Interesting debate going on here... I come across the same problem when showing new effects to my critical brother - he feels that magic is (by definition) a display of skill, and when he sees Jason England's false shuffle and cut sequences, or stage manipulation acts, he pronounces "Now THAT'S real magic!". I guess he's at this stage after watching several instances where an ID (in his words, a "cheap parlour trick") absolutely destroys laypeople, but the fact still remains that different people view magic in different ways.

When I see a cups and balls routine, the skill of the performers is what impresses me... however, before becoming a magician I would be totally mystified - of course, I always knew that something special happens, but not being able to comprehend that there were 4 balls is what really made it seem "magical". I feel that in this day and age, you don't come across many people who believe that the card "magically" rose to the top of the deck, or that the balls "magically" vanished; rather, they regard the entire experience as "magical".

This sounds a bit garbled, so I'll wind it down by saying that I the only time I do fancy false cuts and blatantly display skill is when dealing with friends and family who've seen my "magic" a hundred times already. When performing to people who don't know what a DL is though, a simple yet deliberate approach works wonders.

I really have to disagree on some points mentioned by Sepharoth. First when Jason England is doing false shuffle etc. there is (most of the time) no display of skill, because the spectator normally doesn't know he is false shuffling. Some exceptions are when he is explaining bottoms etc. (the spectators know he is very skilled, but he doesn't show it).IMHO
Next: the same is to most of the manipulators, they also don't show their skills, cause most of the spectators also don't know that backpalming etc. exists. a few are really showing their skills. Think of Lance Burton for example is he really showing his skills to the audience? He does his act with elegance and without showing off.

And nobody said that spectators believe that the card for example rose up to the top by magic. The things that were mentioned, were just that by losing the card in the middle and then doing flashy cuts, it is more obvious to the spectator then just placing it back and doing nothing.

Many spectators say that magicians are skilled and very quick, but that doesn't mean that the performer showed his real skill, they just assume it because they can't explain what they have just seen.

Hope I didn't offended someone, that is just my view on the whole topic.

Yes, he is absolutely showing skill. His bird act is a thing of absolute beauty, and it takes skill to accomplish that. Sometimes, it's what you DON'T see that makes a performer great. By not showing off, he IS showing off. That's not his intention and anyone who knows Lance knows what a humble guy he is, but the skillfulness of his act comes from that fact that it looks like he's not doing anything at all.

Yes he is showing skill but only to magicians and not to LAYMEN, because a spectator can't imagine what is going on.

I think it depends on the audience. I've taken laymen to see his show many times and often they mention what a skilled performer he is. They're recognizing that what they don't see is what makes him so good.

Absolutely. I think there is wonderful inherent beauty in one's realisation that there are a multitude of things occuring 'beneath the veneer of performance', as it were.

How about this as a compromise?

Instead of skill meaning "showing off" -- the one I think we usually want to avoid -- think of it as "grace." The latter comes up when you ribbon spread or fan the cards or any of a number of little nuances we habitually do. Certainly those mark us as familiar with the tools of the trade. This is probably most apparent when it's missing -- I'm thinking Lennart Green and some of the purposefully awkward stuff he throws in.

I still think there are times when card juggling fits, but it helps to make it seem more difficult than it actually is, the sort of drama injected into a psi effect for instance, or the build up in an escape.

No one is disputing this ANYWHERE in the thread. The issue being debated is the actual equilibrium between this and all the other performance variables that contribute to the overall level of 'wonderment'.

Thanks, I didn't get the nuance.

I have a LOT to say about this. In fact I have so much to say I don't think I will be able to fit it all in with one post. And nobody may wish to hear it anyway. I have however, devoted a lot of thought to this subject over many years and some of what I have to say may be of relevance and assistance to younger performers who are not quite sure what philosophy to adopt regarding this. Perhaps the best plan is for me to post a few of my thoughts and if you want to hear more of them just ask. If you don't ask I will assume that there is no interest and will not comment further.

Here we go. Take a deep breath.

First, there are flourishes and there are flourishes. Oh, and there are flourishes. Three categories
in fact, which, up to now have all been lumped into one. I will go into detail over each
category and describe what I feel is the best way to deal with the three situations.
Before I go into detail I'd better explain my general philosophy about the subject. I will only
be talking close up magic here. The stage has different rules. I believe flourishes are a double edged
sword. They have advantages but they do have disadvantages. The tricky part is to find
an intelligent way of working so that the disadvantages do not outweigh the advantages.
The main advantage is a very strong one. Laymen love them! That's one hell of an advantage.
They are attention getting, they are ideal for working in noisy venues because they are so
visual, they spice up a routine and if the performer has no showmanship or personality
which, sadly, is quite common, the flourishes will go a little way to make him entertaining.

Unfortunately, the disadvantages are quite strong too. The main disadvantage is explained
in “The Royal Road to Card Magic." That is that if flourishes are overdone, the
effect of the magic is diluted. The spectators will dismiss what you do with a silent shrug and
think “Oh, he's clever with his hands” and forget what you do very quickly. If your tricks do
require a lot of sleight of hand the audience will be more suspicious of your actions because
of the flourishes. They will be more on their guard and will have a tendency to catch you out
or even if they don't there will be a tendency to think "I don't know what he did but I know he
did something" If you don't believe audiences will be on their guard after a series of brilliant
flourishes try and do a classic force on somebody after doing a Notis Cascade, for example.
I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it will be more difficult.

There is a psychological aspect here which young performers tend to overlook. If you work in
a rapid, flourishy manner and are not getting the reaction you desire perhaps I have given you a
clue as to why. If you must use flourishes, at least slow down a bit. Rapid actions are not natural and
can arouse suspicion. The flourishes are already working against you so don't compound the
problem.

Now before I go over the three categories does anyone want to read any more of this? If you do I will advise further.

Sounds good to me. Please go on.
Although, as far as I am concerned, Darwin Ortiz has published the definitive treatise on this topic. It's the final chapter of "Scams & Fantasies", IMO a must read when it comes to flourishes in close-up card magic.

It's also interesting to see, how some of the old masters handled this topic. An especially instructive example is Paul LePaul. There are quite a few flourishes in his book, which is not surprising, considering the fact, that he was a stage manipulator by profession. However, LePaul's flourishes are not just eye candy. For example, take the one-handed closing of the fan in the Automatic Jog Control. First of all, this flourish looks of course pretty and artistical. Secondly it is also the most economical handling for the purpose. Finally and most importantly it makes an already excellent control even more deceptive, because no layman would believe, that you have his card under control at all times. The nonchalance and looseness of the move doesn't suggest "control", it suggests just the opposite. In my opinion, that's an ideal application of a flourish.

OK. Here is more. I will describe the first category of flourishes here.
Now before I do let me give you a bit of history. The "Royal Road"
said flourishes were an asset if used in moderation. My problem was that I loved flourishes
and couldn’t do them in moderation! I'd feel guilty about my lack of discipline but laymen
gasped in admiration so I just couldn’t stop. I did notice that there was a dilution of effect as I mastered more flourishes and got more skilful using them. I'd feel terribly guilty about this and
always imagine disapproving looks from Hugard and Braue watching from the sky.
I once confessed my feelings to am experienced magician who promptly told me to tear
up the book and throw it away since it was entirely wrong. Tear up the book? Throw it away?
I couldn’t do that to my bible. It would be sacrilege. I would get struck down by lightning. I
knew I had to form some kind of strategy so I could sleep at night. I have now formed that
strategy and it has worked well for years and years and years. I flourish away but I still get
massive reaction with my card magic.
O.K. Let's get down to business. The first category of flourish is actually the most justifiable
even though it tends to be the flashiest. That is the flourish THAT IS NOT PART OF A TRICK.
It is a completely separate item.
The other two categories of flourishes are where the movement is done as part of a trick. These
other categories are dangerous ones for reasons just explained, but we'll come to that.
First you have to be aware of the problem. You are now. Then you have to solve that problem.
You can do this by using tricks requiring subtlety instead of intricate sleight of hand.
Very good psychology after great displays of skill are using tricks which are self working
especially ones that happen in their hands. If you do a whole bunch of brilliant flourishes and
then do "out of this world" which happens in their hands the flourishes become an asset instead
of a liability.
There was a story in "The Secrets of Conjuring and Magic" by Robert-Houdin 3 (I may
have the title wrong-I'm getting old) where a chap called Torrini was very disapproving of
flourishes by a younger magician. Torrini thought they should be eliminated entirely but if
they had to be done it should be at the end of the performance not at the beginning. Dilution
of effect reason as discussed earlier. The problem is that they are a very good opener- attention
getting just when you want it.
I am a major believer in the theory of “art that hides art.” Your skill, ideally, should be hidden.
Think of Al Goshman , a superb technician but all hidden away. He did allow himself a little coin roll, though. Generally though, it was the "art that hides art." way of working. Do the flashy stuff but use
common sense. Do it at the right time and in the right way and the effect dilution problem will
be diminished. Always remember the potential for problems, though. If you are not that good
at flourishes and can only do a few, your problems are less. If you know a lot of flashy stuff try
and use moderation and if you can't at least do them at the right time and in the right way.
Dai Vernon was reputed to hate flourishes. Apparently, he snarled at a kid doing some Paul
Harris flourishy thing. He reputedly said, “that's the kind of thing that's killing magic today.” I
kind of agree with him but we'll come to that. I am suspicious of the tales I hear about Vernon's
distaste for flourishes even though Willis Kenny, a friend of Vernon told me that the great man
sneered at them and considered them to be juggling. The reason for my skepticism is that I
think he was referring to the two categories I am going to talk about next. Another reason for
my suspicion is that I once saw a photograph of Vernon at an advanced age holding the biggest
giant fan you have ever seen in your life!
The most spectacular flourish I do is the Notis Cascade. You'd think such a thing would
horrify Vernon. Where did I learn it? One of the Vernon card books. Whose hands were in
the photographs? Vernon, of course. The circle of cards in "Ultimate Secrets of Magic" look
pretty flourishy to me. Vernon again. He wasn't that averse to the occasional other category of
flourish, I noticed. There was a trick called the Notis Stop which had a flourishy handling and
belonged in the third group of flourishes I am going to analyse.

