Well, the only "flaw" I can attribute to RD argument is he base his argument upon the "artist" and not the "art". Let me explain: when you argue that "cardistry" is not an art and then say that nobody can "express" a feeling or convey a feeling through it, it doesn't disqualify cardistry for being an art form. It's just mean that "nobody" can use cardistry to convey a feeling. You must look at the cardistry itself and judge by the cardistry itself to see if it's an art. The moment you said that it as "potential", then you basically said that cardistry IS an art, but nobody can "use it" proprely, according to you.
Cardistry - What's The Point?
- Thread starter CaseyRudd
- Start date
Jesuschrist, is this even a debate anymore? Andrei, you have questioned my arguments time and time again, and I believe that so far I have explained every single one of them and since then I haven't seen you bring them to the table anymore, your only main argument till this point is: " well, in my point of view cardistry is art". Come on
.And now I say that Cardsitry could be art (wich was like the 3th time) and suddenly everybody is like " THERE! YOU ARE ADMITTING YOU ARE WRONG!" Pointing fingers... Jesus, I guess nobody took the actual time to read the posts (I am talking to you mike hankins.)
Let me explain myself (all over again) and why saborfang did understand my point .
Cardistry on it's own, IT'S NOT ART. There, I said it yet again. Now, I am not denyign that it could be art in the future (this is like the 4th time I say it, jesus), the thing is that Cardistry because of his roots, it's kinda limited right now to be performed as an Art just like Music and Literature can be performed (Or expressed).
Cardistry is limited right now by it's own nature, and by the people that perform it.
But obviously, we are not all alike, I believe that cardistry in the hands of some people can be art, Maybe there is people out there capable of transforming card juggling into not just a demonsotration of skill, but a performance of an expression with artistic value. ( I already explained the parameters in wich "value" is valued :3 )
Cardistry up until this point hasn't been art. I don't deny that It could be in the future.
No I did not change my mind, I was arguing because your "claims" that Cardistry ITS ALREADY ART. Wich is not.
Honestly, I dont' see this as a healthy discussion anymore. No matter how many facts, explanations and opinions I give, the main attitute that I feel from here is "We are T11 artists, we hold the irrefutable truth no matter what you say".
Im off to see Ingmar bergam. I will stop posting in this thread sigh.....
No one claimed "we are theory11 artists and we hold the irrefutable truth" but I wish I had the irrefutable truth all the time!
The problem with your whole argument is your so called facts vary from resource to resource which is why I never addressed them. My point from the start was that it's all relative and Mike Hankins proved exactly that. Moreover, these facts are not facts at all, they are simply published in book form opinions. Debating about physics would be mostly fact based, debates about art are not exactly deeply rooted in fact, they are one man's guidelines against another's.
I agree with Goldmos, the moment you said Cardistry CAN be art you essentially concluded that it was. You may not have seen it utilized in such a way that made it art (according to you anyway), but it doesn't change the fact that it can be done and/or may have been done without your knowledge. Lastly, your argument made too many assumptions based on your assessment that Cardistry is just "showing off", can't convey emotion in any form, and can't stand on it's own. You may think it is showing off, you may not be able to convey emotion, and your skill may not allow you to do Cardistry on it's own, does this necessarily mean others cannot either? Again, those are assumptions based on your own level of skill and perception, do not speak for the rest of the world. Art can be found everywhere and nowhere.
The problem with your whole argument is your so called facts vary from resource to resource which is why I never addressed them. My point from the start was that it's all relative and Mike Hankins proved exactly that. Moreover, these facts are not facts at all, they are simply published in book form opinions. Debating about physics would be mostly fact based, debates about art are not exactly deeply rooted in fact, they are one man's guidelines against another's.
I agree with Goldmos, the moment you said Cardistry CAN be art you essentially concluded that it was. You may not have seen it utilized in such a way that made it art (according to you anyway), but it doesn't change the fact that it can be done and/or may have been done without your knowledge. Lastly, your argument made too many assumptions based on your assessment that Cardistry is just "showing off", can't convey emotion in any form, and can't stand on it's own. You may think it is showing off, you may not be able to convey emotion, and your skill may not allow you to do Cardistry on it's own, does this necessarily mean others cannot either? Again, those are assumptions based on your own level of skill and perception, do not speak for the rest of the world. Art can be found everywhere and nowhere.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can add this too: if we "must" compare art to art, I can point out that there is some people that put trash in a museum, put some lacque on it and said that it is art. In fact, it's called modern art. They will say that they want to show you the "consumer" in his true form. We can argue that this is not art and everybody can do it, which by the way I can agree, but if the "authority" called it art, then art it is. Like Andrei said, art can be shown in many ways. What I understand of cardistry is you create a flow with the card. You can cut it, flourish it, throw it, fan it and other "move" that I don't know. You can actually compare the "mouvement" to the "note" of music, exept that it's with card and not a piano that you execute your art. It did create an artistic view on purpose. You "express" something, even if it's to "show off". Most of the magic user (or in this case cardist) want to amaze the "layman" and want them to experience something out of ordinary. They want them to feel something, make them wonder. They want them to have that "WOW" feeling. In my opinion, and I say opinion for a reason, when I saw Andrei with a deck of card, I think it's closer to art than a trash pile in a museum.
