Cardistry - What's The Point?

[RDChopper]

Art is everywhere and nowhere. Art can be found in every aspect of your life and dismissed just as easily.

Okay, since some further investigation, yes, Cardistry is Art to some degree, but it is not at the level of Music, Literature etc etc.

Why don't we start by defining "Cardistry"? This is my attempt at it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

In the 87% cases like the rest of us, "Cardistry" it's the aesthetic interpretation of fluid movements, flares, geometrical designs, and juggling that other people have created.

Now taking what Andrei has told us about his creative proccess into consideration.

The 13% of people that actually create this, take emotions (sometimes) into consideration before creating a new move,concept,etc before creating said thing.They Imprint said flourish with their emotions but project them to themselves, alas, witouth the aid of music and theatrics, there is no way that cards alone can project to the spectator something else appart from amusement of so much skill from the creator. (People claim that this is possible, but I have yet to see proof, I only have words validating this thus far).

Sorry If I sound arrogant, but the parameters used to define art that I am giving are not biased in any way. Feel free to check whatever argument I have used in any Art book you like. I already recommended some.

Unlike RDChopper, I disagree that motivation plays a role (the commercial factor).

Yes it does. I have given examples already (Bob Dylan, Cat Power) and I have already explained why "Art" the minute that is done taking egoistical motives in consideration, loses all value as Art. Im not going to write it again, to anyone curious please go back to the previous posts that I have made in this thread.

Eminem is a lyrical genius and arguably created some of his best works in the harshest of financial situations while fighting for recognition and fame. I would not dismiss the result of his work simply because his motivation may have included financial gain (or any other form of gain).

I don't see how this validates your point in any way man.

Saying that something isn't "art" doesn't demerit it or implyes that something is not good. Nobody is dissmising it's value in any way.

Necessity is the mother of all creation and regardless of reason or motivation, people can still produce beautiful works of art.

I agree to some degree. Yes, "Art" comes but from the Necessity of expressing something. Nothing else. I know what your argument for this may be. " I had the necessity of expressing Anger and that's how I came up with bullet or Impossibyl", Yes I understand this but I think we can give for a fact that expressing something needs this 3 qualities:

*Sender
*Message
*Receiver

Music, literature, paintings aquire this requisites:

(Example Legend)

"-------------" sources to send something
" x" Problem at some point during the sending or the receiving.


...............Message..................

Sender----------------> Receiver
..............................................


The problem with cardistry is that it only allows the following:


................Message? (if you did inprint some of your emotions to it)

Sender-----------------> Sender
...................................................


The only one that knows that there is a message behind (if there is any message at all) is the sender. The spectator is only watching cool card cuts.

Now, You said earlier " That's not valid, I can watch a painting and don't understand it", my response to that was, that even if I don't understand (in this case) the poetry I just read, that doesn't mean that there isn't a message behind that. But then again, I'm pretty sure that this would be your argument againts this, saying that " Just because the spectator can't catch the story or the emotions I am portraying doesn't mean there isn't a message".

Well, there is a difference.

In the Music or poetry example, what would happen would be this:

............ Message ..............

Sender -------x---> Receiver
..............................................


Maybe the sender didn't expressed himseld coherently enough for the receiver to understand, or the receiver lacked the knowledge to understand the message. The fact is that, the two recipients know for a fact that there was a message trying to be shared. In other words, they CAN see the message, but something went wrong in the sending.

The problem with cardistry is that so far (Witouth the aid of music or theatrics) there is ABSOULUTELY no way that a message could be attempted to be send. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but up to this point there is no solid proof that one could actually ATTEMPT to send a message conveying either a story or emotion, through cards alone.

In other words this.

............. Message .................

Sender ? Receiver

...............................................


Cardistry lacks the resources to convey something through cards alone.

But yes, Cardistry can become "art" only when it is combined with Music and theatrics.

But Cardistry on it's own? Nope. So in conclussion, "Cardistry" on it's own can't be considered Art.

I think I proved my point.

P.S I understand why Andrei is defending his point. Let me be clear, I'm not demeriting Cardistry or trying to offend it in any way. I just want to set the record straight.

 

[mehar]

RDChopper does make a valid point. I have seen lots of flourishing videos on youtube, and from Andrei, Dan and Dave, etc. I never once thought about ''oh, he was clearly angry when he made this flourish'', I was thinking, that looks neat. Without any sort of accompaniment, cardistry does not seem to have any emotions. With it however, it can display some sort of emotion.

