April 08 :: XCM / Cardistry?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
Why would a person want to be pelted with cups and balls when they don't care where the ball is? Why would someone care to be "tricked" and "lied to" and never really be in on the secret? There's a reason why magic will never be in the media like it used to over ten years ago. It's placed in a subgenre with circus, clowns, and mimes which probably don't get much exposure either. Why? Nobody really likes being left out. Which is why there's always been these magic revealed specials for everyone to look at. Although EVEN these programs aren't very often seen and don't really get a lot of ratings and everyone would rather be watching Lost or Dancing with the Stars.

The reason why XCM/Cardistry has so much interest in forums today is because, you can skip the mystery/magic/I like fairy dust/my grandpa show me this/could you squeeze my red balls. Just the thought of amazing with only ability and no presentation is an ideal people dream of. Anyone can appreciate skill. Would Ricky Smith Jr be getting as many TV appearances if it weren't for his ability to throw playing cards 200+ feet and beat world records? I'm pretty sure Ricky's gotten a lot more exposure than a majority of professional magicians. Even Ricky himself is a magician, but TV shows aren't asking him to do magic that's for sure.

If your performance is only about "tricking people" then there is no wonder people seem not to be interested. Magic is about more than being a sharp stick with which to poke people and point out their ignorance.

First, the notion that circus gets little exposure is interesting compared to the incredibly WORLD WIDE success of Cirque du Soliel. Second, the exposure shows you mentioned had a short run a few years ago when magic specials on TV were common and pulling in high ratings. It was a producers attempt to cash in on the SUCCESS of magic. If magic were not succesful, there would have been no cause to make the exposure shows. Why make a show about something no one cares about? At that time, magic was HOT.

I think the Ricky Smith/Ricky Jay confusion is interesting. They both throw cards. One has been on a number of "human oddity/human talent TV show appearances mostly lasting under 5 minutes. The other has had two Broadway shows, a succesful touring show, has had their own HBO special, has had (I believe) two full network specials, and has become the world's leading consultant for adding magical effects into movies and shows.

That Ricky is Ricky Jay who is and always has featured MAGIC in his act.

People love magic when presented intelligently. Being a mere trickster revels in magic's most base instincts.

People appreciate skill, but there is no wonder. It is jugglery. It can be artistic jugglery, but it is essentially jugglery. Magic - done well - can create moments of wonder that are equal to that of the greatest theater and reveal wonders comparable to that in the deepest works of literature. People don't 'poo-poo' the end of the first half of Wicked as "fairy dust and my grandpa show me this.' No, some tear up, many applaud, but they all FEEL because that magic - that effect - points to something larger. Great magic does that. Skill as skill alone ends at itself.

Brad Henderson
 
I guess I should've elaborated more in my last post.

Poorly done magic is just a skill someone uses to show off. Cardistry/xcm, no matter how well done, is also only used to show off skill. I just haven't seen any presentation yet to convince me otherwise. The 'art' aspect of videos I have seen comes in the form of filming and editing, not the actual cardistry/xcm. I think part of my opinion comes from the fact that I've never tried to learn any cardistry/xcm material. That is where laymen come from. They have no experience in cardistry/xcm therefore they can't appreciate it. Magic, on the other hand, evokes a primordial response in humans (if it's done well). I think that is where the difference lies. I'm not amazed by cardistry/xcm because I don't know how the moves are performed. Other cardists may appreciate the 'art' of it because they know the work that's been put in to achieve the end result. I just don't think the end result on its own is amazing to laymen. Most people have tried to juggle balls before and that is why when they see someone juggle they are amazed. Also, controlling more than two objects flying through the air looks difficult. Moving cards around between your two hands doesn't look difficult because most of the time it's so fast the spectator can't see anything other than quickly moving cards. Anybody can move cards quickly around in their hands. Most people can't make a dollar bill float, a card change, objects disappear, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ricky Jay, was the record holder for throwing cards long distance for years until Ricky Smith Jr popped up at the turn of the century. Confusing just because of the first name.

Poorly presented card manipulation is just that poorly presented card manipulation.

Magic presented properly is great, but there's been so many laymen to have that bad experience with magic. Little brothers coming up to you to show some lame ass card trick and you just sit there watching the card counting and wondering where the hell did he learn this. But so many laymen experience this kind of familiarity. Stage magic is in a league of it's own, cause it's freaking stage magic. What about the card/coin magicians? They get the bad wrap thanks to every so often experiences with geeky crappy lemme look this up magic. So presentation styles of "clumsy everyday kind of man just doing magical things cause I felt like it" have a hard time getting the ball rolling on your strolling runs. Any presentation of skill leaves out any doubt that you are not some geek who looked up something on a website(although you probably did anyway). Long distance spinners, hot shot cuts, fans, expanded displays, it's hard for people to look at that and say, "Oh my brother just tried to show me something like that the other day."

