather than magic.

Andrei: Your comparison is flawed. Blaine/Angel's exposure will overshadow magicians for the next 5 years. You could compare their popularity with ANY other present day magician(Jeff Mcbride, Fred Caps, Cyril Takayama, etc) and Blaine/Angel will win, no contest. Why did you ask 10 people to begin with? You already knew the answer anyway.

Henderson: Do you think Ricky Smith Jr would get his success without his card throwing ability? Skill will stand out. There is no way in defining a laymen's mind because it's the curse every magician has that they can't have the mind of a laymen anymore. The suspension of disbelief is brief. People come back to their senses, books and TV shows have changed people's lives, I've never heard of magic doing the same thing unless it was curing sickness back in biblical days.

To me, manipulation does have wonder. The wonder that something that seemed impossible is possible. Defying the odds and pushing the limit of human potential. Magic has wonder, but in a different sense of defying common nature and physics. However you are a man playing the role of a man defying common nature and physics. Otherwise you'd be unhooking bra straps with your mind and getting winning lottery ticket numbers. Magic and manipulation both have their limitations just in different perspectives.

[Brad Henderson]

Do you think Ricky Smith Jr would get his success without his card throwing ability? Skill will stand out.

That's a silly question. Without his card throwing skill he is just a 20 something. Having a unique skill can get you some press, but it won't make people care. We have all seen people get on talk shows because they can write with their feet and shove their fist in their mouth. People will watch, but that doesn't mean a damned thing. The fact R Smith has not been able to capitalize on his skill more so than the occasional "Totally useless human trick" segment speaks to that. I don't see a broadway show with his name on it, nor have I seen him the star of his own TV series.

There is no way in defining a laymen's mind because it's the curse every magician has that they can't have the mind of a laymen anymore. The suspension of disbelief is brief. People come back to their senses, books and TV shows have changed people's lives, I've never heard of magic doing the same thing unless it was curing sickness back in biblical days.
.

Simply because you have not experienced something does not mean it hasn't happened!

How can you possibly say that a theatrical or literary event - a fiction - can change someone's life but a magical theatrical event - also a fiction - cannot.

To quote Max Maven: "Tricks are about objects. Magic is about life."

You, my friend, are talking about tricks.

There is a difference.

Even if you have not encountered it.

Brad Henderson

[UnknownEnemyZero]

That's a silly question. Without his card throwing skill he is just a 20 something. Having a unique skill can get you some press, but it won't make people care. We have all seen people get on talk shows because they can write with their feet and shove their fist in their mouth. People will watch, but that doesn't mean a damned thing. The fact R Smith has not been able to capitalize on his skill more so than the occasional "Totally useless human trick" segment speaks to that. I don't see a broadway show with his name on it, nor have I seen him the star of his own TV series.

Simply because you have not experienced something does not mean it hasn't happened!

How can you possibly say that a theatrical or literary event - a fiction - can change someone's life but a magical theatrical event - also a fiction - cannot.

To quote Max Maven: "Tricks are about objects. Magic is about life."

You, my friend, are talking about tricks.

There is a difference.

Even if you have not encountered it.

Brad Henderson

I can't see the first part of the reply but hopefully it's showing up in the quote of this post.

Well will naive humans continue to care how many people Criss Angel claims to levitate be able to do on countless TV series? It's the same problem, just that one shows up every week for people to see and more people who watch, more people who care.

It's all for the entertainment right? Changing the lives wasn't exactly the goal of any TV show deal or contract show. Fiction and how it applies to everyday life, even a movie or play has good relation to the experiences and perspectives of the audiences. Introducing the magic into theatrical fiction, doesn't that shift focus? Doesn't that stand to reason to ask why perform magic in the first place? Then again it can apply to anything else. Magic in itself is selfish. Doesn't it demand a certain attention regardless of the way it's presented?

[Josh Clarke]

Anybody can look up the secret to effects and buy the gimmick if they wanted to use it themselves, but it takes time and effort to accomplish feats of skill rather than magic.

If you're implying that magic doesn't require learned skills then you are dead wrong. I appreciate your perspective and skill, so please don't attack mine.

[Brad Henderson]

I don't think any performer since the days of Houdin has admonished that the audience believe that what they do is real - in the same way that presenters of theater and movies do not need to encourage the audience to believe what they do is real - except for the moments in which they do them.

Magic can be relevant without introducing it into a narrative fiction.