 

[Andrei]

RDChopper does make a valid point. I have seen lots of flourishing videos on youtube, and from Andrei, Dan and Dave, etc. I never once thought about ''oh, he was clearly angry when he made this flourish'', I was thinking, that looks neat. Without any sort of accompaniment, cardistry does not seem to have any emotions. With it however, it can display some sort of emotion.

I disagree with that assessment, I do not believe art has to provoke any form of emotion from an audience (it can but is not necessary), it is too vague of a factor to take into consideration. I have heard plenty of songs, seen plenty of art that did not evoke any emotion out of me, I did not conclude that what I viewed as an absent art. Again, Cardistry evokes emotion out of me when I create which proves it has emotional capacity (but so does everything else in life). Maybe you're misjudging Cardistry because you do not understand it yourself? The message is lost in translation and you only see it as "cutting a deck of cards". If I were to adopt this same argument against martial arts, I would say it's nothing but a bunch of people throwing punches and kicks trying to beat each other up to see who is stronger. I suppose that's one way to interpret it albeit intrusive if one were to debate that point with Bruce Lee.

RDChopper, you and I will never agree because we each have different views on art, we also disagree on the motivation factor. Despite this, you proved my point by saying art is nothing more than expressing oneself which is exactly what I do with Cardistry. Dismissing it as "showing off" and/or egotistical is wrong and can be applied to any other discipline - not to mention offensive and insulting to myself and fellow Cardists. Some people express themselves by creating music, writing, painting, or skateboarding. I express myself through cards. Again, between you and I, art is everywhere and nowhere. Debating this point is like trying to prove why the color blue is the best color in the world. Yes, Bob Dylan may have said blue is the greatest color in the world but Paul McCartney believes it's green. It's all relative, we're both right and we're both wrong.

 

[RDChopper]

I disagree with that assessment, I do not believe art has to provoke any form of emotion from an audience (it can but is not necessary)

This is the problem with the main debate. YOU think this, that is your whole argument that backs up what you are saying, I have been backing my argument with books, facts, etc. You can't just back it up saying " I don't believe this because that''s how I see it" . I don't mean to be offensive but that is just plain wrong.

it is too vague of a factor to take into consideration.

Again, it is too vague for YOU, as I said before you are using this as your whole argument for the debate. I have proved time and time again why this parameters are used when defining art. Not just because I think so. But because it is a reality established by tons of years of artists discussing this and it's derivates before us. (Wich I have talked about time and time again... With facts.)

Maybe you're misjudging Cardistry because you do not understand it yourself? The message is lost in translation and you only see it as "cutting a deck of cards".

That's what laymen see in fact. Until this point there hasn't been any proof that shows me otherwise.

RDChopper, you and I will never agree because we each have different views on art, we also disagree on the motivation factor.

The diference is, that I am taking "Art" as a whole for my main focus to judge cardistry. You are taking just "cardistry" to define "art" as a whole. There is a diference.

I already proved my point time and time again. I don't mean to be offensive in any way, or de-merit your work as a creator or anyone that creates concepts.

I said it before and I say it again:

Cardistry on it's own, IT'S NOT ART. I think I have coherently proved that enough and now I rest my case.

:3

 

[D ICE R]

I have skimmed through the posts and there was a few things that I wanted to address. The underlying argument is cardistry an art from and more importantly is it a valid form of expression. In the simplest definition yes cardistry is an art form as it displays the creativity of the to an extent the expression of the performer. However, does the general public appreciate it, is the primary issue that Casey and RDChopper have addressed.

I feel that the general public do appreciate cardistry for what it is an amazing skill and for the most part very creative. But that is it whilst you may be angry when you create or even perform a flourish it is very hard for the audience to understand this as for the most part flourishing is usually too short to tell a story to the audience and it is often done in dead silence. Adding a back ground track helps push it in the right direction however it still falls short. I won't talk too much about magic in this thread but the flourish style of magic is in the same boat really what's the point.

The most important thing in the artist's definition of what art is to touch people with their skill, that emotional connection. Look at Derren's Enigma show (any of his shows would do) the Ball of Yarn effect was far and away the effect of the night. It was impressive however everyone in the audience was emotionally connected to the story and will remember the story much more that the 'climax' of the effect. Whilst magic has a very magician vs. audience feel the truly great ones break down that barrier and try to leave the audience with something more than when they started the show, and definitely more than just the series of effects.