Well, let's say that we are debating about if music is an art. I say that music isn't art because the only thing I listen is Justin bieber and the like (ok, low blow but you get the point
). Then, you say that music CAN be an art but no one can do it rigth (read don't play well or don't sing well in this case), for now. If you say that music can be an art but nobody is doing it rigth, then your argument repose on the "fact" that nobody can perform rigth. But, to decide if music is an art don't depend on the "artist" but on what music is or what music can potentially do. In this case, Andrei and RD was arguing about if cardistry is an art or not. The way RD was building his argument is nobody can convey a feeling to the spectator BUT cardistry has the POTENTIAL to. So, if you base your argument on if something can convey a feeling or a story to be "art" and cardistry as the potential, then cardistry is an art, because if it as the potential, then it can do it IF the "artist" perform it well. So basically, to round up the argument, if you admit that something have the potential to convey a feeling (or telling a story, read the definition of "art" that RD have said) then the matter is not that cardistry cannot be "art", but there is no "artist" in the cardistry world and that is a big difference. You cannot say that something isn't "art" because nobody can perform it rigth. You can say however that something isn't "art" IF that something CANNOT in any way "(insert the meaning of art here)". Do you understand the difference? To put it another way, let say that everybody was thinking that the world was flat. Then, Colombus came and find "America". Magellan then do is world tour. After this, the world known that the world (earth) wasn't flat. The question is: Was Earth flat because everybody was thinking it was? No, it was always round, but somebody has to prove it. Same thing with the cardistry, if it's has the potential, then when the first "cardist" will perform, he will "change" the "status" of cardistry from non art to art. Do you see why you cannot base your argument only on the performer?By the way, sorry for my english, I speak French normally
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, let's say that we are debating about if music is an art. I say that music isn't art because the only thing I listen is Justin bieber and the like (ok, low blow but you get the point
By the way, sorry for my english, I speak French normally
I think the problem with this viewpoint is it considers all art the same. To me, there's a different kind of art between say... jazz and rap. But your arguments would seem to suggest jazz and art are in the same category, so if jazz is an art but rap isn't, than music is still art. (A rough example not fully explained, but that's the bare bones).
Well, in fact what I meant wasn't that all art are the same. My point was don't judge the art by the artist
. If you want to know if something is "art", then check to definition of art, check what that "something" can do (in that case cardistry) and if that something can do or if it has the potential to do it, then it is art. To take your example: Jazz and Rap. If music is an art and Jazz and Rap is music, then Jazz and Rap is art. If the performer cannot perform well in Rap, it doesn't mean that Rap isn't music. For this case, you should check what you can call music. If Rap fit in this description, then Rap is music. If you check the definition of art and if music fit in this description, then music is an art. If Rap is music and Music is art so Rap is art. Simple logic here. The problem between Andrei and RD was in the definition of "art". So, first you must settle what is "art". After, you name what is cardistry. If cardistry fit into the description of art, then even if the performer are all bad, it doesn't matter. The performer don't qualify the art, it's the art that qualify a performer, the same way you can say that there is good musician and there is bad musician.Well, in fact what I meant wasn't that all art are the same. My point was don't judge the art by the artist
You can't generalize art. I define art on a case-by-case basis. So I disagree.
Either way, you're still disagreeing with RDChopper, he clearly believes art is structural and can be defined with the same parameters (the ones he used from his sources which again, differed from Mike Hankin's).
I never said I don't use the same parameters for each case.
For the record, I've never actually outright claimed cardistry isn't art. I said it depends on who's doing it. (Just so nobody twists my words 8 pages later.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Your previous post says you do not generalize art and that you judge it on a case by case basis - that is more or less saying you're not using the same parameters to assess something.
Well, I understand your point Saborfang. You can have an opinion on what is art for you. Like Andrei and RD have. You can also state fact. In this case, the point wasn't that RD believe that cardistry isn't an art and Andrei say otherwise. The point was that RD state as a FACT that cardistry wasn't an art. If you want to state as a fact that "something is" and "something isn't", you cannot say that you think it is not or you think it is, you must rely on what is the "accepted" definition of that "something". For example (unrelated to art but it's to explain the difference between a fact and opinion), someone can steal from you and explain that he needs it, if he didn't do it he was going to die so his argument could be that life is more important than mere material and it was correct to steal from you. Basically, he state a fact: life is more important than material which make sense rigth? But in the other hand, as a society, we state that you cannot take by force something from someone. In court, which one will win? You of course, because we establish a structure to live in a society and we need to follow it because if we dont, well you know what will happen. In art, there is also a "structure". "Art", like many other concept, was define as "something" and that definition was accepted by everyone so when you talk about "art", everybody can related to that concept. Now, you can have your own opinion about art, we cannot discuss opinion in a debate. But when you state something as a FACT you need to base your argument on concept and structure establish by the "authority" in the field (if we refer to the "stealing case", the authority will be the Law system).
