Styles of Flourishing

Oct 14, 2009
127
0
I'm not sure whether or not this has been discussed as its own topic in the past, but I couldn't find anything on it when searching other threads.

I've noticed that there seem to be two main, distinct styles of flourishing. One style is heavy on card/hand/arm flairs along with complex displays, while the other main style focuses more on complex cutting without much extra flair.

The first style, which focuses on flairs and displays, seems to rely on making the sequences look more complex by waving hands or adding flair cards. Artists such as Andrei Jikh and De'vo (among many others) seem to have this as there main style of flourishing. There's a new cardistry video in the media section called Helix that shows off this style of flourishing (along with many many many others, but this one just came to mind). Also, most cardistry videos created before the release of the Trilogy have this style (which leads right into my next point)...

The other style, which focuses heavily on cuts, seems to be the main style for artists such as Brian Tudor and Dan and Dave and Dave. Rarely (or at all) have I seen them wave there hands all around holding a cut or creating a giant display (except the Leno Cut, but that's within a gigantic cutting sequence and doesn't really have a definite shape). All in all, this style of flourishing focues on the smoothness of multiple cuts and rarely has any card/hand/arm flair.

Daniel Madison is someone who seems to have a balance between the two styles, but still seems to lean more towards the Dan and Dave style. An example of his balance between the two styles would be his Asybil. It has obviously a lot of cutting, but ends in a fancy display.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on the two different styles. What are your thoughts? And do you have a preference?

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No offense, but I don't believe De'vo really has a style. XCM doesn't really have a ROCK solid style. They do "wave" their hands, but it isn't as "stylish" , "complex" , or "stunning" as cardists do. XCMers really lack the essence of what style really is. It isn't to just "flash" your cards here and there, but do so in an artistic and smooth manner.
Heres an example:
You see an XCMer do an armpread, turnover, and then catch like a robot. What seperates an XCMer and a person who has never experienced flourishing is nothing. A Laymen can learn to do an armspread, a laymen can learn to do the turnover and catch. But he can't achieve it with style. No style, it kind of gets boring after a little while watching the same moves.
But when you see a cardist add style, flair, and finesse it fits together really well.

But yeah there are different "styles"; cardistry, XCM, and flourishing. Flourishing is pretty much what you see D&D do. Cardistry is what you see Andrei Jikh do. And XCM is what you see De'vo do. But arguably even though XCM is a "style" I really don't see any. They rely soley on the moves to keep their audience entertained, and not their on personal flair,elegance, and style put into the moves. You could show a bunch of one handed cuts with you hands stationary.......boring.....and lame. Or you could put your own twist, movement and style to make it worth watching. Whoaaaaa how many times did I say style. Cardists do it with style, while most XCMers don't.
 
Aug 10, 2008
2,051
1
30
In a rock concert
an armpread, turnover, and then catch like a robot. What seperates an XCMer and a person who has never experienced flourishing is nothing. A Laymen can learn to do an armspread, a laymen can learn to do the turnover and catch. But he can't achieve it with style. No style, it kind of gets boring after a little while watching the same moves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LASIlk8Wk4

Yeah, pretty boring...

I actually enjoy this more than Andrei's :)

You are welcome for the correction there MLB.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LASIlk8Wk4

Yeah, pretty boring...

I actually enjoy this more than Andrei's :)

You are welcome for the correction there MLB.

Yeah of course, because I said that MOST don't. There are exceptions. And of course you didn't read my post and then resorted to pull Fatfingerz and Matt vlasanko on me. They actually have some style.
But seriously, XCM IN GENERAL if you watch a guy who is completely immobile and just moves his hands then whats the excitement? Why can't you incorporate movement like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Mwj699wkk

Yeah thats style. Something that you lack in magic too.
 
Aug 10, 2008
2,051
1
30
In a rock concert
Yeah of course, because I said that MOST don't. There are exceptions. And of course you didn't read my post and then resorted to pull Fatfingerz and Matt vlasanko on me. They actually have some style.

Exuse me, But I didn't saw the word "most" in your last post. That's why I thought you were talking about everybody.

