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.
Last edited by a moderator: