April 08 :: XCM / Cardistry?

[waynehouchin]

Greetings! This months topic is one that several members have expressed interest in discussing / debating. Where does XCM fit within the art of magic? Does it have a place within the context of a magic performance? Is XCM nothing more than juggling with cards? I think that these are all great questions and I think this debate will be a very interesting one.

So... what do I think? I personally see Cardistry as an art in and of itself. It can certainly be used to enhance a magic routine but I have personally seen Cardistry or XCM stand on it's own - with no magic at all. But does XCM belong in a magic routine? This is a very old debate - many will argue that showing that kind of skill with a deck of playing cards will tip the audience off that what you are doing is not magic - I can certainly appreciate this line of reasoning. It is my personal opinion that the answer to this questions depends upon what you want your audience to think of your magic. If you truly want your audience to believe that you may indeed have some form of magical power, then XCM could certainly work against that image. If, however, you want your audience to believe that you are a skilled sleight of hand artist who creates the illusion of magic then, it is my experience, that XCM or Cardistry can be a fantastic addition to an act or routine.

One other thing to keep in mind is that from your average layman's perspective fanning the cards to have a "card selected" is just as "flourishy" as performing a Sybil. Laymen do not make the same distinctions between the two arts that we do - sure the distinctions exist, but that line is very blurred in the eyes of a layman.

Those are my thoughts - what are yours?

 

[dejavu05]

I think that flourishing can add a nice touch to your magic, but at the same time I don't think you should over do it so that the focus is just on the flourishing. I don't do that much flourishing though.

 

[Shanku]

Thank god this isn't another discussion about whether this art should be called Cardistry or XCM.

In my opinion, small, quick and flashy flourishes can be optional in a magical performance. You don't want to be doing armspreads and aerial catches (unless it's a revelation like a hot-shot cut revelation or something) during a magical performance. Save that for a Cardistry/XCM/Flourishing/whatever-you-want-to-call-it performance.

I agree about how laymen find a good pressure fan just as hard-hitting and a thousand-mile-an-hour Sybil-tasitc-super-sundae-double-choc-chip-nacho-cheese-combo. Simple flourishes like ribbon spreads and pressure fans (and also aerials) are the most effective on laymen. Save the Sybil's and the plethora of complicated two-handed cuts for you videos and other members of the art.

 

[drorange]

i think dan and dave add the right amount of flourishy moves in their tricks

 

[James Wise Magic]

Greetings! This months topic is one that several members have expressed interest in discussing / debating. Where does XCM fit within the art of magic? Does it have a place within the context of a magic performance? Is XCM nothing more than juggling with cards? I think that these are all great questions and I think this debate will be a very interesting one.

So... what do I think? I personally see Cardistry as an art in and of itself. It can certainly be used to enhance a magic routine but I have personally seen Cardistry or XCM stand on it's own - with no magic at all. But does XCM belong in a magic routine? This is a very old debate - many will argue that showing that kind of skill with a deck of playing cards will tip the audience off that what you are doing is not magic - I can certainly appreciate this line of reasoning. It is my personal opinion that the answer to this questions depends upon what you want your audience to think of your magic. If you truly want your audience to believe that you may indeed have some form of magical power, then XCM could certainly work against that image. If, however, you want your audience to believe that you are a skilled sleight of hand artist who creates the illusion of magic then, it is my experience, that XCM or Cardistry can be a fantastic addition to an act or routine.

One other thing to keep in mind is that from your average layman's perspective fanning the cards to have a "card selected" is just as "flourishy" as performing a Sybil. Laymen do not make the same distinctions between the two arts that we do - sure the distinctions exist, but that line is very blurred in the eyes of a layman.

Those are my thoughts - what are yours?

I do agree with you wayne, saying that XCM is an art form. I think that combining art is something very important. When an artist paints something, he doesn't just paint 1 type of perspective, he paints many, he combines different kinds of ways to make his painting which I belive is very important in magic as well. See you can perform and do a few tricks and that's great, but if while you're performing you do it in a flashy way, I think it makes the expecience for your audience even better and more memerable. I don't, that's just my 2 cents.

 

[LBarnes]

I whole heartedly agree with Wayne.

