April 08 :: XCM / Cardistry?
- Thread starter waynehouchin
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Because u can turn a 21 card trick into a hard hitting effect
its the performer not the trick
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!
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!
No you weren't. Your view has just changed, it doesn't mean you were foolish before
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 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.
Because u can turn a 21 card trick into a hard hitting effect
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
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
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
Woah, get AoS playing devils advocate there
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
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
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
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
I used to agree, but then I found moves that solve that problem.
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.
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....
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.
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 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
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
- Status