Strong as an oak

Andrei

Elite Member
Sep 2, 2007
439
24
35
Las Vegas
www.youtube.com
An art, field or subject that ceases to evolve, change and adapt. Once creation and continuation of it stops, it will stagnate and eventually decline. This "creation" and "continuation" manifests as progressive evolution in how individuals engage with the field and how their actions within it are conducted.

If we keep it "same ol' same ol'", we'll have this phenomenon start to pop up, as we already have seen.

I can certainly agree that the rapid expansion has slowed down significantly from a decade ago but that's inevitable with anything. I can't see "creation and continuation" of the art stopping. It will inevitably stop for some but as a whole, I'll have to disagree. The very nature of it's existence is due to constant evolution, progression, expansion, etc. which it's currently doing. Always growing to some degree.

The online scene is absolutely an indication of the health of this field - as those not actively participating online are either no longer engaged in the field or begin to drop off in due time. I only say this based on experience of speaking with a lot of "old school" people since I've come back, and researching where people who were active even 1 or 2 years ago are now.

About growth, however, I'd have to disagree there. Are you saying that the manipulation scene is bigger, more active, and more productive now than it was when Decknique, Handlordz, Dan and Dave and United Cardists were all active?

It's certainly more disjointed. We've always had ups and downs in terms of activity. A lot more people certainly are doing cardistry now than back in those days. Sure, they don't all upload them to decknique. It's all on youtube and various other sources which cumulatively form the larger sum than that of the past. The proof is in the tons of videos that get submitted, it's certainly the reason this thread got my attention. Apparently there is an overwhelming amount of mediocre videos.

I don't think that any art can hit a point where it has grown "as much as it needs to". What if Fine Artists decided that the current methods of painting were enough? What if they thought that 300 years ago? We wouldn't have advanced to our current level. The inherently beautiful quality of any artistic pursuit is that it is evolving, advancing, living and breathing on a continuous basis. That's what makes it creative - people creating it, adding to it, changing it.

Sure it can in the right context. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I meant it's easy to point fingers and say "I keep seeing the same old stuff, the art needs to evolve". However, in order to take that next step "forward", it boils down to personal goals to go out and apply the art. The reason I'm hesitant to say "moving forward" is that moving the art forward is considered a mutual progression. If you were to put on a show tomorrow for several thousand people for the next 20 years, you still wouldn't have moved the art "forward". You'd certainly help it expand and get more people excited about it. However, in order for the art to progress as a whole, the majority of cardists would have to get to your level (or at least attempt it) which is a pretty big commitment. A shift in that direction if you will. Henceforth, what I'm saying is the tools are ultimately there, it's up to us to figure out how to apply and use them at this point. I never stated nor implied "it's good enough now guys, let's stop progression now and forever, let's keep it same ol' same ol''. I did say "for all intensive purposes" it's evolved as far as it needs to get to that next step - whatever that may mean for you personally. Definitely comes down to what you think the next step might be. Perhaps that's where we disagree and that's a good thing, going in opposite directions can only lead to expansion.

Of course it's personal - but that doesn't change the fact that more people holding themselves to that standard would improve the art as a whole. It'd make the videos quite a bit more interesting to watch.

Also bear in mind that this is a gradient thing - it's not "either this video looks like a $100 million production, or it looks like my uncle filmed it with a cucumber". There are plenty of ways to make large and small improvements to the way you (the general "you") present your art and the media that you produce. Any improvement is always awesome, it doesn't have to be massive.

I'd love to see more people hold themselves to higher standards, in cardistry and life in general. However, current standards or lack thereof do not indicate stagnation or lack of progression. More people making pretty videos that look high budget is not my definition of moving the art forward. Why? Because our presentation abilities through the medium of cinematography and video production has nothing to do with the art of manipulating cards, nor it's progression or evolution. Unless you want to be the Marco Tempest of cardistry and base your show around that - for which I have never seen any attempts at. Improvements to our personal productions are certainly welcome and encouraged though.


I discussed this above, but I want to mention again that I feel it is very limiting to think that the art, in its current state, is as good as it's going to get, as "moved forward" as it needs to be, etc. There is so much more that can be done with it.

Correct. So much more that can be done. Up to cardists with those goals to apply themselves and the art. Never stated nor implied "let's stop progression here guys". Addresed above. :)

Granting that juggling is inherently less variable (in the number of unique individual motions possible) than card handling, it is also something that the average layperson is used to and can understand - and thus can enjoy it all the more. Card manipulation has not reached that point. But, with the ideas we've been discussing in this thread, it could.

Give it more credit. Skill based crafts are enjoyable and understood because they are all easily relatable. You don't need to watch a breakdancer present himself with some emotional story, you've already tried dancing and miserably failed. It's the same with a gymnast. It's the same with a cardist. Everyone has a deck of cards at home. Everyone has seen a bridge shuffle and has tried to build a house of cards and failed. It's precisely why cardistry has that strength in being able to be appreciated for face value without the need of any "emotional" presentations or patters. Magic cannot at a fundamental level. No one can relate to a magician without a story. Magic is inherently perfect, and no one is perfect. Hence why magicians need to create stories and characters with flaws, so they can be relatable and likeable. That's why magicians have been and forever will be telling me that I need a story and some character development. Don't think like a magician. You're not trying to be one.