BTW, Didn't Andrei came from De'vo site and XCM too? I have seen some of his younger videos, and he was doing also arm spreads, one handed cuts, fans, and things of the like.

And to this day, I still see him doing armspreads and packet cuts and one handed cuts (in his own amasing style obviously) so.... He did XCM before, and he still does XCm now, but because he does it a little bit diferently it is called Cardistry?

I always related Cardistry to DnD and Daniel Madison, Because, after all that's the description for their dvd's:

Volume II is entitled Motion, teaching d+M's signature style of flourishing and cardistry. Each disc is over 60 minutes in length - jam packed with rock-solid material.

Dude, I know you like what you do, and that you think you know about what you enjoy. But I have seen you multiple times falling on the arrogancy of thinking that you always have the last word.

You simply don't.

And I don't also :)
 
Jun 10, 2010
1,361
1
Dude, I know you like what you do, and that you think you know about what you enjoy. But I have seen you multiple times falling on the arrogancy of thinking that you always have the last word.

You simply don't.

And I don't also :)

You're right. I do.
Dibs on the last word.
 
Jun 10, 2010
1,361
1
I tend to find that d+M's stuff has lots of aerial packets... I took forever to get used to the fact that most of the flourishes on Motion need me to throw my cards everywhere..
 
May 9, 2008
610
0
Yeah of course, because I said that MOST don't. There are exceptions. And of course you didn't read my post and then resorted to pull Fatfingerz and Matt vlasanko on me. They actually have some style.
But seriously, XCM IN GENERAL if you watch a guy who is completely immobile and just moves his hands then whats the excitement? Why can't you incorporate movement like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Mwj699wkk

Yeah thats style. Something that you lack in magic too.


Is that a video of cardistry or XCM? I think you think it's a video of cardistry. I found that to be a video XCM. The truth is, they are pretty much the same thing. It's just what forums you visit it's called a different thing. At handlordz they call flourishing XCM, here at theory11, they call it cardistry. Now the people at handlordz may not like 2 handed-cuts, but they definitly exist. De'vo himself has a few of his own 2 handed cuts. The "cardistry" community focuses on 2 handed cuts. Bottom line, it's all part of the same thing... playing card flourishing.
 

Andrei

Elite Member
Sep 2, 2007
443
23
32
Las Vegas
www.youtube.com
Not to interject in your discussion but I personally stay away from "flourishing" as it is what people like De'vo fought for in the beginning of their career, to separate the pure nature of card manipulation from magic. Establishing its own unique name was the first step. (Whether we agree or disagree as to what it should be called and the method by which it was/should be established is another discussion in and of itself).

However, Flourishing is a term that was used to describe card manipulation as a subset of magic and that is fact. I personally respect that step in our evolution process and stay away from that name because to me personally, it is a step backward. Although, I still refer to individual moves as "flourishes" - I should make a mental note to refrain from doing so.

-Andrei Jikh
 
May 9, 2008
610
0
Not to interject in your discussion but I personally stay away from "flourishing" as it is what people like De'vo fought for in the beginning of their career, to separate the pure nature of card manipulation from magic. Establishing its own unique name was the first step. (Whether we agree or disagree as to what it should be called and the method by which it was/should be established is another discussion in and of itself).

However, Flourishing is a term that was used to describe card manipulation as a subset of magic and that is fact. I personally respect that step in our evolution process and stay away from that name because to me personally, it is a step backward. Although, I still refer to individual moves as "flourishes" - I should make a mental note to refrain from doing so.

-Andrei Jikh


Please, feel free to interject. We appreciate the artists taking part in our discussions.

When would be a good time to have the discussion. Maybe you could talk to JB and we could have a roundtable discussion.

Even though flourishing at one time was seen only as a subset of magic, it has definitely evolved since then and branched out on it's own. If we shouldn't call a move a "flourish" because it's a step backwards, what term do we coin for a move of cardistry? Is the Revolver change that you tought a "flourish", is it "magic", is it "cardistry"? What is it? I know you don't want cardistry to be confused with magic, but you yourself have dabbled in magic. When you perform the Revolver change for people, wouldn't it be safe for someone to assume that you are a magician? Furthermore, when you do cardistry, wouldn't it be safe to assume that you are flourishing cards?