Entertainment is such a vague word. Do you mean "laughter and applause" as Burger has characterized many magician's interpretation of the word? Why can't magic be as relevant as any other art. Ultimately it is merely a vehicle for communication, the revelation of one person's humanity to another.

If you think magic is the only "art" to suffer negatively from the opinions of those who have seen it, you have clearly never been to a magic convention where magicians discuss "XCM." All fields are tainted by dabblers, and both magic and XCM suffer.

I think it was Jon Carney who said, "Magic is an art when performed by artists." He is very right. A mere practical joker is irrelevant (unless he is intentionally tapping into the trixter mythology.) Likewise, cards spinning between one's fingertips is meaningless.

It takes an artist to imbue each genre with meaning, intent, and power.

Don't blame the art - blame those who choose not to be artists.

As to attention, if your audience is not engaged (Langer referred to this as "participation") then there can be no aesthetic response - in ANY art. One might as well be performing in front of their own mirror at home or locking their novel away in a closet never to be read.

Brad Henderson

[UnknownEnemyZero]

If you're implying that magic doesn't require learned skills then you are dead wrong. I appreciate your perspective and skill, so please don't attack mine.

Attacking? Maybe but I think it's pretty ignorant to cast aside things without first even attempting to try it yourself.

Magic can take skill, I wasn't denying that, but unfortunately it doesn't matter how powerful your sleight of hand is when a gimmick or device enables easier methods. A good example is Raise Rise, it's an extremely difficult effect to pull off, but wouldn't there be gimmicked card effects which can easily overshadow the effect of Raise Rise? I'm speaking in terms of hand/finger skill, not presentation/misdirection skill.


Henderson: Could you be saying that no manipulation could ever be considered art? If magic or anything else has the ability to become art, there should be no less for manipulation.

Personally speaking, I don't think "art" or "artist" is anything big. Something people considered art but considered trash by others, isn't it useless to try to convey such titles. If I'm being a mere trickster, so what who cares, "trickster" is just a title as well, just like "art." Everyone's view of the world is extremely limited, so there can never be anything truly defined as "art" while at the same time everything can be considered art. It's all philosophy as far as I'm concerned.

[Brad Henderson]

Of course manipulation can be presented as art. However, like magic, the manner in which it is most often portray, isn't. I was one of the early people to connect with De'Vo. I thought what he was trying to do motivated, intentional, and exploring the medium of movement via cards. It had the potential to be art. I did not see a finished product, so I cannot comment on its success.

If you want a fascinating eye opener, get a hold of the Cardini Book. Fisher devotes a chapter to manipulators. They were not what we today think they should have been. It is an amazing insight into the root of this potential and occasional art.

I would spend a few more years on the study of aesthetics before so cavalierly categorizing everything as sense and nonsense together.

Brad Henderson

[d00m5day]

Well, I didn't read all the new posts since my last one, BUT:

I did skim through somethings, and it made me remember something again, which I had mentioned before, partially.

Laymen CANNOT appreciate the beauty of XCM, no matter how well it is done. They just don't understand what's so special about making a display, or flipping cards around (trust me, i've been a laymen to magic b4, i know what im saying) and it just doesnt interest them as much as a magic trick that has a great impact on them, and hits them, and they actually try to start using their minds to think. Not dissing any cardicians, but honestly, a nice fan or a ribbon spread would be fine. i've had great reactions just ribbon spreading cards, doing a nice fan, or doing a riffle shuffle.

A curious note: whenever i do a riffle shuffle, people get a lot more interested, because they want to try that too, because they've seen people do it before, and they might have tried before, it gets them more interactive. Just a thought to improve magic interest.

Oh and I nearly forgot... wait. i did.

:P

OH i remember now =D
ANOTHER note on XCM, people are confused when I do a display, they go "what's that supposed to do?" like when i do a worm display, or when i do a diamond display, it looks nice to me, but to other people, it just looks... like i'm bored and i'm playing randomly with cards and making nice little patterns, but... i don't know...

[Josh Clarke]

Cardistry/xcm doesn't involve anyone in the action. Whereas a piece of art such as a painting, song, poem, etc. does because people can derive their own meanings and feelings from it. What can anyone take from someone playing around with a deck of cards?

Attacking? Maybe but I think it's pretty ignorant to cast aside things without first even attempting to try it yourself.

I have watched others perform cardistry/xcm in front of spectators and the reactions never go beyond an initial 'wow'. It doesn't stick in anyone's mind. If someone did cardistry/xcm for a spectator and then someone came and did magic for the same spectator, what do you think the spectator would remember and talk about the next day?