Hey I was just wondering if you guys think that a Magician "NEEDS" To know flourishes to be a magician or can he/she get by with being a magician without all that flashy stuff. My hands are small and I just cant get the cool flashy looking stuff sown the right way, but at the same time I don't wanna just give up magic because I cant do flourishes. I know of 2 flashy false cuts but that's about it. I feel like you don't need to know flashy stuff to be a magician since I know david blaine for example very rarely does flourishes during his tricks, but just wanted your opinions on it. Thank you guys!
Template errors
- Template public:font_awesome_setup: [E_USER_WARNING] Template public:font_awesome_setup is unknown (src/XF/Template/Templater.php:781)
- Template public:page_style: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/page_style.php:101)
- Template public:page_style: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/page_style.php:155)
- Template public:uix_config: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/uix_config.php:31)
- Template public:uix_config: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/uix_config.php:32)
Magician need to know Flourishes?
- Thread starter Turbay_Travis
- Start date
In my opinion these fancy dan and dave flourishes can even detract from the feeling of 'magic' moving more towards just a display of skill rather than 'magical ability'. I'm not saying that I think my audiences believe that what I'm doing is real magic but I do want them to view what im doing as impossible. When you lose a card in a deck the do a fancy flourish to 'lose it some more' or even worse find the card the audience despite not knowing exactly what happened can be lead to think that within that flashy display of skill you achieved what you did, which yes can appear clever but not really magical.
Flourishing is a form of juggling, quite literally so and for that reason a modern aspect of slight-of-hand a.k.a. prestidigitation -- magic with the digits. It can be beautiful under certain circumstances but for the most part they are simply a way to show off and have little to no practical application to magic. In fact, there are non-magicians that learn to do this sort of thing for the sake of demonstrating skill with cards, such as professional card dealers (though it's actually discouraged).
I've been involved with magic for 50 years now and I've rarely done more in this area outside basic fanning and card controls and in most of that area I've cheated my butt off when and where possible in that I don't have the level of control many develop with years of patience and labor. Stick with your basics and you'll be fine; learn standard card controls that will aid you in presenting the effects you elect to perform and don't worry about the rest. Maybe, in years down the road, you will decide to learn this element for some special reason; I'm always moving back to my roots and rediscovering material that I once avoided or ignored. You'll do the same if you stick with it but, for the moment, don't sweat it.
I've been involved with magic for 50 years now and I've rarely done more in this area outside basic fanning and card controls and in most of that area I've cheated my butt off when and where possible in that I don't have the level of control many develop with years of patience and labor. Stick with your basics and you'll be fine; learn standard card controls that will aid you in presenting the effects you elect to perform and don't worry about the rest. Maybe, in years down the road, you will decide to learn this element for some special reason; I'm always moving back to my roots and rediscovering material that I once avoided or ignored. You'll do the same if you stick with it but, for the moment, don't sweat it.
I think it depends on your character. I used to play around with a card hustler type character, and clearly that guy should be good at handling cards. I was once asked by an audience member if I could do a spring. She didn't call it a spring, but she mimed it and I got the idea. Every card player in every movie ever can do a spring, so surely I could. My spring at that time was embarrassingly short and came nowhere near the huge one she clearly wanted, I'm a-Freud...I mean "afraid" to say. I believe that detracted from my credibility and therefore the impact of my magic. So, you should definitely develop the skills that your character should have. Are you performing as a psychic? Know your star signs. Are you a card cheat? You'd better have a working knowledge of casino procedure. Is your character superhumanly dextrous? You should probably know some card flourishes then.
Simple flourishes like card fans, spreads, and a few fancy cuts can't hurt to learn, and if done right they enhance the performance. Performing too many flourishes though can be seen as showing off and may not apply to everyone's character.
No, a magician does not need to flourish. A good magician will know one or two flourishes though so that when someone questions them about it, which does happen at gigs occasionally, especially the "can you do the dynamo shuffle?" question, you should be prepared to do something.
I would say to use flourishing to enhance your magic. Like so: If the deck needs to be shuffled, do the one handed shuffle. I think that it's flashy, but in the same way, you are still just shuffling cards. You could use the T.G. deck flip, or a card spring instead of saying something like, "abracadabra". I think it's all in the context of how you use a flourish.
