How's this?

[AgentKuo]

I'm new to Cardistry, so I don't know a whole lot of moves, yet, but I've been practicing a couple.

One is a sort of half-deck flip (anyone know the proper name for this move?)
Here's a video of me practicing:
[video=youtube;jQHnOvf1HhI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQHnOvf1HhI[/video]
I also messed up a bunch of times, but I cut those clips out.

Also, can you guys give some advice and criticism? I really want to get better.


Oh, one other thing. Dunno how much of a difference it makes, but I was using a really crappy, worn-out deck.

 

[Goth]

When you said "half deck flip" it interested me because I'm working on a half deck flip of mine as well, Does yours require your thumb to flip the packet? By the way, the video isn't showing.

 

[AgentKuo]

When you said "half deck flip" it interested me because I'm working on a half deck flip of mine as well, Does yours require your thumb to flip the packet? By the way, the video isn't showing.

It does not require my thumb, no, it uses my middle finger. The video should work now. I can see it fine.

The flip isn't anything really special, and its not my own creation. Just something I was working on.

 

[S.G]

I think it is the K-Town flip.

 

[MagicZack24]

I'm no expert on flourishing, so I can't critique you. But, I will say this. The term "cardistry" is misused by a lot of people nowadays. Cardistry is a very, very old term meaning "the magical artistry of playing cards", which has nothing to do with flourishing and XCM, which is the non-magical artistry of playing cards. The books "Cardistry" by Paul Gordon, and Rusduck's "The Cardiste-Dedicated to the Art of Cardistry", are just a couple examples of this. I'm just trying to tell people that theory11 is teaching everyone the wrong definition of the word.

 

[AgentKuo]

I'm no expert on flourishing, so I can't critique you. But, I will say this. The term "cardistry" is misused by a lot of people nowadays. Cardistry is a very, very old term meaning "the magical artistry of playing cards", which has nothing to do with flourishing and XCM, which is the non-magical artistry of playing cards. The books "Cardistry" by Paul Gordon, and Rusduck's "The Cardiste-Dedicated to the Art of Cardistry", are just a couple examples of this. I'm just trying to tell people that theory11 is teaching everyone the wrong definition of the word.

Like many other words, "cardistry"'s meaning has changed. Its not that "card flourishes and XCM" is the wrong definition. Its that its what the definition has become. Regardless of what it originally meant.


@S.G.: Yes, I think you're right about it being the K-Town Flip.

 

[Andrei]

I'm no expert on flourishing, so I can't critique you. But, I will say this. The term "cardistry" is misused by a lot of people nowadays. Cardistry is a very, very old term meaning "the magical artistry of playing cards", which has nothing to do with flourishing and XCM, which is the non-magical artistry of playing cards. The books "Cardistry" by Paul Gordon, and Rusduck's "The Cardiste-Dedicated to the Art of Cardistry", are just a couple examples of this. I'm just trying to tell people that theory11 is teaching everyone the wrong definition of the word.

True, there have been two publications with reference to magic as cardistry and perhaps no more than ten verbal references - in the last one hundred years. In comparison, there have been thousands of video showcases, live performances, references within our industry by Dan and Dave Buck, Daniel Madison, Jeff McBride as well as recognition from the largest playing card manufacturer in the world - the US. Playing Card Co. Based on those achievements, especially in the relatively short amount of time, the non magical manipulation of playing cards is the definition - if you're living in today's world.

 

[MagicZack24]

True, there have been two publications with reference to magic as cardistry and perhaps no more than ten verbal references - in the last one hundred years. In comparison, there have been thousands of video showcases, live performances, references within our industry by Dan and Dave Buck, Daniel Madison, Jeff McBride as well as recognition from the largest playing card manufacturer in the world - the US. Playing Card Co. Based on those achievements, especially in the relatively short amount of time, the non magical manipulation of playing cards is the definition - if you're living in today's world.