Certainly good to draw inspirations from magic, but it's not the only route to "progression". Yes, don't stop there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 29, 2011
703
17
Granting that juggling is inherently less variable (in the number of unique individual motions possible) than card handling,

Wow, way to discount an entire artform. Even if you were to consider both Card handling and juggling in terms of possible individual motions, they are both infinite.
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
Give it more credit. Skill based crafts are enjoyable and understood because they are all easily relatable. You don't need to watch a breakdancer present himself with some emotional story, you've already tried dancing and miserably failed. It's the same with a gymnast. It's the same with a cardist. Everyone has a deck of cards at home. Everyone has seen a bridge shuffle and has tried to build a house of cards and failed. It's precisely why cardistry has that strength in being able to be appreciated for face value without the need of any "emotional" presentations or patters. Magic cannot at a fundamental level. No one can relate to a magician without a story. Magic is inherently perfect, and no one is perfect. Hence why magicians need to create stories and characters with flaws, so they can be relatable and likeable. That's why magicians have been and forever will be telling me that I need a story and some character development. Don't think like a magician. You're not trying to be one.

I'm going to disagree with the beginning of this post to a degree. Here's the thing, more or less everyone has tried to dance, yes, but that doesn't relate the amount of skill involved. All we know is, "That's better than I can do, he's really good." But then we don't really understand how good and how skilled unless we ourselves are also dancers. Only the basic concept is understandable by anyone who hasn't studied the subject themselves. And this is true, I believe, of any art form. You have to understand the difference between things before you can really appreciate them when it comes to a skill based presentation. A dancer may understand how hard an allusion is, but a layperson probably doesn't because the dancer makes it look easy. Then, all the untrained eye sees is one skill after another with little to no way to really discern between them. Then, like in magic, if you give too many climax points too closely, the mind just basically shuts down.

The human mind quickly adapts to new stimulation like this. Meaning if there isn't some form of distinction to show that it isn't the same thing that we just saw, we quickly stop caring. That's why every single juggler hears the same phrases like, "Can you juggle 4 balls?" followed by "can you do 5?!" Etc. "Can you do it bigger?" basically. Same thing with gymnasts, dancers, martial artists, etc.

So there may be a connection, but that connection is lost pretty quickly if there isn't something else the audience can relate to. Unless they are knowledgeable about your particular brand of manipulation, they will not be able to relate to that, so you need something else to hook them.

I think there needs to be an emotional or intellectual hook of some sort for any audience who is not educated in the style to be able to really relate. A pure display of skill gets boring fast because it's meaningless.

Wow, way to discount an entire artform. Even if you were to consider both Card handling and juggling in terms of possible individual motions, they are both infinite.

I definitely disagree with this. Take club juggling, for instance. You can't bend them, so you are limited. Therefore, not infinite. Every prop introduces its own limitations, it's up to the artist to explore those limits and push them.
 

Andrei

Elite Member
Sep 2, 2007
439
24
35
Las Vegas
www.youtube.com
I'm going to disagree with the beginning of this post to a degree. Here's the thing, more or less everyone has tried to dance, yes, but that doesn't relate the amount of skill involved. All we know is, "That's better than I can do, he's really good." But then we don't really understand how good and how skilled unless we ourselves are also dancers. Only the basic concept is understandable by anyone who hasn't studied the subject themselves. And this is true, I believe, of any art form. You have to understand the difference between things before you can really appreciate them when it comes to a skill based presentation. A dancer may understand how hard an allusion is, but a layperson probably doesn't because the dancer makes it look easy. Then, all the untrained eye sees is one skill after another with little to no way to really discern between them. Then, like in magic, if you give too many climax points too closely, the mind just basically shuts down.

The human mind quickly adapts to new stimulation like this. Meaning if there isn't some form of distinction to show that it isn't the same thing that we just saw, we quickly stop caring. That's why every single juggler hears the same phrases like, "Can you juggle 4 balls?" followed by "can you do 5?!" Etc. "Can you do it bigger?" basically. Same thing with gymnasts, dancers, martial artists, etc.

So there may be a connection, but that connection is lost pretty quickly if there isn't something else the audience can relate to. Unless they are knowledgeable about your particular brand of manipulation, they will not be able to relate to that, so you need something else to hook them.

I think there needs to be an emotional or intellectual hook of some sort for any audience who is not educated in the style to be able to really relate. A pure display of skill gets boring fast because it's meaningless.

Absolutely relates to the amount of skill. Trying and failing makes us be able to relate to someone who can do something that we failed at - even if they make it look easy. Sure, some techniques look easy but are very difficult and vice versa but it's up to the performer to make those distinctions via audience participation or presentation. I'm not saying stop there. Either way, it's still enjoyable. Haven't you ever performed for someone and had them say, "Wow, he makes it look so easy, I can't even shuffle"? It's fairly common. Even if you're doing something that doesn't remotely resemble a shuffle.

No one is limiting you to doing 5 minutes of sybils. I've seen a juggler destroy a show for 20 straight minutes - comedy, costume, choreography at their finest. He didn't limit himself to just throwing round objects into the air. Similarly to how a singer wouldn't sing 1 song for an hour. Nor a gymnast do backflips, etc. Again, up to you to incorporate other forms of entertainment to make your show interesting if you plan on doing something longer than 10 minutes (which I don't, I focus on smaller sets). Audience participation, comedy, pyro, you name it. This can apply to anything. Juggling included. Limited motions or not. Doesn't matter.

