@RD - You do agree with us that art is relative, right? If so, then you must agree, that to some, cardistry is art. I don't think your idea of cardistry being able to become art in the future is very strong. What if, somewhere in the world, someone followed all of the rules you listed but you don't know about it. Are you saying there is an explicit moment where all of the requirements are met that will change Cardistry to "art" officially?
@Andrei - While I agree with 99% of what you say, I think it may help you to not take debates like this so personally. It seems like you take his arguments as threats to your validity as an artist. Don't let the meanings of words affect your emotional state so much, it's not deathly important if a handful of (or even most) people think your passion isn't art. Don't let others opinions upset you during debates because it is a waste of your energy. Accept that you may be wrong, provide your points, and try not to take things personally if others disagree. You love what you do and you understand your passion to be art, nothing else should matter. These arguments are just philosophical and about semantics and language.
Couldn't agree more!!!
Whether or not something is art is decided by an individual who perceives it. This does not make them an authority on it either way.
By some parameters/definitions, Cardistry is art, by others it isn't.
I still hold the view that
Cardistry probably is art, although not everyone who performs it is an artist, and it is extremely difficult to define. I am not sure where the distinction is, but I recognize that a charlie cut during a poker game
probably isn't art.
If every musician in the world played other peoples' music, and just one person created original music, people wouldn't refer to music as art. Again, it is a relative term, so believing one way or another is dangerous.