There are more than two publications that reference cardistry as magic. I only listed a couple of them. You also have to understand that there are reasons why cardistry has been referenced as non-magical so many times. First, magic/flourishing is a lot more popular today than it was a hundred years ago. Secondly, the internet is the main reason for those thousands of references. Without the internet, there would be a similar number of references to cardistry as non-magical, as there would be to references of cardistry as magical.

All of the people you named, except for Jeff McBride I think, are directly associated with theory11, whom I largely blame for popularizing cardistry as non-magical. Dan and Dave Buck and Daniel Madison are both part of the theory11 team. Bicycle is part of the USPCC, and on their website they say that cardistry and flourishing are the same thing, the elegant manipulation of playing cards. But their website was designed by, guess who, theory11.

Some of the best flourishers in the world, like De'vo vom Schattenreich, Jerry Cestkowski and J.S. Lin, refer to cardistry as a magical art. They don't apply the term to flourishing/XCM. Since they're the experts, I trust them.

There are only two ways the word "cardistry" can be defined.

1) The original, published definition, magical artistry of playing cards.
2) Essentially, card artistry, which would refer to any art form using a deck of cards. So, both magic and flourishes could be considered cardistry.

The definition of the word cannot only be "the non-magical artistry of playing cards." You can't completely abolish the original definition of the word.

 

[Andrei]

There are more than two publications that reference cardistry as magic. I only listed a couple of them. You also have to understand that there are reasons why cardistry has been referenced as non-magical so many times. First, magic/flourishing is a lot more popular today than it was a hundred years ago. Secondly, the internet is the main reason for those thousands of references. Without the internet, there would be a similar number of references to cardistry as non-magical, as there would be to references of cardistry as magical.

There are two publications that reference cardistry as magic over the last century - give or take a few in comparison to the THOUSANDS to the contrary in the last eight years. I understand perfectly well why that is. What I don't understand is your logic for using examples like the internet for proving your point. How does using the internet, videos, or any other sources diminish the merits of its success?

All of the people you named, except for Jeff McBride I think, are directly associated with theory11, whom I largely blame for popularizing cardistry as non-magical. Dan and Dave Buck and Daniel Madison are both part of the theory11 team. Bicycle is part of the USPCC, and on their website they say that cardistry and flourishing are the same thing, the elegant manipulation of playing cards. But their website was designed by, guess who, theory11.

Some of the best flourishers in the world, like De'vo vom Schattenreich, Jerry Cestkowski and J.S. Lin, refer to cardistry as a magical art. They don't apply the term to flourishing/XCM. Since they're the experts, I trust them.

True, with the help of theory11, cardistry has seen much success. I do not understand the logic of how that does anything to take away from it whatsoever. Dan and Dave and Daniel Madison have independently produced projects with regards to cardistry without theory11's involvement. Furthermore, there are thousands (literally) of cardistry videos both before and during the existence of theory11 that are completely unrelated and unaffiliated.

If you're going to use historical reference, consider the following: XCM borrows the current term "Card Manipulation" which originated in magic to describe vanishes, and other magical productions. How does putting an adjective like XTREME make it a different term? This alone is more of a historical query than cardistry's reference to magic. In addition, XCM has had an attempt to trademark the term by the creator for selfish gain. Regardless of said reason, the creator was smart enough to know that an art form is public domain; therefore, no other entity could have claimed it for their own. In contrast with XCM, the popularity of cardistry took off long before theory11 has been around and was a result of the cardists and members of their respective communities and not the results of an individual throwing around his ego, threatening their lives, and belittling them. Perhaps much of this does not make sense if you have not been around since the beginning of it all.

 

[MagicZack24]

There are two publications that reference cardistry as magic over the last century - give or take a few in comparison to the THOUSANDS to the contrary in the last eight years. I understand perfectly well why that is. What I don't understand is your logic for using examples like the internet for proving your point. How does using the internet, videos, or any other sources diminish the merits of its success?

If the internet existed a hundred years ago, cardistry would widely be considered as a magical art. I wasn't diminishing the success of the art of flourishing. I was saying that the internet is the main reason cardistry is largely viewed as non-magical. If the internet didn't exist today, or if it did exist a hundred years ago, everyone would see cardistry as a magical art.