I'm of the 'flourishes detract from the magic' camp. I think it just causes confusion usually. There is not one flourish out there, that cannot be replaced with a more simple action that will probably be more convincing if one is trying not to claim to be a 'sleight of hand' artist.
In the right context they can add to the performance, of course. Just know what your character is, what your style is, and make sure that anything you do speaks to that.
One thing I will say is this - hand size is not your problem. You just need to practice. Yes, it may take some time to stretch your fingers and gain the finger dexterity, but it can happen. When I started magic I couldn't do a Charlier cut. My hands were 'too small' to fit the packets. Then, even though I didn't practice it ever, about six or 8 months in to studying card magic I could do a Charlier cut. A few months after that I realized I could do a scissor cut. Some time later I can do a one handed shuffle. All of this, I was convinced would never happen because my hands were too small. I just needed to practice and get better, and so do you.
In the right context they can add to the performance, of course. Just know what your character is, what your style is, and make sure that anything you do speaks to that.
One thing I will say is this - hand size is not your problem. You just need to practice. Yes, it may take some time to stretch your fingers and gain the finger dexterity, but it can happen. When I started magic I couldn't do a Charlier cut. My hands were 'too small' to fit the packets. Then, even though I didn't practice it ever, about six or 8 months in to studying card magic I could do a Charlier cut. A few months after that I realized I could do a scissor cut. Some time later I can do a one handed shuffle. All of this, I was convinced would never happen because my hands were too small. I just needed to practice and get better, and so do you.
I say no it's not needed and when you incorporate it into you shouldn't use big packet cuts. I use miscellaneous flourishes in a card routine SOMETIMES not all the time. In some situations it could help the flow like just a simple one handed card twirl in my opinion helps the flow of the trick and gives it the elegance and magic feeling. This is all my opinion and I could agree with people when they say it distracts the audience but I come from the newer generation of magicians and most stuff now a days is flashy and visual and people want to get straight to the point and they don't appreciate what magic really is. The book Fahrenheit 451 explains modern day very accurately but I digress. Overall I learn flourishes for fun cause I really enjoy it but I'm definitely a magician and not a flourisher but most of the time I will have a routine of flourishes to show to a group of friends or family.
David Copperfield, when he performs his scorpion card trick, performs a single card spring and it illicits a gasp from the audience. It's a super basic flourish but he gets a great reaction. So keep in mind that keeping it simple can really help.
David Blaine performs some pretty difficult stuff fairly regularly. He is able to pull it off like he is super human. He is thought of by many laymen to be the "real" deal and flourishes do nothing but strengthen his character.
There is a reason why movie companies go to Dan and Dave to do hand doubles for magic movies. There is an expectation that magicians are good with cards. I don't think it takes away from anything to live up to that expectation.
David Blaine performs some pretty difficult stuff fairly regularly. He is able to pull it off like he is super human. He is thought of by many laymen to be the "real" deal and flourishes do nothing but strengthen his character.
There is a reason why movie companies go to Dan and Dave to do hand doubles for magic movies. There is an expectation that magicians are good with cards. I don't think it takes away from anything to live up to that expectation.
Unless you are not going for a 'sleight of hand artist' type performance. Blaine, Dan, and Dave all explicitly say they do sleight of hand. If you're going for a 'magical' character, then displays of skill detract from that because it makes one seem like they are doing sleight of hand instead of 'magic'.
I think this depends on how well your character has been established and how believable it is. For example, if someone saw Uri Geller do a card flourish, I don't think it would do anything to dispel the aura of mysticism he's created. Those who believe in his powers would still believe in them, to them he'd just be a psychic who could do a card flourish. The same could be said of anyone else who's credibly established that they have some sort of power. To give another example, I doubt any good Catholic would dispute Pope John Paul II's right to sainthood if footage emerged of him doing a Sybil. It's only those of us with relatively weak characterisation that are in danger of ruining it with flourishes.
I would posit that Uri Geller doing card tricks at all would seem odd and possibly detract from his image. "Wait .. I thought he bent metal? Why is he doing card tricks?" Maybe I'm way off base but I have never heard of him doing anything with cards.