Theory11 itself has "Cardistry/Flourishing" as the title for the forum. Theory11 is at it's heart a magic site, so by connection to magic "flourishing" is involved. However it's also called a "cardistry epicenter." Have you had discussions with JB about differentiating "flourishing" from "cardistry"? It's difficult to do because so many of the moves from "flourishing" are used in "cardistry".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Andrei

Elite Member
Sep 2, 2007
443
23
32
Las Vegas
www.youtube.com
There's nothing necessarily wrong with calling a move a "flourish", I was just being picky. However, a great alternative can be "card stunt". Either way, no one person on earth has the authority to set the trend on what something is or should be called. It is the effort and acknowledgement on the behalf of the whole community which is why Cardistry is as popular as it is. It is not because Richard or Theory11 one day decided the fate of the art's name, it was a name that was proposed by Richard, caught on, and people stuck with it ever since - whereas XCM was more authoritatively pushed and upon closer examination was heavily criticized.

The Revolver is a color change, simple as that. A move/card move/card stunt which may be put into a variety of acts. For example, a flourish act (an act that uses "flourishes" / "card stunts" but focuses primarily on the magic) or a pure magic routine. A perfect example of this is Dan and Dave Buck, they are the "flourish" masters. They do card stunts / flourishes to accent their magic but the focus is more on their magic.

I would advise against putting color changes into a pure Cardistry act (an act focusing on the non magical manipulation of playing cards).

I don't normally perform any color changes for people, however; if they assume I'm a magician because of it, I have no problem. Either way, I may or may not correct or "educate" someone on what I do but I don't care too much for a case of mistaken identity. In this instance however, I feel it is important that people understand the difference.

-Andrei Jikh
 
Last edited by a moderator:
May 9, 2008
610
0
If you don't recommend the Revolver change being used in a strictly cardistry performance/act, then why is it categorized as "cardistry" in the one-on-ones section? Why do you say in the teaching of the Revolver change that it will be definitely something that you'll use in your cardistry performances? It should probably be moved to card magic.
 

Andrei

Elite Member
Sep 2, 2007
443
23
32
Las Vegas
www.youtube.com
If you don't recommend the Revolver change being used in a strictly cardistry performance/act, then why is it categorized as "cardistry" in the one-on-ones section? Why do you say in the teaching of the Revolver change that it will be definitely something that you'll use in your cardistry performances? It should probably be moved to card magic.

It is safe to assume the team grouped it into Cardistry as it is a very "flourishy" color change, perhaps it can go either way.

Personally, I don't classify moves into magic or cardistry. Moves are moves, it is the way they are presented and used within the routine that gives the context of its entirety.

For example... if I were doing a Cardistry performance which focuses on the NON magical manipulation of playing cards, I can do something as ridiculously "magical" as the "Two Card Monte" and if I presented it in a sleight of hand fashion as opposed to the inexplicable nature of changing cards, coupled with a few card stunts (springs, arm-spreads etc.), then I would consider that a Cardistry routine due to the fact that the presentation focuses more on skill as opposed to magic. This is an example of how magic can be used to accent Cardistry. This is why I tend to care less about grouping moves into cardistry or magic until I see them put in context. Effectively, one can indeed utilize color changes and/or magic effects such as Tom Isaacson's Prophet for example if explained/presented right. (Hands are quicker than the eye etc.)

One does not necessarily have to use magic to accent Cardistry - the routine can be pure without any sort of magic accent and is personally my favorite way of presenting a Cardistry act.

-Andrei Jikh
 
Dec 10, 2007
636
0
Texas
I didn't read most of this thread. I only read like the first post then saw you guys debating. I have no idea if this is relevant to you guys' debate because i skimmed through most of it. This is just my response to the first post... Everyone has their own style. Call it what you want, but at the end of the day, we're all doing some kind of manipulation. We can choose to classify it, but what difference will that make to YOU? Remember to open your mind to everything. Don't let mere classifications narrow your mind! -I don't mean to call anyone out xD

-People can call me out on that last statement in so many ways, but I don't care to debate over it -although it's debatable hahaha. It's just my opinion.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results