Non-magical card manipulation has a sort of fresh feeling in that you're really not trying make anyone believe in what your doing. As Jeff Mcbride put it, flourishes/XCM appeals more to the beauty side of the brain, while magic deals more with the logic side of the brain. People know the difference. Do a giant fan, and just hold it, you don't even have to say anything and people will give attention to it.

Clarke: If you've never tried to show a nice fan or one-hand shuffle to a laymen audience, then how will you really know?

"They have no experience in cardistry/xcm therefore they can't appreciate it."

They do actually, I'm pretty sure laymen have seen playing cards at least once or twice and probably played card games too, otherwise your card magic would be under appreciated from the start anyway. All cards games require the deck to be shuffled in some way and cut. Your just picking the fancy ways to accomplish common feats which appeal to the audience. Common objects is always necessary for any close-up magic or manipulation. Anybody can look up the secret to effects and buy the gimmick if they wanted to use it themselves, but it takes time and effort to accomplish feats of skill rather than magic.

Andrei: Your comparison is flawed. Blaine/Angel's exposure will overshadow magicians for the next 5 years. You could compare their popularity with ANY other present day magician(Jeff Mcbride, Fred Caps, Cyril Takayama, etc) and Blaine/Angel will win, no contest. Why did you ask 10 people to begin with? You already knew the answer anyway.

Henderson: Do you think Ricky Smith Jr would get his success without his card throwing ability? Skill will stand out. There is no way in defining a laymen's mind because it's the curse every magician has that they can't have the mind of a laymen anymore. The suspension of disbelief is brief. People come back to their senses, books and TV shows have changed people's lives, I've never heard of magic doing the same thing unless it was curing sickness back in biblical days.

To me, manipulation does have wonder. The wonder that something that seemed impossible is possible. Defying the odds and pushing the limit of human potential. Magic has wonder, but in a different sense of defying common nature and physics. However you are a man playing the role of a man defying common nature and physics. Otherwise you'd be unhooking bra straps with your mind and getting winning lottery ticket numbers. Magic and manipulation both have their limitations just in different perspectives.
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
Do you think Ricky Smith Jr would get his success without his card throwing ability? Skill will stand out.

That's a silly question. Without his card throwing skill he is just a 20 something. Having a unique skill can get you some press, but it won't make people care. We have all seen people get on talk shows because they can write with their feet and shove their fist in their mouth. People will watch, but that doesn't mean a damned thing. The fact R Smith has not been able to capitalize on his skill more so than the occasional "Totally useless human trick" segment speaks to that. I don't see a broadway show with his name on it, nor have I seen him the star of his own TV series.

There is no way in defining a laymen's mind because it's the curse every magician has that they can't have the mind of a laymen anymore. The suspension of disbelief is brief. People come back to their senses, books and TV shows have changed people's lives, I've never heard of magic doing the same thing unless it was curing sickness back in biblical days.
.

Simply because you have not experienced something does not mean it hasn't happened!

How can you possibly say that a theatrical or literary event - a fiction - can change someone's life but a magical theatrical event - also a fiction - cannot.

To quote Max Maven: "Tricks are about objects. Magic is about life."

You, my friend, are talking about tricks.

There is a difference.

Even if you have not encountered it.

Brad Henderson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a silly question. Without his card throwing skill he is just a 20 something. Having a unique skill can get you some press, but it won't make people care. We have all seen people get on talk shows because they can write with their feet and shove their fist in their mouth. People will watch, but that doesn't mean a damned thing. The fact R Smith has not been able to capitalize on his skill more so than the occasional "Totally useless human trick" segment speaks to that. I don't see a broadway show with his name on it, nor have I seen him the star of his own TV series.

Simply because you have not experienced something does not mean it hasn't happened!

How can you possibly say that a theatrical or literary event - a fiction - can change someone's life but a magical theatrical event - also a fiction - cannot.

To quote Max Maven: "Tricks are about objects. Magic is about life."

You, my friend, are talking about tricks.

There is a difference.

Even if you have not encountered it.

Brad Henderson

I can't see the first part of the reply but hopefully it's showing up in the quote of this post.

Well will naive humans continue to care how many people Criss Angel claims to levitate be able to do on countless TV series? It's the same problem, just that one shows up every week for people to see and more people who watch, more people who care.

It's all for the entertainment right? Changing the lives wasn't exactly the goal of any TV show deal or contract show. Fiction and how it applies to everyday life, even a movie or play has good relation to the experiences and perspectives of the audiences. Introducing the magic into theatrical fiction, doesn't that shift focus? Doesn't that stand to reason to ask why perform magic in the first place? Then again it can apply to anything else. Magic in itself is selfish. Doesn't it demand a certain attention regardless of the way it's presented?
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
I don't think any performer since the days of Houdin has admonished that the audience believe that what they do is real - in the same way that presenters of theater and movies do not need to encourage the audience to believe what they do is real - except for the moments in which they do them.

