Which flourish do you guys find more visually impressive , Jackson 5 or Pandora ?
Personally for me , it is Jackson 5.
Personally for me , it is Jackson 5.
Jackson 5 vs Pandora
- Thread starter Bill Charlton
- Start date
Pandora can be combined with Preqel, a flourish D&D taught as a prequel to Pandora on youtube, and looks a lot cooler to me when done so. Furthermore, it's a lot easier to get down than jackson 5, considering it's 2 stages vs 6. In the time needed, you could probably master another flourish off the flourishes dvd from D&D
I personally feel that the J5 is much nicer (if done well) because it's quite a long session of moving packets (6 phases!). Nonetheless Pandora + Preqel is a really eye-candy combo because you're twirling packets (especally phase 2). A friend of mine did mention that the J5 is more of a combination of cuts, while Pandora was more like twirling and moving packets.
Yeah , the Sybils must be done in less than 3 seconds to look good , like what I have been working on.
Pandora
You never want to get some two-handed cuts monkeys to beat you up for saying that.
Pandora
You never want to get some two-handed cuts monkeys to beat you up for saying that.
?
Well I actually do flourishes for myself, not for other magicians.
I mean this question in a most sincere manner - I would be interested to see what a spectator would say if you performed both, without telling them what was going on, and asked them if they liked the first bit or the second bit more...
Firstly i adore Pandora because it is so elegant done well and smoothly, but i am better by far at the J5 because, mainly, i learnt it first. However i like both of them a lot, although i will say that Pandora looks better if you can do it really well (which i can't haha)
Secondly, what the hell is this about not performing to spectators? Why on earth do we spend hours practicing flourishes? Just to sit in the corner of our rooms muttering curses as we drop the odd card and then musing over a well executed cut? If you are good at flourishing then by all means perform your cuts and flourishes to spectators.
I think this distinction will help people to see where the differences lie between performing magic and flourishing to spectators.
Magic IS AN ART. It is a form of aesthetic creations and performances that provide wonder, emotional Cand entertainment to people.
Flourishing IS ART. When done well it demonstartes skill, finesse and dexterity whilst providing beautiful and mesmerizing displays of movement and shapes, angles and images.
I can not understand anyone on this forum who claims that flourishing is not to be shown to laymen/spectators. It is a stupid, immature thing to say because it proves that those claiming it do not fully understand the definition of art and its uses, which is a very simple one at that.
Secondly, what the hell is this about not performing to spectators? Why on earth do we spend hours practicing flourishes? Just to sit in the corner of our rooms muttering curses as we drop the odd card and then musing over a well executed cut? If you are good at flourishing then by all means perform your cuts and flourishes to spectators.
I think this distinction will help people to see where the differences lie between performing magic and flourishing to spectators.
Magic IS AN ART. It is a form of aesthetic creations and performances that provide wonder, emotional Cand entertainment to people.
Flourishing IS ART. When done well it demonstartes skill, finesse and dexterity whilst providing beautiful and mesmerizing displays of movement and shapes, angles and images.
I can not understand anyone on this forum who claims that flourishing is not to be shown to laymen/spectators. It is a stupid, immature thing to say because it proves that those claiming it do not fully understand the definition of art and its uses, which is a very simple one at that.
I think theatrehead was being sarcastic, steve. I've made this point many times in the past, and I agree with you, and I think theatrehead is aware of this.
i made the comment in jest, because i don't believe that 10% of people who practice cardistry, flourishing or XCM actually perform them for laypeople as standalone acts, with no magic.
Please next time that you write something you believe in, write in such a way that it leaves clear that is your personal opinion.
Writing your statement like that feels like you hold the DEFINITE TRUTH about everything and you do not. You hold merely an opinion, one that should have a little more knowledge about art if you are to express yourself that way.
Just a note
I'll post this again for the sake of debating this ALL OVER AGAIN:
If those are the reasons of why you consider both magic and flourishing then.....
Playing twister and tying my shoelaces in interesting and fun ways are art too.
Just to add a technical point of view to the debate:
have you heard about the muses?
Calliope Epic poetry
Clio History
Erato Lyric poetry
Euterpe Music
Melpomene Tragedy
Polyhymnia Choral
Terpsichore Dance
Thalia Comedy
Urania Astronomy
I cannot give you my definition of art, because as I said in another thread, art actually is something really really hard to really comprehend and explain.
( I didn't remember the name of the muses I wikied them)
From those muses, only 6 are considered art, wich are the only things that on their own can be considered art, have you even wonder why filmography is often named the "seventh art"? for this same reason.
The thing is, in my opinion? neither cardistry or magic is art. It can be considered a "performance piece" (just like one of my professors answered when I asked) but they cannot stand on their own as art.
By the way, show me a video of a flourisher demonstrating or expressing a message or feelings with cardistry witouth music and I will be happy
You get my point.
If those are the reasons of why you consider both magic and flourishing then.....
Playing twister and tying my shoelaces in interesting and fun ways are art too.
Nonetheless, I belive that cardistry is eye-candy both to self and to others. I don't purposely flourish in front of people though, but when I'm "practicing" on the bus or in between classes, people do come around me to watch for a while. I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it's a fact that cardistry is a skill. Whether it's an art form or not (I believe it is!), I feel that cardistry is a skill. Other people who do not hold this skill will definitely (maybe for most) be wowed by your flourishing. Why not show off when you can!
Whilst I'm always happy to see discussions about flourishing as an art, let's remember that the thread is about visuals. I only made the reference to spectators and artistry as an answer to the question...
Read the last entry of my journal...I am very serious about that...
http://forums.theory11.com/showthread.php?t=28021
edit: AH!!! I was aware you were being sarcastic...sorry
Yeah i realised that after i posted the message haha.
But i stand by what i said for all the people that were claiming flourishing is not for spectators. Its such a ridiculous statement to make.
My apologies to Theatrehead for the misunderstanding.
Sorry but i don't understand what you are getting at? I was basically analysing the two for the fundamental reasoning behind them. Magic is performance and visual art, whilst flourishing is just visual art, as it does not involve physical interaction or acknowledgement of the spectator. Just as the theatre is performance and visual, whilst dance is just visual. poor analogy i know.
But i stand by what i said for all the people that were claiming flourishing is not for spectators. Its such a ridiculous statement to make.
My apologies to Theatrehead for the misunderstanding.
Sorry but i don't understand what you are getting at? I was basically analysing the two for the fundamental reasoning behind them. Magic is performance and visual art, whilst flourishing is just visual art, as it does not involve physical interaction or acknowledgement of the spectator. Just as the theatre is performance and visual, whilst dance is just visual. poor analogy i know.
Well yes, if you're playing twister or tying your shoelaces in an artistic manner, then yes, it would be art. You can turn almost anything into art, IMO.
I think you're right prae, I don't think any spectator/layman would really have a preference. To them it looks all the same. That's the problem with 2 handed cuts. They look the same to most spectators. They could tell you very little about what the difference between the 2 are.
I think you're right prae, I don't think any spectator/layman would really have a preference. To them it looks all the same. That's the problem with 2 handed cuts. They look the same to most spectators. They could tell you very little about what the difference between the 2 are.
And herein lies our problem with the "art" debate. Everyone's opinions differ on what makes an art, because there is no concrete definition of it, and nor should there be. Trying to convince someone of your opinionated point of view is completely pointless, because it's their opinions vs yours.
no, not really, if your two handed cuts have different openers and different closers, even children can see the difference. for example, a sybil opener vs a molecule opener, or a cobra close vs a bad habit close.