The example of Eminem did nothing to help your argument Andrei. Eminem is one of the most successful artists of all time and yes he is a lyrically genius. That is one of his skills however there are many many people who are more lyrically talent then Eminem. Only people who are interested in rhyme patterns and other literary devices appreciate Eminem on that level, and in the same breath would rattle off a list of names who have not had anywhere near the level of success that Em has had (Jay-Z would be the only one that comes to mind).

Take Canibus for example his pure lyrical ability is arguably better them Eminem. However, two of his biggest flaws are that his songs rarely make any sense and when they do the subject matter is well only Canibus can relate to it. Play any of Eminem emotion filled songs and the audience within a few seconds truly experiences what Eminem was feeling when he wrote it and in turn when he performed it. Contrast that with the old amazingly talented Eminem with half the songs on The Slim Shady LP. The emotion filled ones like Rock Bottom can take you to his mind set, however, things like well the last 4 or 5 tracks which titles I cannot write showcase his pure lyrical talent. I can grantee you that 95% or more would say that Rock Bottom is a far and away a better song. Even though the lyricism on Just Don't Give A F, Still Don't Give a F and Bad Meets Evil is among some of his best work.

 

[Andrei]

That's what laymen see in fact. Until this point there hasn't been any proof that shows me otherwise.

Maybe with your limited performance and skill in Cardistry that is true. Please have the courtesy of not assuming this is the same reaction every performer receives.

I'm not sure how many more times I have to say it's all relative from definition, to book, and to person. Art can be found everywhere and nowhere. You did not concretely prove anything, if you did - we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

[Andrei]

The example of Eminem did nothing to help your argument Andrei. Eminem is one of the most successful artists of all time and yes he is a lyrically genius. That is one of his skills however there are many many people who are more lyrically talent then Eminem. Only people who are interested in rhyme patterns and other literary devices appreciate Eminem on that level, and in the same breath would rattle off a list of names who have not had anywhere near the level of success that Em has had (Jay-Z would be the only one that comes to mind).

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Mentioning Eminem was a way to prove that a motivational factor (even if financial or "egotistical") does not strip the art away. Eminem created art regardless of what his motivation was at the time. With that said, I'm glad you agree that Cardistry would be considered art.

Executing a "fast" flourish to portray anger is a primitive example and does not brush the surface of possibilities. Difficult to describe to someone who sees Cardistry for nothing more than a "cool cut on a video". Instead of writing a description, sometime soon I will release a video that will show how it's done. "Emotional connection" is still to vague for me to agree with, emotions can range from disappointment to awe - unless you mean story telling which is a whole separate discussion. When I perform, the reactions can be confusion or sheer awe at the beauty, skill, and dedication. That is an emotional connection beyond merely being impressed with a cool stunt which certainly proves it can connect with people.

 

[D ICE R]

But the reason Eminem is respected as an artist is his ability to either connect with people and/or make them feel the motivation behind his art. I personally cannot see how any cardistry performance can successfully achieve that.

I would love to see this video, however I don't think that anyone will see it more than a display of skill first and foremost. A few may pick up the emotion however I believe that will be a result of other factors. Your cinematography will do more than the cardisty in my opinion.

 

[Andrei]

But the reason Eminem is respected as an artist is his ability to either connect with people and/or make them feel the motivation behind his art. I personally cannot see how any cardistry performance can successfully achieve that.

I would love to see this video, however I don't think that anyone will see it more than a display of skill first and foremost. A few may pick up the emotion however I believe that will be a result of other factors. Your cinematography will do more than the cardisty in my opinion.

Let's leave Eminem alone ha, I was not questioning him, his art, or why he is respected, you're going in a completely opposite direction.

Of course it will first and foremost be a display of skill, so will martial arts, breakdancing, skateboarding, writing, painting, and almost every other form of art. To say my cinematography will do more for the emotional connection is like saying breakdancing is not art because it requires the aid of music to understand the true emotion.

 

[D ICE R]

In my opinion the true value of the art is the connection between the artist and the audience, skill is only a secondary aspect.

Interesting that you bring up skateboarding as an art, this is exactly the same way I see cardistry as an art, only those in the know can really connect with it. To the majority of the population it as an interesting hobby that requires a great deal of practice and nothing more.

And the cinematography comment was completely valid as you will be using that as the artform to really create the emotional connection.

And breakdancing (all dancing) can stand alone with out music when you watch a silent dance performance you create the music required, as long as the performance has that connection.