Magic can be relevant without introducing it into a narrative fiction.

Entertainment is such a vague word. Do you mean "laughter and applause" as Burger has characterized many magician's interpretation of the word? Why can't magic be as relevant as any other art. Ultimately it is merely a vehicle for communication, the revelation of one person's humanity to another.

If you think magic is the only "art" to suffer negatively from the opinions of those who have seen it, you have clearly never been to a magic convention where magicians discuss "XCM." All fields are tainted by dabblers, and both magic and XCM suffer.

I think it was Jon Carney who said, "Magic is an art when performed by artists." He is very right. A mere practical joker is irrelevant (unless he is intentionally tapping into the trixter mythology.) Likewise, cards spinning between one's fingertips is meaningless.

It takes an artist to imbue each genre with meaning, intent, and power.

Don't blame the art - blame those who choose not to be artists.

As to attention, if your audience is not engaged (Langer referred to this as "participation") then there can be no aesthetic response - in ANY art. One might as well be performing in front of their own mirror at home or locking their novel away in a closet never to be read.

Brad Henderson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you're implying that magic doesn't require learned skills then you are dead wrong. I appreciate your perspective and skill, so please don't attack mine.

Attacking? Maybe but I think it's pretty ignorant to cast aside things without first even attempting to try it yourself.

Magic can take skill, I wasn't denying that, but unfortunately it doesn't matter how powerful your sleight of hand is when a gimmick or device enables easier methods. A good example is Raise Rise, it's an extremely difficult effect to pull off, but wouldn't there be gimmicked card effects which can easily overshadow the effect of Raise Rise? I'm speaking in terms of hand/finger skill, not presentation/misdirection skill.


Henderson: Could you be saying that no manipulation could ever be considered art? If magic or anything else has the ability to become art, there should be no less for manipulation.

Personally speaking, I don't think "art" or "artist" is anything big. Something people considered art but considered trash by others, isn't it useless to try to convey such titles. If I'm being a mere trickster, so what who cares, "trickster" is just a title as well, just like "art." Everyone's view of the world is extremely limited, so there can never be anything truly defined as "art" while at the same time everything can be considered art. It's all philosophy as far as I'm concerned.
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
Of course manipulation can be presented as art. However, like magic, the manner in which it is most often portray, isn't. I was one of the early people to connect with De'Vo. I thought what he was trying to do motivated, intentional, and exploring the medium of movement via cards. It had the potential to be art. I did not see a finished product, so I cannot comment on its success.

If you want a fascinating eye opener, get a hold of the Cardini Book. Fisher devotes a chapter to manipulators. They were not what we today think they should have been. It is an amazing insight into the root of this potential and occasional art.

I would spend a few more years on the study of aesthetics before so cavalierly categorizing everything as sense and nonsense together.

Brad Henderson
 
Apr 8, 2008
52
0
Well, I didn't read all the new posts since my last one, BUT:

I did skim through somethings, and it made me remember something again, which I had mentioned before, partially.

Laymen CANNOT appreciate the beauty of XCM, no matter how well it is done. They just don't understand what's so special about making a display, or flipping cards around (trust me, i've been a laymen to magic b4, i know what im saying) and it just doesnt interest them as much as a magic trick that has a great impact on them, and hits them, and they actually try to start using their minds to think. Not dissing any cardicians, but honestly, a nice fan or a ribbon spread would be fine. i've had great reactions just ribbon spreading cards, doing a nice fan, or doing a riffle shuffle.

A curious note: whenever i do a riffle shuffle, people get a lot more interested, because they want to try that too, because they've seen people do it before, and they might have tried before, it gets them more interactive. Just a thought to improve magic interest.

Oh and I nearly forgot... wait. i did.

:p

OH i remember now =D
ANOTHER note on XCM, people are confused when I do a display, they go "what's that supposed to do?" like when i do a worm display, or when i do a diamond display, it looks nice to me, but to other people, it just looks... like i'm bored and i'm playing randomly with cards and making nice little patterns, but... i don't know...
 
Cardistry/xcm doesn't involve anyone in the action. Whereas a piece of art such as a painting, song, poem, etc. does because people can derive their own meanings and feelings from it. What can anyone take from someone playing around with a deck of cards?

Attacking? Maybe but I think it's pretty ignorant to cast aside things without first even attempting to try it yourself.

I have watched others perform cardistry/xcm in front of spectators and the reactions never go beyond an initial 'wow'. It doesn't stick in anyone's mind. If someone did cardistry/xcm for a spectator and then someone came and did magic for the same spectator, what do you think the spectator would remember and talk about the next day?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results