I know absolutely nothing about singing but I don't have to in order to appreciate the beauty of it. No one needs to know how difficult your card spring is in order to appreciate it's beauty. Again, skill based crafts inherently share this trait. I know because I've seen thousands of shows in my lifetime. Literally. Traveled the world with my parents and seen them perform with nearly every act in existence for over a decade. The audience doesn't need to be "educated" nor be told a story in order to see and feel "magic" in the non magical. It's an observation based on experience, not my opinion or hypothesis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vinnie C.

cardistry moderator / t11
Aug 31, 2007
352
2
Los Angeles, CA
All said, we've each made our case and had it out. I don't feel the need to respond to the majority of your post, as it would just end up with you and I repeating ourselves. However, I wanted to respond to the last paragraph or so. I've broken it down below:

Give it more credit. Skill based crafts are enjoyable and understood because they are all easily relatable.

That depends on the craft. Not all are the same, not all are as enjoyable or relatable as all others.

You don't need to watch a breakdancer present himself with some emotional story, you've already tried dancing and miserably failed.

Because a breakdancer doesn't need that to be entertaining. We watch them just to see some slick moves. And it's a demonstration of very in-you-face and direct talent. It's big, showy. Card handling is inherently more subtle and nuanced.

Everyone has a deck of cards at home. Everyone has seen a bridge shuffle and has tried to build a house of cards and failed. It's precisely why cardistry has that strength in being able to be appreciated for face value without the need of any "emotional" presentations or patters.

There's a big gap between owning a deck of cards and being able to tell the difference between the myriad fans, cuts, spreads and other moves typically performed by manipulators.

My viewpoint is only the way it is as borne from experience. I've performed at the Magic Castle, at parties, for groups large and small. I've done both magic and manipulation, and one thing I've noticed from these experiences is people have a much harder time appreciating pure-manipulation acts. They have a very hard time telling the difference between the moves, and since the whole of the "entertainment" is just you having dexterous fingers, it's a lot tougher for them to get behind it.

So, how do we fix that? How do we beef up a performance so laypeople can enjoy it on the same level as any other performance art? That's what we've been discussing.

No one can relate to a magician without a story. Magic is inherently perfect, and no one is perfect. Hence why magicians need to create stories and characters with flaws, so they can be relatable and likeable. That's why magicians have been and forever will be telling me that I need a story and some character development.

Some of the best magical performances were carried out with absolutely no patter, no story, and no talking at all. The performer was clever enough to come up with something engaging enough that it was perfectly entertaining on the merits of the magic alone.

This is actually relatively common in the magical arts. Silent and story-less performances are frequent - relying on the mystifying and surprising qualities of the magic to entertain. This is much easier for magicians than manipulators, because for magicians it is the magic that is the entertaining quality. It's the fact of the unknown. The mysterious.

Not for us. With manipulators, everything is out in the open, everything is known. We can't entertain based on the mysterious or unknown (at least not nearly as easily), thus we must get creative.

Don't think like a magician. You're not trying to be one.

Plot, music and other entertainment devices are not exclusive to magic. We're not thinking like magicians. We're thinking like entertainers.

This goes for magicians, too! If they're "thinking like magicians", they're doing it wrong. You should be thinking like a performer, an entertainer, and thus the first and last thing that should matter to you is "how can I make this as thoroughly entertaining as possible?"

Wow, way to discount an entire artform. Even if you were to consider both Card handling and juggling in terms of possible individual motions, they are both infinite.

Not true for either one - the motions for both are technically finite, even if extremely large in number. However, on a purely technical level, card handling is inherently more variable than juggling. It's just math. There are 52 cards. Unless you're juggling 52 pins or balls at the same time, you're going to be able to do fewer motions. And, even if you had 52 of them, you would still be forced to do fewer motions overall because of their size.

Don't get me wrong - I love juggling; I'm not discounting anything. I'm just stating the math of it, and how it isn't altogether applicable as an analogue.

Best,
Vince
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
Absolutely relates to the amount of skill. Trying and failing makes us be able to relate to someone who can do something that we failed at - even if they make it look easy. ... The audience doesn't need to be "educated" nor be told a story in order to see and feel "magic" in the non magical. It's an observation based on experience, not my opinion or hypothesis.

With all due respect, you're not understanding me I think.

You say we're not limited to 5 minutes of sybils. Of course not. But the point I'm trying to make is that I couldn't tell you what a sybil is, and therefore by definition, I can't tell you what ISN'T a sybil. To someone who is as uneducated as I am, most flourishes look the same. So, you may not be doing 5 minutes of sybils, but you might as well be because I can't tell the difference anyway. Therefore, something like flourishing is inherently esoteric, because without some education on what is going on, it's incredibly repetitive if it's a purely skill based display. However, if you add in an emotional hook, it suddenly doesn't matter if I don't understand what's going on because I can enjoy the story or whatever which is enhanced by the flourishing.

The same thing happens with most manipulation acts I've seen, and I've seen a lot of them as well. There's not such a difference between a Mill's Mess, a Rubenstein's Revenge or perfect Columns pattern, unless you know about juggling. Also, a Mill's Mess with 5 balls looks little different to a Mill's Mess with 3 balls, so the uneducated spectator just gets a sense of, "That one is more difficult than the other." There's no real understanding of the difference of difficulty.

Watching someone juggle for 5 minutes with no theatrical element put into it is boring. It doesn't matter if they start with one ball and keep adding in more until they're doing 7 ball cascades effortlessly, because it's just juggling at that point. You've already had 4 minutes to grow accustomed to it and to be able to predict that the juggler will, in fact, succeed in adding another ball to the mix. It's impressive, but it gets old fast. You have to be someone that really likes juggling to watch that. I can't.

