Elegance or Sloppiness?

Apr 6, 2011
540
6
Lansing, MI
The past couple of months I have really been making magic the focal point of my life, I have been making major improvements and working hard at my presentation, patter, persona, and sleight of hand. However, I am still at a point where I do not have a real identity as a magician. My style and type of magic is still very open to change, and does so all the time. With all the work I have been putting in however, it is becoming more and more necessary to define myself as a magician. The question I put forth is; what path should I pursue, elegance, or sloppiness?

To clarify, I am curios as to whether I should attempt to make my magic effortless, and therefore appear sleightless. Or, should I attempt to make my magic sloppy, and therefore sleightless. There are so many good magicians that have taken each path, so I don't believe that either holds merit over the other. Simply judging from videos and comments I have posted, which do you think would be better for me?

Also, any and all advantages and disadvantages you guys can think of for either path would be lovely. It would really help with my decision .

Thanks a lot guys!

Tyler
 
Jul 27, 2012
33
0
Elegance is what I would choose but it really depends on who you are and if you feel comfortable when you perform.
 
Sep 1, 2007
557
2
35
Porthcawl, Wales.
This is just a quick post from me, because I'm quite busy but I just want to give some advice. This is a choice in ideology that has hounded magicians for decades, myself included. What I find works well for me, is to practice both styles in handling and then, when it comes to performing, get to know your audience a little bit because how they perceive and enjoy what you do is all subjective.

For instance, if you perform for someone that likes poker, you could go in to some faux-gambling magic and show off your dexterity. On the flip side, if you've got a spectator that is convinced you've got "fast hands" then go in to sloppy handlings of effects, to resonate in their mind that you're not using sleight of hand.

As for pro's and cons. Advantage of having expert skill - could mean people will take you seriously. Disadvatage - Your audience could potentially put "it" all down to sleight of hand"

Advantage of being sloppy - Your magic can potentially hit a lot harder. Disadvantage - people may think that anyone can do what you're doing, if they just knew the secret. However, if the magic is strong enough, the disadvantage can be cancelled out.

Anyway, this is a really good topic, so I hope more of you chime in, would love to hear more views and opinions.

Cheers,

Lloyd.

By the way, these are just my opinions, they are not wrong or right, just mine. (Just throwing this out there incase anyone wants to start up an argument).
 
Oct 22, 2012
63
0
Dover, Tennessee
I always choose elegance over sloppiness. Of course being sloppy may bring more of reaction if you were to pretend to mess up and you could be much funnier, but when you're elegant... The moves are much smoother, and makes for much more believable magic
 
its a situation thing. I try to practice all my moves so they look like i want them to (usually make them look moveless) but like for a slop shuffle triumph for instance, it is supposed to look sloppy, because that is what the move is supposed to look like. but when you are doing a zarrow shuffle, you want it to be cleaner looking, because that is what it looks like. a clean shuffle.
i think what you are saying really comes down to elegant as flourishy.
 
Apr 6, 2011
540
6
Lansing, MI
Christopher, your right. I just thought it could be helpful to see what people had to say based on only my recent activity. More of an experiment than anything. However, I seriously wish to discuss the merits of each path, so that I can make a better educated decision. I have dabbled in both, but I want to get as much information as I can, and choose a path to dedicate myself to.

I feel like a couple of people misunderstood what I meant by sloppy vs elegant. By sloppy, I do not mean making mistakes or being "bad" with a deck of cards. I simply mean handling them very loosely, openly, and in a manor that reeks of being an amateur. Think Dani Da'Ortiz. By elegant, I simply mean handling with finesse. Michael Vincent for example.

LBarnes and a few others brought up a good point, to practice both, and use whichever best fits your current audience. However, the whole purpose of this thread (for me) is so that I can choose one path, and dedicate myself to optimizing my performance for that style. Perhaps later I can think about mastering the other side, but for now I want to focus on just one.

Thanks for the replies everyone! Much appreciated. I will post pretty soon what I think are some advantages and disadvantages of each, I would love to hear more of what you guys think.
 
Feb 4, 2008
959
3
I think you are on the right track just to ask the question. I certainly see where some are coming from in terms of situations but that only works for people with relatively neutral characters. People with stronger characters should probably drift more to one side or the other. You mentioned Michael Vincent. Could you imagine him ever seeming truly sloppy? He is an elegant guy. He carries himself with grace and presents himself with class. Even if he does a slop shuffle triumph....he'll find a way to add a touch of class to it.