As for your Pope argument - I'm sorry, but that's so ridiculous that I'm half hoping you're saying that as a joke.
My Pope argument is exactly the same as the Uri Geller argument. I could equally have used Jesus, Mohammed or (my personal favourite mystical figure because he sounds like a Transformer) Metatron as examples. These are all examples of people whose adherents strongly believe in their miraculous powers. In other words, examples of the type of character we should look to analyse if we want to inculcate a similar belief. I absolutely agree that it would be odd for Uri Geller to use cards in a performance but that isn't really relevant. My point is about how what people can get away with is defined by the strength and credibility of their character. I'm not saying that I recommend esoteric mystery performers should start card flourishing, I'm just attacking the issue from a different perspective.
Maybe I haven't been clear though. In a sentence, my point is thus:
If our performance character is so flimsy that making any unusual movements with a deck of cards would destroy its credibility then maybe we haven't done enough to establish ourselves.
I'm sorry, but you're attempting to use an equivalent which isn't there.
Uri Geller was and always has been an entertainer - not a religious leader. Trying to make them out as the same thing is insulting to everyone that has a belief system or religion. The Pope is a leader figure in millions of people's lives. Uri Geller is an entertainer. Not the same thing at all. If the Pope were to take up flourishing, that would be a man having a hobby. If Uri Geller started flourishing when he wasn't performing or appearing as "Uri Geller - The Psychic", then whatever, that's a guy with a hobby.
But if Uri Geller went up on stage and bent some spoons, did some dowsing, then broke out a deck of cards at all it would be detrimental to his image. Everything we do is considered consciously and subconsciously by the people who are watching us. We are being judged every second we are appearing as our characters. The things that kind of sort of don't fit are just a little niggle in the back of the mind, but the things that clearly don't fit throw up red flags.
You might be able to pull it off by saying that you are a mystical type character who happens to be interested in cards but in my opinion that kind of divergence will always hinder the overall branding. Displays of skill are not isolated. People understand that if we are displaying a skill when we juggle cards, we will probably be using a similar skill when we do any work involving cards. That's why in the rare instances I use cards I do things that are not skill-based.
Now. If you are being a skill-based performer then by all means - show off. This will help when done well. But if you're trying to make it seem like you're in possession of some supernatural skill or talent, then juggling cards will only lead people think that you're just juggling cards all the time.
I think it's possible to have a little bit of both to be magical. If you're going for a sleight of hand performance you wouldn't want the audience to think that you are doing sleight of hand, You would want them to think that there is no way you could have done that because I didn't see sleight of hand but if you're good then it looks like nothing and it is just magic.
I deliberately chose two examples which showed differing aspects of the same phenomenon. They are both people who have provoked belief in their ability to work supernatural miracles.
No it isn't. I have a belief system or religion so I can say that with some conviction.
Sorry, just to clear this up. Pope John Paul II is not the current Pope. I picked him because he is due to be canonised on April 27 based on confirmation that he has worked miracles. I deliberately didn't pick the current Pope because no such claim has been made about him.
Yes. I've already said I agree with that.
I don't think I can have made my point clear. Let me try again.
This debate about whether certain types of performers can flourish with cards fades into insignificance if people have a strong enough character. It's like actors (and we are actors) arguing about whether wearing a certain kind of hat makes you more or less believable. If you are able to inhabit a role fully, it would be possible for you to play around the fringes of that character and explore aspects that may, at first sight, seem counter-intuitive. To give another religious example, Jesus cursed a fig tree and caused it to die because it was out of season and therefore wouldn't provide him with fruit. This could be argued to be out of character for someone who is meant to be all loving and compassionate. Now, rather than Christians seeing this as out of character, many theologians have come up with various interpretations which allow this apparently random and petty act to have some deeper meaning. In other words, when the character of a miracle-worker is absolutely credible, they can do a lot of unusual things without destroying that credibility. If we aspire to appear as genuine miracle-workers, then surely we should take our lead from figures who are regarded as genuine miracle-workers (whether that's John Paul II, Jesus, Mohammed, the saints, Hermes Trismegestus or whoever).