Singing is its own case, really. Sort of like painting. You can look at a painting and enjoy it without understanding the technique, because there is more to it than the technique. The visual or auditory pleasure derived doesn't even rely on the skill of the performer/artist, as the lyrics can be meaningful as well or the picture can just look cool. They don't really fall into the same categories.
 

Andrei

Elite Member
Sep 2, 2007
439
24
35
Las Vegas
www.youtube.com
That depends on the craft. Not all are the same, not all are as enjoyable or relatable as all others.



Because a breakdancer doesn't need that to be entertaining. We watch them just to see some slick moves. And it's a demonstration of very in-you-face and direct talent. It's big, showy. Card handling is inherently more subtle and nuanced.

That's where we disagree. Lay people watch cardistry for the exact same reasons. To see some slick moves. Definitely in your face type stuff. Sure, doing smaller moves that all look the same gets repetitive, all comes down to style.

There's a big gap between owning a deck of cards and being able to tell the difference between the myriad fans, cuts, spreads and other moves typically performed by manipulators.

My viewpoint is only the way it is as borne from experience. I've performed at the Magic Castle, at parties, for groups large and small. I've done both magic and manipulation, and one thing I've noticed from these experiences is people have a much harder time appreciating pure-manipulation acts.

Of course there is a gap. There's an even larger gap between trying a backflip and seeing flare work on a pommel horse. Still enjoyable despite the "disconnect". That's not the point. The point is that skill based crafts are inherently enjoyable to watch. That's the point, to appreciate their beauty in motion. No connection/education necessary.

I've performed cardistry on stage for an entire year in the middle of Amazing Jonathan's show (incorporating comedy) and have done performances for Cirque Du Soleil in a theater of 1200. We're talking about Vegas crowds that didn't come to see magic, and they loved it every night. Could I have done a thousand times better? Undeniably. In every aspect. Some nights I was terrible and failed miserably. Point being, lack of story is not an indicator of an inferior / underdeveloped act that cannot be appreciated due to "disconnect".

Some of the best magical performances were carried out with absolutely no patter, no story, and no talking at all. The performer was clever enough to come up with something engaging enough that it was perfectly entertaining on the merits of the magic alone.

This is actually relatively common in the magical arts. Silent and story-less performances are frequent - relying on the mystifying and surprising qualities of the magic to entertain. This is much easier for magicians than manipulators, because for magicians it is the magic that is the entertaining quality. It's the fact of the unknown. The mysterious.

Not for us. With manipulators, everything is out in the open, everything is known. We can't entertain based on the mysterious or unknown (at least not nearly as easily), thus we must get creative.

I have no doubt about it! Card manipulation is one that definitely comes to mind (card productions, vanishes, etc.) and it's awesome. Requires no talking, story, or patter. Doesn't that kind of strengthen what I've been trying to say? It doesn't need to have mystery on it's side to be appreciated, it's mystery has nothing to do with it's beauty. I think I speak for most people that after watching 5 minutes of these kinds of acts, the audience knows it's some clever manipulation but it doesn't matter at that point. Fooled or not, it undeniably looks beautiful. That's exactly what I mean by magician's way of thinking. You're using magic as a benchmark for judging why "card handling" works well. All I'm saying, is it's okay to let a skill be appreciated as a skill. It's not inferior to those alternatives because it's not "mysterious". You don't have to try to fit a square peg in a round hole. The only similarity between a cardist and magician, is the tool. Perhaps we've had vastly different experiences with our styles and performances.

Plot, music and other entertainment devices are not exclusive to magic. We're not thinking like magicians. We're thinking like entertainers.

This goes for magicians, too! If they're "thinking like magicians", they're doing it wrong. You should be thinking like a performer, an entertainer, and thus the first and last thing that should matter to you is "how can I make this as thoroughly entertaining as possible?"

Agreed with that. I believe I've said those elements are not exclusive. However, due to cardistry's deep roots in magic, I feel everyone thinks the only direction to go with cardistry is story, patter, and character and all else is "missing the point". That's a very cliché approach. It's certainly one of many possible directions but I don't believe I stated that it couldn't or shouldn't be pursued. I did however say that it's possible to put on a great show as the skill being the center point of beauty/entertainment and proceeded to give observations I've made over the course of my entire life of seeing shows.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Andrei

Elite Member
Sep 2, 2007
439
24
35
Las Vegas
www.youtube.com
With all due respect, you're not understanding me I think.

You say we're not limited to 5 minutes of sybils. Of course not. But the point I'm trying to make is that I couldn't tell you what a sybil is, and therefore by definition, I can't tell you what ISN'T a sybil. To someone who is as uneducated as I am, most flourishes look the same. So, you may not be doing 5 minutes of sybils, but you might as well be because I can't tell the difference anyway. Therefore, something like flourishing is inherently esoteric, because without some education on what is going on, it's incredibly repetitive if it's a purely skill based display. However, if you add in an emotional hook, it suddenly doesn't matter if I don't understand what's going on because I can enjoy the story or whatever which is enhanced by the flourishing.

In that case you haven't seen good cardistry. Or at least "somewhat all encompassing". It certainly does not look all the same. Again, all subjective. No one is asking that you know the difference between a sybil 720 and a half pipe 360 twist from the bird of baba ganoush. Just sit back, relax, and enjoy the eye candy. You personally may need a story to enjoy the big picture, however some can and will enjoy the beauty and dedication involved regardless. I've experienced both. Although again, my critiques have mainly come from magicians who strongly believe I need some patter. Well... some color changes too. Oh heck, why not a card trick. In all seriousness - just the first three...

