Your Cart

Your cart is empty.

Now viewing your cart.

Edit « »
Subtotal: 0.00
Checkout
Account Support
Announcement

Holiday Contest 2014

Meet your favorite theory11 artist, win free playing cards, or gain instant Elite Membership!More Details

What is difference between cardistry and xcm? You are now viewing the What is difference between cardistry and xcm? thread.
  1. #1 May 16th, 2014

    Question What is difference between cardistry and xcm?

    Can anyone tell me the difference between CARDISTRY (or CARD IS TRY) and XCM (EXTREME CARD MANIPULATION) ? Because I can't find any big difference between both , it feels like same thing with different name ?

  2. #2 May 16th, 2014

    Default

    Hey trickstr! They are indeed both used to describe the same art form. While it's true that some who use the term cardistry have a specific style of manipulating/flourishing that contrast with those who use "XCM", the core definitions are essentially the same. "The non magical manipulation of playing cards" or "the art of playing card flourishing/manipulation".

    // andrei jikh
    vp of production / theory11
  3. #3 May 17th, 2014
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,574

    Default

    Just to echo what Andrei mentioned - I agree 100%. Whatever you choose to call it, be that cardistry or flourishing or XCM or super-card-ninja-wizardry (okay, I just made that up) - these are largely synonymous with the same core definition.

    // jonathan.bayme
    ceo / theory11
  4. #4 May 18th, 2014

    Default

    From my perspective - XCM is just the older, alternative name for flourishing and cardistry is the newer, trendier name for it to separate it and give it a greater sense of being an arform.

    -Christopher
  5. #5 May 27th, 2014

    Default

    They are both "water"

    One is Dasani and one is Aquafina...both water...lol

    Mike Hankins
    Twitter: @HankinsMagic
  6. #6 May 28th, 2014

    Default

    Cardistry is cool and XCM is not, that is the difference. Cos' cardists have style a XCM is just how many packets you can make.

  7. #7 May 28th, 2014

    Default

    As mentioned above, XCM and Cardistry refer to the same physical activity. But from what I can tell, there are definitely some stylistic differences between XCM and Cardistry in terms of how the community perceives them and what content generally defines the two styles.

    The XCM "feel" generally comes across when you see cascades, fans, structure building, armspreads, juggling, springs, drops, catches, card shots and much more sequencing between moves. In my opinion, the reason why these moves give off the more theatrical XCM feel is due to how intuitive they are. These types of moves require very little effort on the part of the observer, as they do not require any prior context to be appreciated in full. For example, suppose we each knew nothing about cards. As a layman, I would most likely find a spring to be infinitely more impressive than a two handed cut. I would have no reason to believe the two handed cut is superior to the spring, the spring requires no explanation as to why it's impressive. But to someone that practices a more empirical style of flourishing, these moves may seem "obvious" or "unimpressive" in design, thus creating an apparent disparity between XCM and Cardistry. Remember, this does not make XCM superior to Cardistry or vice versa. These two styles are still the same manipulation art.

    The Cardistry "style" is the opposite end of the spectrum in my opinion, a style popularized by Brian Tudor and the Buck Twins. This idea of intelligent variation and experimentation, where artists focus more on creating complex contextual flourishes designed to impress and inspire other informed artists.Perhaps the best or most observable example of this is the Sybil cut and all of the cuts that stemmed from it. Someone with no knowledge of card flourishing would never be able to immediately discern the difference between Madonna 1 and Madonna 2 for example. But, to a cardist, there are obvious and significant differences between the two. These moves, although esoteric, can be significantly more meaningful to a cardist than older techniques and can result in the creation of even more intelligent concepts. To restate, this does not make either style better than the other. Cardistry can still be intuitive, just like XCM.

    A personal example of this in action, I am a huge fan of The Aviv Project on Dan and Dave's website. The moves on that DVD seriously challenged me on a mechanical and a creative level. One of my favorite moves on the DVD is called Broken Triangle, I think it's a brilliant move and the fact that a single mind created this move genuinely amazes me. However, I have NEVER gotten a good reaction from a spectator when performing the move. I would have to slow the move down and perform it repeatedly until the layman was able to somewhat appreciate the idea. As I would find out, most of the moves on the DVD pulled similar reactions. I couldn't even begin to comprehend why such intelligent and creative material only seemed to be relevant to other flourishers. At the same time, I couldn't understand why "cheesy" XCM material resonated with spectators so much more than the other moves I performed. At that point it became evident to me that there was really only one significant difference between XCM and Cardistry.

    Audience.

    To summarize, the main difference between the two styles lies in which kind of spectators the performer aims to impress. Both styles are still the same manipulation art at their core and are both equally valid.

  8. #8 May 29th, 2014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pav View Post
    As mentioned above, XCM and Cardistry refer to the same physical activity. But from what I can tell, there are definitely some stylistic differences between XCM and Cardistry in terms of how the community perceives them and what content generally defines the two styles.

    The XCM "feel" generally comes across when you see cascades, fans, structure building, armspreads, juggling, springs, drops, catches, card shots and much more sequencing between moves. In my opinion, the reason why these moves give off the more theatrical XCM feel is due to how intuitive they are. These types of moves require very little effort on the part of the observer, as they do not require any prior context to be appreciated in full. For example, suppose we each knew nothing about cards. As a layman, I would most likely find a spring to be infinitely more impressive than a two handed cut. I would have no reason to believe the two handed cut is superior to the spring, the spring requires no explanation as to why it's impressive. But to someone that practices a more empirical style of flourishing, these moves may seem "obvious" or "unimpressive" in design, thus creating an apparent disparity between XCM and Cardistry. Remember, this does not make XCM superior to Cardistry or vice versa. These two styles are still the same manipulation art.

    The Cardistry "style" is the opposite end of the spectrum in my opinion, a style popularized by Brian Tudor and the Buck Twins. This idea of intelligent variation and experimentation, where artists focus more on creating complex contextual flourishes designed to impress and inspire other informed artists.Perhaps the best or most observable example of this is the Sybil cut and all of the cuts that stemmed from it. Someone with no knowledge of card flourishing would never be able to immediately discern the difference between Madonna 1 and Madonna 2 for example. But, to a cardist, there are obvious and significant differences between the two. These moves, although esoteric, can be significantly more meaningful to a cardist than older techniques and can result in the creation of even more intelligent concepts. To restate, this does not make either style better than the other. Cardistry can still be intuitive, just like XCM.

    A personal example of this in action, I am a huge fan of The Aviv Project on Dan and Dave's website. The moves on that DVD seriously challenged me on a mechanical and a creative level. One of my favorite moves on the DVD is called Broken Triangle, I think it's a brilliant move and the fact that a single mind created this move genuinely amazes me. However, I have NEVER gotten a good reaction from a spectator when performing the move. I would have to slow the move down and perform it repeatedly until the layman was able to somewhat appreciate the idea. As I would find out, most of the moves on the DVD pulled similar reactions. I couldn't even begin to comprehend why such intelligent and creative material only seemed to be relevant to other flourishers. At the same time, I couldn't understand why "cheesy" XCM material resonated with spectators so much more than the other moves I performed. At that point it became evident to me that there was really only one significant difference between XCM and Cardistry.

    Audience.

    To summarize, the main difference between the two styles lies in which kind of spectators the performer aims to impress. Both styles are still the same manipulation art at their core and are both equally valid.
    yessir thats a great way to explain it

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Login to theory11

Forgot Password?

Create New Account