I'm less familiar with Danny Da'Ortiz so I'll use Lennart Greene for an example. His character is so strong. He has a beer sitting on the table next to him. The sloppy style he has fits his character to a tee. So I fall in the camp that you should decide on your character first. Who are you in real life? Exaggerate that and make your style fit your character. If you find your character is fairly neutral then you might choose to be situational.

You mention wanting to really focus on one or the other. I don't think you are wrong in that statement. The card guys that really stand out do seem to go one way or the other. Here is something to consider. Assuming you decide that your personality is fairly neutral and that you have the acting chops to develop a character that could go either way. My personal opinion in that case is that you should decide what overall effect you want on your audience. The guys who seem to completely baffle the audience tend to have a sloppier style. The guys who completely impress the audience seem to have a more elegant style.

For example, when I watch guys like Michael Vincent, or a Jamy Ian Swiss, I'm never "Fooled" by what they do. I just appreciate that they do it way better than I could dream of! Though I know they fool the lay audience, I do think that even the laity is left more with an appreciation of their skills at sleight of hand than thinking that what they saw defies explanation. The layman may not realize that this move was a pass, this move was a DL, and that move was a false shuffle, but they know it was done with expert skill. Juxtapose that with Lennart Greene where people, even other magicians, are left completely clueless as to what the hell just happened.

On a final note, I would strongly recommend you check out Benjamin Earl. He, more than anyone else I have seen, manages to strangely combine sloppiness with elegance. It is hard to explain but if you watch him I think you will understand what I am saying. Suffice it to say that anyone who is really interested in studying the pros and cons of sloppy vs. elegant should really study him.
 

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
By the way, these are just my opinions, they are not wrong or right, just mine. (Just throwing this out there incase anyone wants to start up an argument).

It isn't worth having an opinion unless you believe the opinion is right. How many opinions do you hold that you know are wrong?

You refer to arguments as if they are a bad thing. That is true if you are concerned about being right, but completely false if you are concerned about learning and expanding your perspective.

What I find works well for me, is to practice both styles in handling and then, when it comes to performing, get to know your audience a little bit because how they perceive and enjoy what you do is all subjective.

For instance, if you perform for someone that likes poker, you could go in to some faux-gambling magic and show off your dexterity. On the flip side, if you've got a spectator that is convinced you've got "fast hands" then go in to sloppy handlings of effects, to resonate in their mind that you're not using sleight of hand.

I disagree.

How can you know what an audience likes before you start performing (unless of course you perform for the same spectators over and over)? What style would you use for the first effect? How would you figure out what they like or know that a spectator thinks you have fast hands?

Further, you are assuming that you not have a specific routine you perform, but instead are "winging it" or making it up as you go. I don't think that is the best way to present magic.

I think that the way you handle cards has to tie to your character. Would your audience expect someone dressed in a suit to be sloppy with cards or someone with unkempt and a disheveled appearance to execute intricate shuffles with exactness?

Also, why practice two ways of handling cards? It seems better to perfect one way of handling cards that is consistent with your character.

As for pro's and cons. Advantage of having expert skill - could mean people will take you seriously. Disadvatage - Your audience could potentially put "it" all down to sleight of hand"

Advantage of being sloppy - Your magic can potentially hit a lot harder. Disadvantage - people may think that anyone can do what you're doing, if they just knew the secret. However, if the magic is strong enough, the disadvantage can be cancelled out.

I think the "sleight of hand" or "know the secret" explanations can occur with either style. The key to avoiding that is in character development, effect selection, scripting and presentation.

It should be "normaleness"

That sums up my style. I try to make it look like I handle a deck of cards in knowledgable manner (Im a magician, so I am expected to have some familiarity with how to handle cards) but without any well developed skill. No fancy flourishes or cuts but at the same time no unnecessary moves. The sleights I use are expertly executed, but the audience sees nothing (this is one of the reasons I love Card College - Giobbi's teaches sleights this way).

However, the focus isn't on me or the cards, but on sharing the astonishment of the spectator. Handling the cards in a sloppy manner or in a precise manner would draw attention to my handling of the cards. I don't want the spectators to remember what I did, rather I want them to remember the magic that happened.
 
Feb 4, 2008
959
3
However, the focus isn't on me or the cards, but on sharing the astonishment of the spectator. Handling the cards in a sloppy manner or in a precise manner would draw attention to my handling of the cards. I don't want the spectators to remember what I did, rather I want them to remember the magic that happened.

I pretty much agree with everything you said except that. My example, using Lennart Greene, was previously stated.
 