Take these situations for example.

A magician showing simple yet effective card magic, goes up to specs to show them some stuff, after he's done the audience are left saying things along the lines of "Wow, how the heck did he do that? was that real magic?" basically left in awe.

A flourisher performing XCM and magic walks up to specs, does XCM mixed with magic, after he's done, the audience will be left sayin "that guys is REALLY good with a deck of cards" they are left impressed, yet not left amazed.

At the end of the day, both the flourisher and the magician entertain people, but in two different ways, it's up to you as a performer to decide what you want from your audience.

Just my two cents anyway =)

Lloyd

 

[DannyT]

I think Cardistry and Xcming is art by themselves.
If you took a picture for every cut position you make when flourishing, it looks like pure art. When fanning the deck, getting each card to separate to see the borders of the card, it looks like art.

Cardistry and Xcming definitely hold up on their own.
Where would they fit in a routine?
Well, I agree with Wayne about the specs thinking that your good at sleight of hand after flourishing and moving onto a trick.
I think that everyone should have at least a little flourishing in their routines. When your specs begin to get bored with you, throw some crazy cuts in there to win them back over.

I would sometimes do some false cuts after a false shuffle, if I think my specs know what's going on.

After I do a flourish like the Madonna, and end it at the fan flip, they don't know what's going on. All they know that the deck is defiantly shuffled.

 

[word]

anyone who says flourishing doesnt belong is sticking to an archaic view of magic. I would invite them to watch some of the media on this site and then say its not an art form.

Now i can also say that there are good artists and those who arent good, so a persons take on it will vary on the performer. That goes with any type of magic or performance.

Flourishing and xcm can blend nicely if used appropriately. benjamin earle has a great gambling demonstration. I would imagine if one can cause a spectator to believe a trick is being accomplished thru card manipulation then have a method that doesnt involve it or a trick that is done in the hands of spectator would just add to the astonishment.

 

[Gui42]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA April 8 is my birthday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well anyway, i think carditry is something that from the espactadors oint of view is very good hands and some kind of dance...

when cardistry is used for magic it is the perfect combination... that is what Dan and Dave did... people believe that if you learn the secret you can already perform it.... well we now that it is not true but if you are talking to somebody dumb that is what they think... but with cardistry no if you shom the secret to somebody they will still be amzed by the hand control you have.... Tivo 2.0 is a great example....


i personally am not good at cardistry... but in magic the nice part is tp show that you did not just read a book with instructions and know something that they dont know... XCM show that you are acctually something else

 

[Gui42]

is Wayne the only artist that posts on Cerca Trova Posts???

i would love to see a Dan or Dave post in this one

 

[sky_lark]

In my opinion, it all follows one sentence:

Magic is the main course, cardistry is the side meal, and XCM is the salad.

In other words, having mainly magic, some cardistry, and a little bit of XCM, you're good to go.

 

[copperfield 14]

In my opinion, it all follows one sentence:

Magic is the main course, cardistry is the side meal, and XCM is the salad.

In other words, having mainly magic, some cardistry, and a little bit of XCM, you're good to go.

Cardistry and xcm are the same. Some people might do it the other way around.

 

[RichmanMatthew]

I think flourishing should be used to enhance magic.

 

[Jakeh]

Sometimes I'll do a little flashy thing in an off-beat moment, but I don't really find it necessary.

 

[2ndDeal]

anyone who says flourishing doesnt belong is sticking to an archaic view of magic. I would invite them to watch some of the media on this site and then say its not an art form.

I say flourishing (I mean real flourishing, not a pressure fan category) doesn't belong to magic. I took your invitation, and after re-watching those awesome displays of skills my opinion has only strenghtened.


I believe that there are three equally important aspects in magic. Effect, Method, and Presentation.
Good magic needs to have those three aspects in balance, otherwise it doesn't work as well as it could.

Without a method, it is not a magic trick, it is a story. Performer presents an effect, but because he lacks a method to make it into reality, he has to describe it. It can be entertaining, but it's not magic.

Without presentation, it is not magic, it is a puzzle.

Without effect, with only method (in this example, sleight of hand) and presentation, we have cardistry. It can certainly be entertaining, and artful, but it's not magic.