I remember showing "Howard Smith" (a friend of ours who did steadicam work for the Matrix and Harry Potter films) some cardistry. Showed him some great magic too (I love doing magic just for fun), great reaction. He later asks, "Can you show my friend some stuff?". So I proceed to do DM's Angle Zero (powerful trick) and he responds, "No no, not the magic #(*$, just the pretty manipulation stuff". The point I'm trying to make is, it's all subjective. In Howard's case (who's a very blunt guy from the UK), he enjoyed cardistry a lot more. Perhaps because he is an engineer who invents his own rigs and appreciates calculated displays, precision work and discipline. Perhaps it's because my magic sucked. I know I'm not the greatest, but I think it was a performance far from horrible ha.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vinnie C.

cardistry moderator / t11
Aug 31, 2007
352
2
Los Angeles, CA
Again, I won't reply to the points that will get repetitive, just the ones I think we can continue to get some mileage out of for the sake of the conversation. :) As below:

I've performed cardistry on stage for an entire year in the middle of Amazing Jonathan's show (incorporating comedy) and have done performances for Cirque Du Soleil in a theater of 1200. We're talking about Vegas crowds that didn't come to see magic, and they loved it every night.

You just described two acts that were not pure-manipulation. People came to see Amazing Jonathan - a comedian and magician - to see a magic and comedy show. You were a segment within that, but you were not the entire show (you also stated that you included comedy).

Cirque Du Soleil is an acrobatic and (very high-end) circus act. Again, you're not the center of attention, you flavor a larger performance that is not pure-manipulation.

I mean no disrespect to your performances, I'm sure they were great, I'm just saying that you're kind of strengthening my point.

Doesn't that kind of strengthen what I've been trying to say? It doesn't need to have mystery on it's side to be appreciated, it's mystery has nothing to do with it's beauty.

No one is talking about "mystery" as an essential component. I'm talking about entertainment, whatever that takes or involves for an individual performance. I don't care about mystery.

You're using magic as a benchmark for judging why "card handling" works well. All I'm saying, is it's okay to let a skill be appreciated as a skill. It's not inferior to those alternatives because it's not "mysterious".

Again, I'm not comparing manipulation to magic. I have no problem with letting a skill be appreciated as such, but my sole and only focus is on delivering exactly what spectators want. From my experience, questions and research, they don't just want some Joe Schmoe standing on a platform fiddling with cards. They want a production. They want a show.


All in all, we have our agreements and our disagreements. We've made our points, and everything else is going to end up being a lot of repeating and going about in circles, ha.

Best,
Vince
 

Andrei

Elite Member
Sep 2, 2007
439
24
35
Las Vegas
www.youtube.com
Again, I won't reply to the points that will get repetitive, just the ones I think we can continue to get some mileage out of for the sake of the conversation. :) As below:



You just described two acts that were not pure-manipulation. People came to see Amazing Jonathan - a comedian and magician - to see a magic and comedy show. You were a segment within that, but you were not the entire show (you also stated that you included comedy).

Cirque Du Soleil is an acrobatic and (very high-end) circus act. Again, you're not the center of attention, you flavor a larger performance that is not pure-manipulation.

I mean no disrespect to your performances, I'm sure they were great, I'm just saying that you're kind of strengthening my point.

Correct. I wasn't discussing from a perspective of building an entire show. That's a whole different discussion in and of itself. To quickly address that though, it's certainly possible to create a show based entirely around it with skill as the main center point. Granted, you need to add various elements of show biz to make it work, something I've said from the start. However, again - doesn't need a coherent story / patter. Does it help? Sure! Didn't say it wouldn't.

Watch some cirque shows and you'll know what I mean - especially the earlier ones. There are almost no grand stories, and if there ever are, they're so disjointed and convoluted, it makes no sense and most people fail to realize there ever was one. Still, it's eye candy and feels magical because the skill and dedication is unbelievable. It's 90% acrobatics. In this case, it would be the same as saying, "Guys, you really think you can put on a show doing just tricks with your bodies for an hour? Come on, that's a very archaic approach, you need a story and patter to evolve." That would be simply untrue, as in this case. Sure, it has live singing, lights, costumes, etc. Those are "flourishes" if you will, enhancing the show. Hence, borrowed elements and I'm all for that. Much like the cardistry act with AJ using comedy - a borrowed element. For that moment, it was it's own small show that entertained. Definitely possible to take that 100 steps further. It's just not my goal, I'm not the guy who can entertain a crowd without the cards. Solo entertainers can entertain on many levels of show biz. That takes a lifelong commitment to get to that level. I'm just not one of them, wasn't my goal. I never needed a story. Rather, I approached entertainment purely based out of the beauty of motion, dedication and skill - as I believe those are my better strengths. I believe I've exercised them to a reasonably good degree and will continue pushing on that front. If you're that entertainer, that's awesome, and I certainly commend you for your success. Apparently you know show biz very well and what good objective entertainment is so I'm very excited to see your show. However, going back full circle to what I said from the start. Prior to criticizing, debating and "giving advice" (as this overall thread's discussion), it's important to understand the author/performer's intentions and goals.

Again, I'm not comparing manipulation to magic. I have no problem with letting a skill be appreciated as such, but my sole and only focus is on delivering exactly what spectators want. From my experience, questions and research, they don't just want some Joe Schmoe standing on a platform fiddling with cards. They want a production. They want a show.