 

[JapChinkGook]

I want to put an example of something here that could be considered an art, yet may not (at least immediately) stimulate complex emotions from the layman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS-LyKorcq8

Obviously what Michael Moschen does is skillful and presented artfully. In fact, I hold him as one of my targets when aiming to create an uncut and well choreographed routine. I'm awed and amazed, and yet, but RDChopper's definitions, perhaps this doesn't qualify as "art", because it doesn't inspire the more complex emotions.

However, in my mind if I ever see a routine as artfully crafted and executed as Michael Moschen's, in the realm of card manipulation, I must categorise it as art.

 

[D ICE R]

Amazing video, I do see this as an art for one reason and one reason alone. He is connecting to his audience initially it is a demonstration of skill however he lets the audience in to his world. They get to experience his thought process as to creating these demonstrations. Michael even tells the audience that they are joining the sub culture about halfway through the routine.

When he teaches the audience that finger thing he gets inside their minds discusses their thought processes as to learning this useless skill. He then uses that to in a way teach the audience how he learn to do all these demonstrations.

This video gave me the potential to see cardistry as a valuable art form. However I feel this demonstration what to display his skills in a way to make the audience appreciate the skills more than just their face value.

The last thing he did gave a true insight into who he was, it shows something that he is not happy with yet and at the same time shows the growth on an idea.

I have never seen a cardistry demonstration performed with the audience only at them and this is what makes that video a legitimate artform. The audience is a part of the demonstration they feel the connection with the performer.

 

[Mike.Hankins]

This was taken from one of my Art Theory books I have...

Mike Hankins


--------------------------
Let us now turn to the question concerning the purpose or purposes of art, if any.
*The purpose of art

To begin with, all art is a human artifact. Unlike the phenomena of nature, the characteristics of which are there for us to discover quite independently of anything the human race may have done, the character of art is humanly determined. This might lead us to suppose that art may have any purpose whatsoever that an artist says that it has.* However, we don't believe that’s really the case.

What makes a person an artist to begin with is that he undertakes to create art.* Similarly, consider engineering:* what makes an engineer an engineer is the fact that he does engineering.* His employer would no doubt take a dim view if the engineer were to declare that anything could be engineering, say, chatting with the secretary down at the snack bar.* Again, you're a chef if you cook, and a surgeon if you perform surgery.* To put this more abstractly, for a role to mean anything, the individual doesn't define the role so much as the role defines the individual.* One may certainly cook something never cooked before, or undertake a surgical procedure never undertaken before, but in both cases the individual is nevertheless working within the bounds defined by the role.* If a chef undertakes to extract someone's tooth, which he certainly may (if he can find anyone to volunteer), then he has moved outside the bounds of the chef role, and has entered into the role of the dentist.

The very nature of human conventions requires bounds of some sort.* For example, if we define an automobile to be a self-powered device for the conveyance of passengers, then an automobile cannot at the same time be, or at least not primarily, a device for, say, broadcasting music. If someone were to insist on that usage of the term, they would no longer be referring to an automobile, but rather using the word “automobile” to signify “radio station.” This could certainly be done by common consent, but there wouldn’t be much point.* Automobiles would still exist to convey passengers, and would then need a new name that signified devices serving that purpose. In short, the naming may be arbitrary, but the thing named may not be if we are not to make chaos out of significance. In much the same way, if art can be anything whatever, then the term becomes meaningless, for all practical purposes.


So then, if we accept that the purpose of art is humanly determined, and yet nevertheless not completely arbitrary, what purpose does art seem to best serve? A number of answers have been proposed to this question over the course of time. We do not propose to rehearse all of these here, but rather to go directly to what we believe is the most persuasive answer offered to date, that of American essayist Ralf J. Long.


On Mr. Long’s account, the purpose of a work of art is to convey what he refers to as a “Meaning-world.” A Meaning-world is:

1) A nexus of ideas recreated in the mind of the perceiver.
2) An absence of the extraneous. When we apprehend meaning in the course of our everyday lives, we have to extract that meaning from the clutter of everything else impinging upon us at the time.* In art, that work has already been done for us.
3) In a Meaning-world the network of contextual relationships that a work of art weaves helps our minds to reach out to, or perceive meaning. More psychologically, works of art engender a “multi-associative” process that gives us insight into a non-discursive type of “truth.”
4) The “ideational” components of a Meaning-world (work of art) are things that can’t easily be defined as emotions or moods or ideas strictly-defined. They are subtle beyond the vocabulary of our natural languages.
5) A Meaning-world is a “world” in that it has its own “laws.” It is internally consistent. All of its components derive significance from one another. That is, their meaning is contextual. A new work of art doesn’t have to follow the “laws” of its predecessors, but it must evince its own laws and be true to them to succeed in even the most basic way. A work of art that, at first, may seem chaotic to us, can begin to make sense to us as we apprehend those internal laws, and begin to discover the “method to its madness.”* Conversely, if there is no method to its madness, then it is not a work of art at all.
6) Works of art may enlighten, but their function is not to inform. Rather, they create an experience.

