Speed in Flourishing

Discussion in 'Cardistry & Flourishing Forum' started by moviesandmagic3, Jul 14, 2010.

  1. When it comes to speed in flourishing, I've noticed that you don't have to force yourself to flourish quickly in order to make it look faster than what you are actually doing. If you can go from one cut into the next smoothly and without any hesitation, pause, or choppiness, the illusion of speed can be created. Also, forcing yourself to flourish quickly can take away from the look of smoothness and fluidity of a flourish.

    Just my thoughts....what do you guys think?
  2. Well, Daren Yeow had a great quote on that. I believe that it went something like this:

    "Smoothness gives the illusion of speed".

    My favorite quote on flourishing.

  3. Depends on the move.
    When I do WTHHTS, i do it at full speed, because it looks better that way.
    When I do a Madonna, there's no way I'd do it full speed, because it looks better slowed down.
    Some moves are dependent on your style. Some people like to form fans instantly, some people like to take their time.
  4. Smooth is always better.You don't want to see someone doing Sybil in 2 seconds don't you ?
  5. I love how general that statement is. It's as if there's no such thing as variation in style in cardistry/flourishing/XCM.

    Oh, pardon me. There isn't. [sarcasm]
  6. Thats what I always thought. Thats the main reason myself and others I have heard have had a problem with Brian Tudor, his stuff is jsut too fast. I would take smoothness over spead anyday
  7. Work on making your flourishes fluid. Keep it all at a constant speed and make it smooth. I always thought that when flourishes look constant and fluid they looked better.
  8. also when doing complicated flourishes the spec cant see everything u doing making it less cool and stuff
  9. well i thinks it depends on many factors like how much strength your fingers have how long they are how thick or thin so nobody can make a general recipe, every cardist has to find the balance for himself!
  10. Make the warp-up on you fingers 5-10 min.And make slowly 5x,quickly 10x and make this 30x
  11. Brian Tudor is going to kill you all and eat your souls... :D
    "because smooth means slow so he does it fast" :p
  12. Smooth=slow.

    I'd agree with that. If a flourish is done quickly, it looks smoth just because of how well it's being done. Slowly could make it seem less mystical.

    There is definitely a line, though.
  13. Just to chime in with the response I've always given to this discussion:

    "The opposite of Smooth = Rough

    The opposite of Fast = Slow"

    Therefore, both Speed and Smoothness IS possible in a flourish. They are separate variables, they're not bound to each other.

    After speed, comes repetition to bring about the smooth flow in a flourish. Of course, some flourishes are better than others for giving a smooth transition from one section to the next, but you're not stupid, you know that already :)


  14. "Smooth=Slow" is my favorite quote and the truth.....So slowness does not give the illusion of speed....It gives the truth of slowness.
  15. If you had to choose between the two, then yes I'd choose smooth. I'd rather see a cut done smoother and slightly slower, then a choppy but faster cut.

    But the point is, like tarvi brought up, you dont have to choose. Who says you cant do sybil smoothly in 2 seconds? and why would you NOT want to see that O_O?
  16. While I agree as a flourisher, that when a cut it performed smoothly it looks beautiful, i can not ignore the first time I saw the cuts on the system. They looked so cool and they were fast. I honestly think it is the flourish that should determine speed. Take for instance the werm. It looks so much better when done slow rather than sped up. However, jackson 5 would get to long and boring if it was done slow. The speed ads to it. Also don't forget that each flourish has slow parts and fast part. They are not always the same speed. They speed up to and then slow down to display. It all depends on the flourish you are doing, but smoothness is always a factor that should be in your flourishes.
  17. Firstly, and on an unrelated note, I think Brian Tudor has incredible chops - but being good doesn't mean being intelligent, and personally, I think that, second only to De'Vo, Tudor is the biggest douchebag in manipulation history.

    Secondly, to the people saying that speed = smooth... Speed up a film 4x, and watch. Do you enjoy it? Are the visuals smooth? Yes, I'm making an exaggerated point - but that's what happens when you make general statements. You get called out on it. The assumption that speed = skill is also a mistaken generalisation for much the same reasons. Go watch a play where the bad actors speak so quickly that you can't understand them properly.

    The point is that YOU may want to see it, but your AUDIENCES do not, because they don't see anything!

    ...You do perform, right?
  18. That's what stop/display points are for. Take 5 faces for instance: I for one would think it was awesome to see a blur of hand movement resulting in a sudden 5 packet display.

    Not to offend, but who are you to say with such conviction that my audiences WONT enjoy seeing the same types of things I do? Let alone any types of things for that matter.
  19. #19 TheatreHead, Aug 14, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2010
    You're seriously asking a flourisher whether he performs? [jokes]
  20. straw man argument....You cant compare flourishes to Talking....flourishes are meant to be fast- Talking is not.....And btw speed is indeed an indicator of skill when it comes to flourishes.

Share This Page

{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results