Perhaps that's where our experiences differ. However, that's kind of a gross oversimplification of what I've been trying to say. I don't believe I implied or insisted that people should be "standing on a platform fiddling with cards". As I've said, borrow those elements from show biz, many ways of structuring it. Applies to both a big production show (as with Cirque), and a smaller act within a larger context (as in my case with AJ and Cirque).

All I've said is that the art has grown enough for "all intensive purposes" in order to expand and take that next personal step forward. None of my points are very subjective, just an observation that cardistry as a skill, does not need a story to be appreciated on a small or grand scale if done right. I've provided specific examples of this observation.

...but my sole and only focus is on delivering exactly what spectators want. From my experience, questions and research, they don't just want some Joe Schmoe standing on a platform fiddling with cards. They want a production. They want a show.

Is a pretty subjective thing to say as experiences vary from person to person, town to town and culture to culture. I can't really discuss further since you seem to be convinced what people want and what works best for them is entertainment with a story, so I wish you the best of luck!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vinnie C.

cardistry moderator / t11
Aug 31, 2007
352
2
Los Angeles, CA
I can't really discuss further since you seem to be convinced what people want and what works best for them is entertainment with a story, so I wish you the best of luck!

I'd say we both seem pretty "convinced" of our individual ideas. ;)

To summarize the entirety of my point: I don't care about or have personal bias as to what people want - I simply observe it and deliver it. Whether that is story or not, skill or not, etc. It doesn't matter to me. I don't believe in entering this with any preconceived notions of what is or isn't - only what I have seen, demonstrated and experienced consistently and for sure. That is my yardstick, and those statistics will serve me well; as they demonstrate the likelihood of future audiences enjoying what previous audiences have enjoyed. :)

Best,
Vince
 
Just a quick explenation first in post: the following is typed out on my phone and will read as if this is the word of god. my writing atyle comes off that way but trust me i mean well. IF i had to produce a carfistry video this is some of the things id consider before doing it.


Well i lack the skills and equipment to make a "good" video but I can tell you what -should- be in it.

First from the technical aspect the cameras. I would work with two cameras filming from different angles. Strait on and 45 - 60 degrees to one side. Your two frames would be tight on the hands and full body at the least. Maybe a couple bust shots mixed in for good measure.

I think the scene should be urban. Streets or park. Ideally Get a couple people to watch as spectators. Give them notes to make their reactions big but not cheesy or forced. Make sure the second camera catches some of their reactions for editing in later.

Character. The character should be the paragon of card handling They should ooze confidence, and it shoul show from their physicality, facial expressions, and card manipulations. The point is to show off and say "look at me! This is hard and yes I'm that @$)@ good!"

Costume. Dress Casual with a young edgy look. Black slacks black shoes. Button down dress shirt with metallic fluer de lis or crosses on it, solid color T shirt underneath. Contrasting from the over shirt. Warm colors. Reds or Blues. Leave top 3 buttons undone. Possible silver necklace. Black fedora like hat. Don't know what they are called exactly.

The look should be comfortable but should stand out against the surroundings and spectator.

The "story" is a demonstration of pure skill starting with a few simple warm up flourishes to the increasingly difficult moves.
For good measure the set should start with a deck production. Maybe end with a deck vanish.
Maybe include a color change?

Set length should be 3 to 5 minutes or the length of one song.

Music can be used to keep timing of moves in sync but should be dubbed in to the video in post. The music should be without sung lyrics if possible but it is more important that the music works with the performance. Since this is all about skill is say something with a quick pulse poundin beat that makes you want to move.

Thi isn't the only way. This isn't even what I'm sayin should be done format wise. I am just saying if I had the skill and resources this is the video I'd produce.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 29, 2011
703
17
I definitely disagree with this. Take club juggling, for instance. You can't bend them, so you are limited. Therefore, not infinite. Every prop introduces its own limitations, it's up to the artist to explore those limits and push them.

That is a limitation of juggling clubs, not juggling, you could get clubs that flex. Balls, rings and clubs are generally regarded as the three most common, but there are thousands more, and it all depends on what your definition of juggling is, but even with limitations of certain props you can still achieve unlimited amounts of motions.

Not true for either one - the motions for both are technically finite, even if extremely large in number. However, on a purely technical level, card handling is inherently more variable than juggling. It's just math. There are 52 cards. Unless you're juggling 52 pins or balls at the same time, you're going to be able to do fewer motions. And, even if you had 52 of them, you would still be forced to do fewer motions overall because of their size.

Don't get me wrong - I love juggling; I'm not discounting anything. I'm just stating the math of it, and how it isn't altogether applicable as an analogue.

Best,
Vince

I dont really understand your point about maths. Taking into account the amount of permutations of a deck of cards, do you mean you can do a Charlier cut 8*10^67 different ways? You can still do a sybil with 5 cards, your point only really makes sense if you came up with a 52 packet cut. If you only have 3 juggling balls or only 3 cards you can still do almost anything with them.
 

Vinnie C.

cardistry moderator / t11
Aug 31, 2007
352
2
Los Angeles, CA
I dont really understand your point about maths. Taking into account the amount of permutations of a deck of cards, do you mean you can do a Charlier cut 8*10^67 different ways? You can still do a sybil with 5 cards, your point only really makes sense if you came up with a 52 packet cut. If you only have 3 juggling balls or only 3 cards you can still do almost anything with them.

Let me clarify: my point is that a deck of cards can be fanned, spread, sprung, cut, dribbled, tossed, and juggled. Pins or balls have far fewer possible combinations than those listed above, given their shape, size and quantity.