Let me ask this question:
You are at a Cirque show, and all of the sudden, the lights faded, some sort of dramatic music played and then on a giant screen in front of you, a pair of hands wearing white gloves appeared. Moments later, the music gets louder and then a deck of cards is produced, which then leads into some extremely difficult and original cardistry...would you say that wasn't art then? With all theatrical parameters met (lighting, music, blocking, etc...) could you still say it wasn't art?
Mike
You are at a Cirque show, and all of the sudden, the lights faded, some sort of dramatic music played and then on a giant screen in front of you, a pair of hands wearing white gloves appeared. Moments later, the music gets louder and then a deck of cards is produced, which then leads into some extremely difficult and original cardistry...would you say that wasn't art then? With all theatrical parameters met (lighting, music, blocking, etc...) could you still say it wasn't art?
Mike
@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.
@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.
@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.
Tim, I agree, I shouldn't take it so personally but I suppose my passion for the art does not allow for my emotions to not get involved on some partial level. I did not feel my validity as an artist being threatened, I realize people have opinions and there will inevitably be those who disagree - that's life.
I cannot however look the other way when someone tries to proactively undermine my work thinking it's harmless fun. The only points I took offensive are ones dismissing my art as nothing more but people trying to show off and other ignorant/disrespectful generalizations that were stated as would be facts.
If for example I thought skateboarding was not a form of art and Tony Hawk was not an artist - fine. I certainly would not go around parading my opinion in their respective community fighting to change their perspective - that is just asking for trouble.
Thanks for taking the time to write Tim, it helped me to take a step back.
Last edited by a moderator:
My Job is network engineering. My background is in theater arts drama and stage design and production. I also airbrush as well as make metal furniture. So outside of magic I think I know something about what traditional art is.
So art: noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful,
appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
I can say without a doubt that my job is an art. The passion as which i approach it and the symphony of music I hear when I walk into a data center that inspire me to push beyond just simple quality but something that I can show as a masterful design with nuance and flair that my peers can appreciate.
So in watching Andrei and others here on T11 I can say they are artist at their craft with cards/coins and words through presentation and showmanship. Daniel Madison whom I've only had the privilege of seeing on video's posted here talks about the old school and magic is dead. I think this discussion is part of what I think he might be talking about. Too much focus on history and repeating the words over and over again. Do not get me wrong we must respect those who blazed the trail and acknowledge them. However we must continue to push the envelope in our performances in every aspect. That pushing is part of the expansion of the art of magic. Now is Cardistry magic? I think it is. I think is shows a gifted talent of sleight of hand with focused direction to inspire and place the viewer in awe and wonder.
Andrei of course is one of those people that has done just that. Joel Paschall, Jason England and Luke Dancy (all of whom I've purchased 1on1 from) all have the magic base with the Cardistry part of the flair and in some cases needed just make the sleight of hand work at all.
I am a newb yes not worthy of most things when it comes to magic. I like this thread because it shows I think some of the things that are changing or evolving. That is why I spend my money here and listen to the people on these forums.
thank you for your time. And T11 artists please keep up the awesome evolution, today more then ever I think we need it.
So art: noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful,
appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
I can say without a doubt that my job is an art. The passion as which i approach it and the symphony of music I hear when I walk into a data center that inspire me to push beyond just simple quality but something that I can show as a masterful design with nuance and flair that my peers can appreciate.
So in watching Andrei and others here on T11 I can say they are artist at their craft with cards/coins and words through presentation and showmanship. Daniel Madison whom I've only had the privilege of seeing on video's posted here talks about the old school and magic is dead. I think this discussion is part of what I think he might be talking about. Too much focus on history and repeating the words over and over again. Do not get me wrong we must respect those who blazed the trail and acknowledge them. However we must continue to push the envelope in our performances in every aspect. That pushing is part of the expansion of the art of magic. Now is Cardistry magic? I think it is. I think is shows a gifted talent of sleight of hand with focused direction to inspire and place the viewer in awe and wonder.
Andrei of course is one of those people that has done just that. Joel Paschall, Jason England and Luke Dancy (all of whom I've purchased 1on1 from) all have the magic base with the Cardistry part of the flair and in some cases needed just make the sleight of hand work at all.
I am a newb yes not worthy of most things when it comes to magic. I like this thread because it shows I think some of the things that are changing or evolving. That is why I spend my money here and listen to the people on these forums.
thank you for your time. And T11 artists please keep up the awesome evolution, today more then ever I think we need it.
Yeah I hear that man, some people took rather offensive tones in their arguments. Reading this thread was like watching a priest interupt a classroom to preach creationism.
Andrei, you are an artist, and cardistry is in our opinions, art. Most of us agree with that. Are there some people who disagree? Sure. There are also some people out there who still believe the world is flat, but I could care less. Haha, that should put this thread into perspective.
I'm with you ippaku, I fully support this new direction that many of the T11 artists are apart of.