I've never learned cardistry, XCM, etc. so I'm not very "fancy" with cards. Hell, I can barely fan cards properly. Personally, I feel it enhances my card illusions. I think if spectators see someone doing one-handed cuts and flourishes then they expect them to be able to do sleight of hand. Once your spectator suspects sleight of hand, the "magic" is gone. I don't know if I'd call my handling "sloppy", but I'd call it average or normal. I can handle cards like every other average person. I think that helps portray that I'm doing something magical. If a spectator sees you doing fancy flourishes, it's almost as if you're already giving away your secrets. Of course, this is all just my opinion. Do what works best for you.
 
Apr 6, 2011
540
6
Lansing, MI
I've never learned cardistry, XCM, etc. so I'm not very "fancy" with cards. Hell, I can barely fan cards properly. Personally, I feel it enhances my card illusions. I think if spectators see someone doing one-handed cuts and flourishes then they expect them to be able to do sleight of hand. Once your spectator suspects sleight of hand, the "magic" is gone. I don't know if I'd call my handling "sloppy", but I'd call it average or normal. I can handle cards like every other average person. I think that helps portray that I'm doing something magical. If a spectator sees you doing fancy flourishes, it's almost as if you're already giving away your secrets. Of course, this is all just my opinion. Do what works best for you.

Josh, thank you for the input! However I feel like your still not understanding my meaning. Elegant handling is NOT adding flourishes or fancy moves into your handling. That is flashy handling, which I sadly still do on occasion because its really fun. Flashy handling is by far the worst approach to performing though in my opinion (out of these three). Elegance simply means handling the cards like a professional. No unnecessary movements, all your shuffles and cuts are clean, direct, smooth. You do the minimum necessary, but make it look beautiful.
 
Josh, thank you for the input! However I feel like your still not understanding my meaning. Elegant handling is NOT adding flourishes or fancy moves into your handling. That is flashy handling, which I sadly still do on occasion because its really fun. Flashy handling is by far the worst approach to performing though in my opinion (out of these three). Elegance simply means handling the cards like a professional. No unnecessary movements, all your shuffles and cuts are clean, direct, smooth. You do the minimum necessary, but make it look beautiful.
Sorry, I did understand, I just went off on a tangent. I still think elegant handling gives too much away and lessens the magic. Sometimes I intentionally drop cards or pretend to have messed up the trick and I end up with bigger reactions in the end. I hope that helps to clarify my opinion.
 
Sep 1, 2007
1,395
8
37
Belgrade, Serbia
Sorry, I did understand, I just went off on a tangent. I still think elegant handling gives too much away and lessens the magic. Sometimes I intentionally drop cards or pretend to have messed up the trick and I end up with bigger reactions in the end. I hope that helps to clarify my opinion.
I strongly disagree. I am a big fan of elegant style of handling and presenting magic (Eric Jones, Michael Vincent, Guy Holingworth, Aaron Fisher etc.) If you handle card and coins elegantly, and if you do your slights flawlessly, it should look like real magic. If it doesn't look like real magic, than you are not doing it well enough. How can a spectator suspect a slight of hand if they see nothing, and yet something happened? Of course, there are spectators that will always assume it's slight of hand, no matter what style of performance you have, and vice versa.
Also, how do you know you are getting better reactions with sloppy handling, if you didn't present both handlings to the same audience? That's the only way you can really judge. Remember, getting good reactions is not all up to you, it's highly situational.
 
Jan 1, 2009
2,241
3
Back in Time
Gregory Wilson mentioned that it should look like a duck crossing a pond. On the surface it looks like the duck is just floating by effortlessly, but under neath the duck is paddling like hell.
 

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
I pretty much agree with everything you said except that. My example, using Lennart Greene, was previously stated.

I'm not sure we disagree. I understand what youbare saying about Lennart - his character is so strong that you can't imagine him handling the cards any other way. I suspect that you could come up with a similarly strong character to justify elegant handling of the cards.

I think that I also may have misunderstood Tyler. I was thinking "fancy" rather than what I'd consider "clean" handling.

Oh, and I love the Greg Wilson quote.
 
Apr 6, 2011
540
6
Lansing, MI
Studying one of my favorite magic books, I came across a very good section talking about this very topic. It can be found in Card College 1, pg 168.
 
Feb 4, 2008
959
3
I'm not sure we disagree. I understand what youbare saying about Lennart - his character is so strong that you can't imagine him handling the cards any other way. I suspect that you could come up with a similarly strong character to justify elegant handling of the cards.

I think that I also may have misunderstood Tyler. I was thinking "fancy" rather than what I'd consider "clean" handling.

Oh, and I love the Greg Wilson quote.

I think that is fair. Ultimately I think character is the most important starting point for determining your style. But for most of us, who may not have a particularly strong character one way or the other, simply being as natural as possible is probably the best path. So the ultimate answer to the thread should be neither, unless your character dictates it.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results