While 52-packet displays are possible, they are butt-ugly and hard as hell, so that's not as much what I'm referring to. Thing is, while pins and balls can be juggled, tossed, bounced, etc, you are limited in your quantity and range of movement (all movements having to be some variation of tossing or bouncing them, unless you begin to move into the field of Contact Juggling).

Cards are small, springy and numerous. This makes unique and varied motions with them far easier and larger in number.

To use your example, with 3 balls I can juggle them and bounce them. With 3 cards I can juggle them, bounce them, toss them, fan them (crudely), cut them (one and two-handed), do a crude dribble, spring, spread, etc.

I don't mean this to be an argument. I love juggling, and a lot of it takes far more coordination and strength than many people posses. My point isn't to detract from juggling at all, only to state that the two arts are certainly different.

Best,
Vince
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
Andrei - I have a lot of respect for you as someone who has actually taken this to a professional level. However, I wonder how objective you can be here. Clearly you are someone who is interested in skill for skill's sake. I am not.

I've been in the object manipulation/circus scene for a little over 11 years now. I've written circus shows and acts. I may never have been in front of an audience as large as you've done, but I have noticed a distinct trend. The shows I've done which were just skill-based never did as well as shows that were character-based.

I understand the amount of time, practice and dedication that goes into learning a physical skill to the level that you've taken it. I also understand that, really, the only thing separating me and you is that practice time. Therefore, watching you do various flourishes doesn't really impress me, because I know it's just a matter of practice. Anyone can learn any skill, given enough dedication.

You say that I just haven't seen good flourishing and that's why I can't tell flourishes apart. Well, I've watched videos by Dan & Dave, yourself, Bone Ho, De'vo ... I can't tell them apart. Other than the obvious differences of, "That's a one handed cut, that's a two handed cut ... that's an in-the-hands card house ... that one goes up the arm .. " etc., it all looks the same to me. I'm sorry, but flipping a card over the fingers of your left hand looks the same as flipping a card over the fingers of your right hand. Taking a packet of cards and tossing it back onto the deck isn't that much different to me than tossing a packet of cards up and kicking it up like a hackey sack. The only difference there is someone put the time into the kicking part.

And that's why I get bored with flourishing videos. All I get from them is "Watch me practice". If there's no story, why do I care? I understand that it's the culmination of a huge number of hours of practice and I can respect that. But I don't care about it.

And I thoroughly believe it's completely valid to spend your spare time developing whatever skill you want to develop. There's no need to create a show out of that skill if you don't want to. Anything that is satisfying to the person doing it is worthwhile to me. I say these things strictly for those that want to create a show. Who want to have something that people like me will enjoy watching. Feel free to ignore my words, I won't mind.

Cirque may have started out with shows that didn't have as much story or character, but they are more successful now than ever and their modern shows do focus on story and character. In my opinion, Ka is vastly superior to Zoomanity for that reason. While I enjoyed both shows, I would much rather see Ka again because the story was what hooked me. Zoomanity didn't have much of a story and while I do enjoy the skills shown and the subject matter is of interest to me, a story compels me far more.

That is a limitation of juggling clubs, not juggling, you could get clubs that flex. Balls, rings and clubs are generally regarded as the three most common, but there are thousands more, and it all depends on what your definition of juggling is, but even with limitations of certain props you can still achieve unlimited amounts of motions.

No, you are limited. Clubs that flex are no longer clubs, they're something else. By definition, a club doesn't bend. Now, you could go into something like rings, or even some funky spring thing. Hell, I've even seen a really good juggling act that used toilet plungers. But every prop has restrictions and juggling is restricted to what can be done and still be considered juggling. Juggling has a few definitions, but I have always subscribed to, "Juggling is the act of controlling more objects than you have hands for." Contact juggling pushes that definition, but it's not actually the same skill as toss juggling.

I'm not saying you can't create amazing things with juggling, but if you don't acknowledge the limitations you will never be able to push them.
 
Dec 29, 2011
703
17
No, you are limited. Clubs that flex are no longer clubs, they're something else. By definition, a club doesn't bend. Now, you could go into something like rings, or even some funky spring thing. Hell, I've even seen a really good juggling act that used toilet plungers. But every prop has restrictions and juggling is restricted to what can be done and still be considered juggling. Juggling has a few definitions, but I have always subscribed to, "Juggling is the act of controlling more objects than you have hands for." Contact juggling pushes that definition, but it's not actually the same skill as toss juggling.

I'm not saying you can't create amazing things with juggling, but if you don't acknowledge the limitations you will never be able to push them.

We are not disagreeing with each other, and I'm not, not acknowledging the limitations, creating a flexible juggling club as opposed to a regular one is pushing he limitations. Juggling has no limits, props do. Juggling is still juggling no matter what you use. Again we're back to the definition, yes contact and toss juggling are different, both are called juggling, 300 years ago magic was called juggling, its up to you what counts and what doesn't. Still, even with only toss juggling the possibilities are endless, even more so to include the immeasurable amount of props and styles there are and could be.
 
Dec 29, 2011
703
17
Let me clarify: my point is that a deck of cards can be fanned, spread, sprung, cut, dribbled, tossed, and juggled. Pins or balls have far fewer possible combinations than those listed above, given their shape, size and quantity.

While 52-packet displays are possible, they are butt-ugly and hard as hell, so that's not as much what I'm referring to. Thing is, while pins and balls can be juggled, tossed, bounced, etc, you are limited in your quantity and range of movement (all movements having to be some variation of tossing or bouncing them, unless you begin to move into the field of Contact Juggling).