Yes, XCM does borrow the term "card manipulation". However, they're still two different terms. Everyone knows that there is a distinct difference between card manipulation and XCM, even though they're similar terms. Why? Because they aren't the exact same word, despite the similarity. Whereas with cardistry, we're talking about the exact same word and whether it refers to a magical art, or a non-magical art. If you asked a bunch of different magicians what the term means, you'd get different answers. If you asked a bunch of different magicians what XCM is, and what card manipulation is, they'd all tell you the same thing.

Regardless of what I just mentioned, you can't argue with the last part of my first post. Cardistry can only be accurately defined in two ways, as a magical art, or as any art using cards, magic and flourishes alike. You can't throw out the original meaning of the word. The common view of a word can change, but not its original meaning. It simply isn't possible.

 

[Goth]

If the internet existed a hundred years ago, cardistry would widely be considered as a magical art

The same can be said about "XCM"

Because they aren't the exact same word, despite the similarity

Ok, so your saying that, just by including a word (that isn't even spelled correctly) changes it from magic to Cardistry/flourishing whatever you call it. Obviously this word "Xtreme" came from the internet, it's original meaning can not change, "it is simply impossible". So the word or abbreviation you choose to define this art as, is exactly the same as cardistry. What I'm getting at is, you choose not to use the term cardistry because The original meaning is different to what it is today and it became popular through the internet, those two reason are also the same for "XCM". However they are different in the fact (like you said) Cardistry the magical and the non magical are the exact same word and Card manipulation and "XCM" are different but what makes CM and "XCM" different (xtreme) would have little to no meaning without the internet. For all they know it could mean that it's just some extreme magic.

So I think that "XCM" once went through what Cardistry is going through, there was someone like you that just didn't want to use that term. Soon with time it grew on to people like Cardistry is doing now.

 

[Andrei]

If the internet existed a hundred years ago, cardistry would widely be considered as a magical art. I wasn't diminishing the success of the art of flourishing. I was saying that the internet is the main reason cardistry is largely viewed as non-magical. If the internet didn't exist today, or if it did exist a hundred years ago, everyone would see cardistry as a magical art.

I'm sorry I still don't understand what you're trying to prove with this point. I don't mean to insult your intelligence but that statement holds about the same amount of validity as if I were to tell you that if books did not exist, those books with references to cardistry as magic wouldn't even be considered in this discussion. Again, what is your point?

Yes, XCM does borrow the term "card manipulation". However, they're still two different terms. Everyone knows that there is a distinct difference between card manipulation and XCM, even though they're similar terms. Why? Because they aren't the exact same word, despite the similarity. Whereas with cardistry, we're talking about the exact same word and whether it refers to a magical art, or a non-magical art. If you asked a bunch of different magicians what the term means, you'd get different answers. If you asked a bunch of different magicians what XCM is, and what card manipulation is, they'd all tell you the same thing.

You are correct; although, I would say cardistry has just as much of a consensus of it being the non magical manipulation of playing cards and to deny that fact would be turning your back on a decade of enormous progression. Trust me, I was there, I've done the research, and asked plenty of magicians what cardistry means to them. In XCM's case however, adding an adjective to a noun should not make it a different term. My father did not do "cool" or "awesome" gymnastics. In any case, let your audience judge and describe what you do, seems a bit self serving otherwise.

Regardless of what I just mentioned, you can't argue with the last part of my first post. Cardistry can only be accurately defined in two ways, as a magical art, or as any art using cards, magic and flourishes alike. You can't throw out the original meaning of the word. The common view of a word can change, but not its original meaning. It simply isn't possible.

I understand "original meaning" is part of history but it does not hold much value as far as practicality is concerned if the words mean something completely different. I haven't addressed this point as I thought it would already be obvious - let me clear it up and give you a few examples of words changing over time throughout history. Granted, some of these are debatable but the proof of concept is there. Please check out additional references for more information with regards to words/phrases that have changed over time.