Flourishes are sleight of hand, or the method. I think that added, unneccessary flourishes take away space from effect and presentation. Method (sleight of hand) outshines them, resulting unbalanced magic trick.

 

[PhilTheMagician]

Controversial post:

I doubt that anyone who sees a magician perform a card trick thinks it is "real magic" instead of someone being really good at slight of hand. So why not add some flourishing to your effects. I am constantly fanning cards, doing double charliers, flipping cards and dropping cards...lol.

I put "real magic" in quotes because.....I have yet to see someone who believes in magic. I'm talking magic in the fairy tale sort of way, not in the "I can't explain what happened" sort of way. Probably children are the only ones who still believe in "real magic". Just from my experiences of performing and watching the crowd react from other performances.

 

[hyo]

Whenever People see me flourish, they want to see a card trick. I hate it. For me it is a completely different thing. Of course Cardistry can enhance a Magic Routine, but don't overdo it...
To much of that flashy stuff will kill the Magic Moment. They'll only watch what you do with the deck and forget the reason of the "Trick".

-hyo

 

[Shodan]

I've been thinking some thoughts lately that tie into this topic. Being primarily a card magician, every now and then I have a bit of a freak out - "card tricks" just aren't that magical! A lot of the time we frame card magic with jokes, stories, "magician in trouble" plots or indeed flourishy stuff; a little voice inside reminds us that the trick really isn't enough on its own...

Think of it like a movie; you can get away with having a weak plot and lousy acting if you throw in special effects or lots of comedy - slapstick or otherwise - or if you stick to the ever popular premise that "sex sells". At the end of the day though, the film will be pretty forgettable because the important bit isn't there - a well acted, well executed plot. Substance.

Where does XCM fit into this analogy? Flash. Special effects. Style over substance. Enjoyable to watch? Certainly. Throw it into a magic set and you can get away with not actually doing anything too...magical. Your spectators will still be impressed and amazed because you can do something they cannot.

For myself, I want to start concentrating more on the substance of a magic act. To perform something that is close to the soul of what we all think magic should be. Is there anything deeply magical about making a coin penetrate a bottle? On the surface of it you might say yes. To me, it feels like more of a cool stunt than a magical moment. Do people believe in "real magic"? Of course not. They're still interested in seeing someone create the appearance of real magic though!

Once you strip away the special effects, the jokes, the glitter and the sex, you are left with the bit that's hardest to get right. But if you do get it right, you have something memorable, something moving, something lasting. I can't possibly see how the inclusion of fancy flourishes, XCM etc. can live in harmony with this goal.

 

[Big George]

If your audience is entertained, then you have got the right mix of "magic" and XCM. I will say that audiences generally want to see other stuff rather than just cards.
G

 

[word]

I say flourishing (I mean real flourishing, not a pressure fan category) doesn't belong to magic. I took your invitation, and after re-watching those awesome displays of skills my opinion has only strenghtened.


I believe that there are three equally important aspects in magic. Effect, Method, and Presentation.
Good magic needs to have those three aspects in balance, otherwise it doesn't work as well as it could.

Without a method, it is not a magic trick, it is a story. Performer presents an effect, but because he lacks a method to make it into reality, he has to describe it. It can be entertaining, but it's not magic.

Without presentation, it is not magic, it is a puzzle.

Without effect, with only method (in this example, sleight of hand) and presentation, we have cardistry. It can certainly be entertaining, and artful, but it's not magic.

Flourishes are sleight of hand, or the method. I think that added, unneccessary flourishes take away space from effect and presentation. Method (sleight of hand) outshines them, resulting unbalanced magic trick.

i totally agree. excessive flourishing can take away from the wonderment of a trick. my post was to state that xcm belongs in magic. From my take on the original post, some people see card magic as red and flourishing as yellow. there are just two colors and can never be an orange. Should there be an orange?

I say not incorporating cardistry into a routine under the belief that you need to appear clumsy in presentation to deffer any suspicion that you used a sleight for the method would infact entertain more suspicion in the mind of the spectator. So wouldnt it be useful to show a little flash, then do something that doesnt include any flash. wouldnt that add to the wonderment. Who would like a tomato when you can get an orange?