Cards are small, springy and numerous. This makes unique and varied motions with them far easier and larger in number.

To use your example, with 3 balls I can juggle them and bounce them. With 3 cards I can juggle them, bounce them, toss them, fan them (crudely), cut them (one and two-handed), do a crude dribble, spring, spread, etc.

I don't mean this to be an argument. I love juggling, and a lot of it takes far more coordination and strength than many people posses. My point isn't to detract from juggling at all, only to state that the two arts are certainly different.

Best,
Vince

Are you a juggler? If so you sound like a fan of the WJF competitions. I just don't think you are thinking about juggling creatively enough. Yes the majority of popular juggling is toss variations, but how are they all not unique individual motions? Thats like saying most movements in cardistry are packet cuts, so they all count as one. Just in the amount of different ways you can throw a ball from one hand to another is ridiculous, and makes it ridiculous to even try to count, let alone compare of the amount of different ways to manipulate cards. You can do much more with three juggling balls than toss and bounce them my friend.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Juggling has no limits,

What about the laws of physics?

People need to stop pretending that limitations are a bad thing. Limitations are what drives innovation in the first place. Didn't any of you ever play the Mass Effect games? "Limitations drive progress. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Can't carry load, so invent wheel."

Juggling does have limitations. But working within those limitations is what makes the act impressive, not counting the human element of course. The same is true of magic and mentalism. If there were no limitations, and literally anything was possible, we would get bored pretty quickly and the arts would stagnate because there would be nowhere to go. It's like handing someone a blank piece of paper and a pencil and saying, "Draw anything." Sure, they'll eventually get around to it, but they're going to spend a lot of time trying to narrow down the list of "anything" to "something."
 
Dec 20, 2012
58
0
The thread that keeps on giving!
I am very much enjoying this discussion, many well worded thoughts to ponder.
 

Andrei

Elite Member
Sep 2, 2007
439
24
35
Las Vegas
www.youtube.com
Andrei - I have a lot of respect for you as someone who has actually taken this to a professional level. However, I wonder how objective you can be here. Clearly you are someone who is interested in skill for skill's sake. I am not.

I've been in the object manipulation/circus scene for a little over 11 years now. I've written circus shows and acts. I may never have been in front of an audience as large as you've done, but I have noticed a distinct trend. The shows I've done which were just skill-based never did as well as shows that were character-based.

I understand the amount of time, practice and dedication that goes into learning a physical skill to the level that you've taken it. I also understand that, really, the only thing separating me and you is that practice time. Therefore, watching you do various flourishes doesn't really impress me, because I know it's just a matter of practice. Anyone can learn any skill, given enough dedication.

While I appreciate that, if you think about what you just stated, wouldn't that apply to just about everything? That seems like an easy way to write anything off. "I could do that too if I really wanted to". Appreciating something (anything and everything in life) has nothing to do with time you could have invested in doing the same. I don't see this as being a valid point. I could say the same - anyone can skip the practice time and write a story, because they're too lazy to dedicate themselves to learning something very difficult. Any random shmoe can write a story and say, "Well wouldn't it be cool if....?" Again, such a subjective thing to say.

You say that I just haven't seen good flourishing and that's why I can't tell flourishes apart. Well, I've watched videos by Dan & Dave, yourself, Bone Ho, De'vo ... I can't tell them apart. Other than the obvious differences of, "That's a one handed cut, that's a two handed cut ... that's an in-the-hands card house ... that one goes up the arm .. " etc., it all looks the same to me. I'm sorry, but flipping a card over the fingers of your left hand looks the same as flipping a card over the fingers of your right hand. Taking a packet of cards and tossing it back onto the deck isn't that much different to me than tossing a packet of cards up and kicking it up like a hackey sack. The only difference there is someone put the time into the kicking part.

Well that's unfortunate for you then. If you can't see the stark differences between above said techniques, then that's 1 more thing you can't enjoy in life. I can honestly say you'd be the first I've heard say that and that's totally fine. Your personal taste. However, I fail to see how incorporating a story would do you any better. Why should a story make you care about cardistry? If it does make you care, how does it all of the sudden make you appreciate the beauty in motion? Because it has meaning? So now meaning gives you the sudden ability to distinguish things thus making it not boring?

Not everyone needs a story with a meaning to enjoy the beauty in front of them. I think that's the point I've made from the start. If you don't like it and find it boring, then that's fine. No one can convince you otherwise. Just like someone may dislike a specific food. No amount of "presentation" is going to change the taste. "But the chef put so much effort into this dish, it's his life long pursuit since he was 5, it's his dream to be doing this!" -"Awesome, don't care".

I've seen nearly every Cirque show time and time again. KA sure does have a story (not the greatest at telling it, I remember first time I watched it) but Mystere does not, and it's been kicking ass for the last 10+ years. Still a sell out. Same with "O". That's just a few of many. I remember going to see "BELIEVE" (Angel's show), both times I've seen it, audience reaction is "please stop talking and just do some magic tricks, I don't care to hear your stories, too much talking and not enough doing". It can be argued both ways. Ultimately what saved it for them was the Cirque aspect which were the dancers, although Cirque has long since pulled out of the production. Now it's really, way too much talking. Most simply do not care. So perhaps I can throw the same question back at you. Don't you think you may be biased as someone who loves magic and always wants to hear a story? Of course you are, and so am I but that's the beauty of it - you don't have to be biased towards something to enjoy it. That's why we have different audiences.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results