Cardistry versus 'magic'

[NCMarsh]

I agree with David's conclusion "is your presentation more about you and your needs or about your audience and their needs" but I question the premise that "flourishes are a form of braggadocio which means they are about you."

I certainly think that flourishes can be, and often are, braggadocio -- and that this has a lot to do with the attitude the performer projects.

But, and this is something that I think gets ignored in conversations about flourishes: flourishes can be beautiful.

I love Eugene Burger's description of presentation as the art of "eliminating non-moments"...one way to eliminate a non-moment -- given that it fits the rhythm and context of the piece -- is to give them something visually interesting to look at...a pretty and artful way of handling the cards can make procedures like the return of a card or the shuffling of a deck more entertaining

[Jonathan Townsend]

yes Nathan, and so can dove productions or gratuitous displays of body parts (as regards entertainment)... but that's usually not congruent to the needs of the moment in the flow of action or consistent with the way the performer handles the prop(s).

Why do folks want to combine fan dancing and burlesque with conjuring?

[spike]

One of the principles of prop manipulation used by jugglers is to make the prop appear as if it had a mind of its own, and as if the juggler were just an innocent bystander. In expert hands this is pure magic.

Card manipulation can have that quality, don't you think? Of course it's magical when the magician retrieves your selected card from a shuffled deck; but it's dressing on the cake if the card is revealed in a startling way. I think that the latter leaves the spectator with a very similar sense of wonder as when the magician finds your card. Maybe it's not "conjuring" in a narrow interpretation of the word, but flourishes have been used effectively (in my opinion) by conjurers for a very long time.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Is there a card castle on the market which has a selection rise from the top to give away?

[NCMarsh]

yes Nathan, and so can dove productions or gratuitous displays of body parts (as regards entertainment)... but that's usually not congruent to the needs of the moment in the flow of action or consistent with the way the performer handles the prop(s).

If a flourish is not "congruent to the needs of the moment" then, of course, don't use it.

Your comment about fan dancing and burlesque makes me think that you may have particular performers in mind -- and I'm sure I wouldn't like their work either

The fact that someone painted an awful picture with this brush doesn't mean it is a bad brush.

Flourishes are tools in the box, if a visually interesting moment fits the needs of the piece then use it. If not, don't. But being able to handle your props in a competent and attractive way is not something to be fearful of.

The bigger point, for me, is that we are hyper-aware of the negative connotations of performing magic that we construct these dumb rules in an attempt to refute the stereotypes we hate; and performances end up being guided more by making sure the audience takes us seriously, than out of a desire to give them what they need.

"I hate it when they say 'I wish little Johnny was here;' so I'm going to go out of my way to drive home that what I do is for intelligent adults and I don't do kids!"

"I don't want them to think its just about shiny boxes, so I'm going to use trashy props and clutter the stage so I shine"

"I don't want them to think I'm a show-off, so I can't use any flourishes"

In the end, I think these kinds of self-imposed rules have more to do with our own insecurity -- our desire to prove to the world that what we do is respectable -- than about giving the public a great show. And, in that respect, the desire really isn't that different from the kid who learns the latest 39 packet cut because he thinks it will make him the life of the party

N.

[Michael Kamen]

. . .Why do folks want to combine fan dancing and burlesque with conjuring?

Blame Fitzgee for telling us about "appeals." How successful those may be in the case you are thinking of is another matter.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I have yet to meet someone who conveys the idea that the cards are enchanted and will amuse themselves with fancy cuts etc while the conjurer turns his attention to the audience - though see the option as valid and believe it viable.

[Michael Kamen]

Your approach would have greater magical integrity, but not necessarily achieve the likely objective of such a purveyor, i.e., to find some other means of entertaining the crowd, just in case the magic is not sufficient.

[El Mystico]

An interesting thread. I wonder what Minch would make of his piece now? I think one aspect he is ignoring is the suspension of disbelief. Of course most of our spectators will not go away thinking they have witnessed real magic. But, for the duration of the performnce, you can raise all sorts of things in their minds. Personally, I'll avoid all flourishes, because they would not be congruent with the image I'm presented. But that's just me. I think Minch's last paragraph sums it up though. There are no rules, you need to reach your on decisions...it is good to think these things through.

[Andrew Pinard]

You know, magicians might learn a lot from studying fan dancing and the art of the burlesque strip tease. They are remarkably similar to the process of a magic trick insofar as they tease and cajole the viewer to perceive what the performer wants you to perceive, look where they want you to look establishing expectation and culminate in an experience that feels ultimately not as satisfying as a real, meaningful relationship. [Is he talking about magic or the strip tease?!? ;O)]