Artificial - originally meant ‘full of artistic or technical skill’.
Nice - comes from the Latin ‘not to know’. Originally a ‘nice person’ was someone who was ignorant or unaware.
Awful - this meant ‘full of awe’ i.e. something wonderful, delightful, amazing. However, over time it has evolved to mean exactly the opposite.
Brave - This once was used to signify cowardice. Indeed, its old meaning lives on in the word ‘bravado’.
Manufacture - from the Latin meaning ‘to make by hand’ this originally signified things that were created by craftsmen. Now the opposite, made by machines, is its meaning.
Counterfeit - this once meant a perfect copy. Now it means anything but.
Tell - its original meaning was ‘to count’. Which is how we came by the term ‘bank teller’.

As clearly evident, words have changed over time and in some cases to mean the complete opposite of their respective origins. What does this mean? It means words change in accordance with popularity, how often they are used, and how widely it is accepted by the world/community/industry. In today's world, a majority consensus will tell you cardistry is the non magical manipulation of playing cards.

SOURCES

http://writinghood.com/style/gramma...e-completely-changed-their-meaning-over-time/

ADDITIONAL SOURCES

http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.c...se-meanings-have-changed-without-controversy/
http://writeitsideways.com/6-words-that-dont-mean-what-you-think-they-mean/
http://www.langmaker.com/ml0104.htm

 

[AgentKuo]

Guys, stop arguing.

 

[MagicZack24]

I'm sorry I still don't understand what you're trying to prove with this point. I don't mean to insult your intelligence but that statement holds about the same amount of validity as if I were to tell you that if books did not exist, those books with references to cardistry as magic wouldn't even be considered in this discussion. Again, what is your point?

Everything I mentioned is a hypothetical scenario. There's no such thing as an invalid hypothetical statement. I was saying that the battle was fought on an uneven plain. IF the internet didn't exist now, or IF the internet existed a hundred years ago, cardistry would be well-known as a magical art. It's only known as non-magical because the term had a lot of help in boosting its popularity. Although you may not think so, your statement about books not existing actually is valid, since it was a hypothetical statement.

You are correct; although, I would say cardistry has just as much of a consensus of it being the non magical manipulation of playing cards and to deny that fact would be turning your back on a decade of enormous progression. Trust me, I was there, I've done the research, and asked plenty of magicians what cardistry means to them. In XCM's case however, adding an adjective to a noun should not make it a different term. My father did not do "cool" or "awesome" gymnastics. In any case, let your audience judge and describe what you do, seems a bit self serving otherwise.

I agree that adding a simple adjective shouldn't make it a different term. That's why I prefer to use the term 'flourishing' instead of XCM. Despite all that, I can't dispute that it's still a different term and it's easily distinguishable from classic card manipulation. Whereas with 'cardistry', you can't tell whether it's referring to card magic or card flourishes.

I understand "original meaning" is part of history but it does not hold much value as far as practicality is concerned if the words mean something completely different. I haven't addressed this point as I thought it would already be obvious - let me clear it up and give you a few examples of words changing over time throughout history. Granted, some of these are debatable but the proof of concept is there. Please check out additional references for more information with regards to words/phrases that have changed over time.

Artificial - originally meant ‘full of artistic or technical skill’.
Nice - comes from the Latin ‘not to know’. Originally a ‘nice person’ was someone who was ignorant or unaware.
Awful - this meant ‘full of awe’ i.e. something wonderful, delightful, amazing. However, over time it has evolved to mean exactly the opposite.
Brave - This once was used to signify cowardice. Indeed, its old meaning lives on in the word ‘bravado’.
Manufacture - from the Latin meaning ‘to make by hand’ this originally signified things that were created by craftsmen. Now the opposite, made by machines, is its meaning.
Counterfeit - this once meant a perfect copy. Now it means anything but.
Tell - its original meaning was ‘to count’. Which is how we came by the term ‘bank teller’.