 

[SimplyMagic14]

@RD - You make some valid points but that's not a substantial argument enough to negate cardistry as an artform.

The word art, due to our poorly constructed language, is highly subjective. Under some definitions of the word, cardistry is art, and under others, cardistry isn't art.

I tend to go with the more broad definitions such as "art is communication," or "art is creation." These are more inclusive and the accept that almost anything can be considered art, which isn't really good or bad regardless of how we feel about it.

I do agree with you that just because the word "art" appears in cardistry, it doesn't make what we do art. However, I challenge your overall statement. Under most relevant definitions of the word "art" which includes music, drawings, film, etc, cardistry should just as well be in that list.

It is a visual art form, it can be used as performance art, and there absolutely are aesthetics and philosophies behind the movement and rhythm of flourishes.

I guess what I am trying to say is that you nor I (or anyone for that matter), can truly take an authoritative stance on whether or not cardistry or XCM is art because everything its all relative and opinions are subjective; especially within the limitations of an outdated/ambiguous language like English.




--

With that said, I flourish because it relaxes me and it allows my time and my practice to be something that I can monitor and watch evolve. Also, some others can appreciate the amount of work and dedication that goes into the development of these moves. There is a degree of ego satisfaction that I get from performing it for others along with other healthy social benefits that come with having a relatively unique skill-set that the average person is unfamiliar with.

It helps to keep me inspired. Life is too short to not stop and smell the roses (and play with pieces of paper as an art form for fun.)

Very well said. I would have to agree with everything you said here. Anything and I do mean "anything" can be considered "ART". It's all in the eye's of the beholder.

btw...I do flourishes because it's cool looking and it gets me noticed. Nice post Casey.

 

[saborfang17]

For RDChopper's sake, some of you guys haven't read all his posts, because you're clearly misinterpreting them. He doesn't deny the fact that Cardistry is an art, rather, he claims that it changes from person to person - much the same way the meaning of art in a painting changes from the Mona Lisa to a 5 year old's crayon drawing. In his eyes, it all depends. If you're going to argue against his viewpoint, understand it first.

That being said - please, read the entire thread again.

 

[Mike.Hankins]

For RDChopper's sake, some of you guys haven't read all his posts, because you're clearly misinterpreting them. He doesn't deny the fact that Cardistry is an art, rather, he claims that it changes from person to person - much the same way the meaning of art in a painting changes from the Mona Lisa to a 5 year old's crayon drawing. In his eyes, it all depends. If you're going to argue against his viewpoint, understand it first.

That being said - please, read the entire thread again.

Quote from RDChopper's very first post on the matter:

"Just a point here: CARDISTRY IS NOT ART."

Jussayin'

Mike

 

[saborfang17]

Quote from RDChopper's very first post on the matter:

"Just a point here: CARDISTRY IS NOT ART."

Jussayin'

Mike

Read what he says in his later posts.

If I say I hate a certain food now, and in 10 years I say I love it - are you still going to assume I hate said food?

Based on the amazing discussion on this thread, I'd say it's safe to say his viewpoint has changed a little and is reflected in his more recent posts.

 

[RDChopper]

Quote from RDChopper's very first post on the matter:

"Just a point here: CARDISTRY IS NOT ART."

Jussayin'

Mike

.

Yeah, but I never said that it can't be in the future .

 

[Andrei]

.

Yeah, but I never said that it can't be in the future .

RDChopper, you most certainly denied Cardistry as art and concretely argued against it, it was only recently you changed your opinion. Saborfang17, he certainly did not argue that it differed from person to person, that is a point I've stood for and reiterated many times over. How does one argue so passionately that Cardistry is NOT art and that it's impossible to tell stories and portray emotion yet admit that it could be done?

Mike, thanks for chiming in! That resource definitely aligns with my definition of art (including the bit about emotions and that the art may enlighten but is not necessary to inform). The point that art is everywhere and nowhere and that it differs from resource to resource has just been proven.

 

[danielmontagne]

cardistry is an art, but it's not magic, it's more juggling with cards, but on the 2010 dvd of they're lecture tour the Buck brothers explain a triumph using a sibyl ,this is a very good demonstration on how to mix cardistry and magic