As clearly evident, words have changed over time and in some cases to mean the complete opposite of their respective origins. What does this mean? It means words change in accordance with popularity, how often they are used, and how widely it is accepted by the world/community/industry. In today's world, a majority consensus will tell you cardistry is the non magical manipulation of playing cards.

SOURCES

http://writinghood.com/style/gramma...e-completely-changed-their-meaning-over-time/

ADDITIONAL SOURCES

http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.c...se-meanings-have-changed-without-controversy/
http://writeitsideways.com/6-words-that-dont-mean-what-you-think-they-mean/
http://www.langmaker.com/ml0104.htm

You and I are both right about how the common view of a word can change. I still use the original definitions of 'awful' and 'manufacture' though. Anyway, even though the common interpretation of a word can change, the original meaning will still always be correct, regardless of how often it's used. Also, just because a word/phrase is commonly used, doesn't mean it's correct. The phrase "for all intensive purposes" is a great example of this. Millions use it, yet the correct phrase is "for all intent and purposes". I'm not saying that the term 'cardistry' is incorrect when it pertains to a non-magical art, since I do agree that the common definition of a word can change. I'm changing my mind on my original statement of it being entirely incorrect to use it when referring to flourishing. With that being said, my definition of 'cardistry' is: Card Artistry, any art form using a deck of playing cards, like card magic or card flourishing.... or building a model Empire State Building out of playing cards. But the last part is optional.

 

[AgentKuo]

Guys, please. This is not the place. If you want to argue about the meaning of a word, do it in a different thread.

 

[MagicZack24]

Guys, please. This is not the place. If you want to argue about the meaning of a word, do it in a different thread.

It'll be over soon. And technically we're debating, not arguing, since we aren't shouting or insulting each other.

 

[AgentKuo]

It'll be over soon. And technically we're debating, not arguing, since we aren't shouting or insulting each other.

Lol, well, alright, go ahead then. I guess its actually a good thing, since we're getting all this history in one thread. So I guess I should actually be thanking you guys. Thank you.

MagickZack, I also have to say, you've been changing your argument throughout this debate to kind of-sort of agree with Andrei (or just to change your argument), but to still make it seem like your original points were valid. You only blatantly stated this fact in your most recent post (pertaining to the topic).

I do believe, however, that it is important to establish a basis for the meaning of the word.
For instance, if we go only by the most basic definition: "Card Artistry", this could range from card magic to card flourishes to really anything involving cards that is visually appealing.

In other words, I think the term "Cardistry", like most words, should be interpreted according to its context.

 

[Andrei]

You and I are both right about how the common view of a word can change. I still use the original definitions of 'awful' and 'manufacture' though. Anyway, even though the common interpretation of a word can change, the original meaning will still always be correct, regardless of how often it's used. Also, just because a word/phrase is commonly used, doesn't mean it's correct. The phrase "for all intensive purposes" is a great example of this. Millions use it, yet the correct phrase is "for all intent and purposes". I'm not saying that the term 'cardistry' is incorrect when it pertains to a non-magical art, since I do agree that the common definition of a word can change. I'm changing my mind on my original statement of it being entirely incorrect to use it when referring to flourishing. With that being said, my definition of 'cardistry' is: Card Artistry, any art form using a deck of playing cards, like card magic or card flourishing.... or building a model Empire State Building out of playing cards. But the last part is optional.

Flourishing to describe the non magical manipulation of playing cards is by far more outdated to describe a standalone art form due to supplemental nature (ie: He picked up the cigarette with a flourish, etc.) but that's a whole different discussion.

If "card artistry" to you means any art form of using a deck of playing cards, you should use "card artistry" instead of cardistry in order to keep things general. However, if you want to keep up with present times and respectably acknowledge the hard work of all the individuals who pushed the art of cardistry, you may want to reconsider it's primary definition.

 

[MagicZack24]

Okay, then I change the definition to simply: Card magic and card flourishing.

 

[AgentKuo]

Okay, then I change the definition to simply: Card magic and card flourishing.

I'm sorry, you changed the definition?