I will describe the othere two categories of flourishes shortly if anyone is still interested.

Did anyone notice the faces of the spectators in the video?

To me, that is the only thing that matters.

@rottenegg
I'd like to read more.

Then more you shall have.

The second category of flourish is a more dangerous one. That is,
a flourishy type of revelation at the end of the trick. This is dangerous because you are doing
the flourish, emphasizing your skill DURING the trick. These fancy revelations are more eye
pleasing than spectacular, but they are still dangerous because you are throwing your skill at
people. I do quite a few of these revelations but I am careful to do them in moderation. Too
much salt on a meal is not a good thing. A little can go a long way.
An exception is Jerry Andrus. I saw him perform on Black and White British T.V. 40 or so years ago. Andrus was terrific. He had quite a memorable effect on me at the time. His magic broke my rule, though. It was all eye-pleasing flourishy
revelations. All of it. No moderation as I am advising you to do now. I guess there are always
exceptions that prove the rule. One thing I will say, though is he performed very slowly in a
dead pan way. I think the moral of this is that the more flourishy your handling the slower you
should possibly go so as not to burden yourself further with unnecessary lack of naturalness. I
believe true art holds the mirror to nature. If you perform as if the devil were at your heels with
great rapidity you will tend to arouse people's suspicions. There are advantages in flourishes
but there is no advantage at working at breakneck speed. That encourages dilution of effect
without any advantage whatsoever.
Finally, the last category is what I think got Vernon's goat. It kind of gets mine too. But let me find out if you want to hear any more about it before I continue. Perhaps I have said enough already.

Nobody seems interested in my final thoughts on this but I am going to give them anyway for the sake of completeness and they won't take up as much space this time. And the point they make is very relevant to this discussion.

Finally, the last category is the most
dangerous category of all: Flourishy handling IN THE MIDDLE OR AT THE BEGINNING
OF THE TRICK. This tends to be all the rage nowadays and is quite awful. It can be done,
I believe but very, very rarely. Quite possibly it should not be done at all. A flourish every
second just to show how clever the performer is. Bloody stupid. All the young magicians do it
and it's so, so wrong. You are literally throwing your skill at your audience. Without shame or
guilt. At least, I used to feel guilty using flourishes; I knew it wasn't 100% right. You see if you
emphasize your skill too much you are a juggler and a very bad one at that. All this flipping
around without rhyme or reason dilutes, dilutes and dilutes the magic to a terrible degree. I'm
not saying don't use flourishes. I'm saying use them intelligently.
There are two schools of card magic. There is the "look how clever I am " school of magic and
the “art that hides art” school. I one hundred percent guarantee that the latter is more powerful
than the former.

There. I hope the preceding waffle is useful to some of you. It is based on years and years of experience and experimentation. I believe it to be the best way to approach this matter. Do with this information what you will.

I love this debate. To get started I do walk arround and kids shows. I perform on a daily basis. I love Vernon and Marlo. One of my favorite routines to perform is my version of Marlo's delicate ace cutting. It is so fun to do and beautiful. I also do an very flourishy ace production (similar to the last reveal on the queens). With the ace cutting I get blank stares. With the ace production more often then not I get an audible gasp. The difference is stark. In this instance the XCM looks a lot more magical.

RE: magic vs juggling. Flourishes, magic, and juggling are all performances and all fall into the broader category of sleight of hand. The techniques may feel, look, or seem similar, they may even use the same props or methods, but by definition they are three separate beasts. Some flourishes may be magical or look like juggling, some juggling may look like magic, and there are certainly some techniques that blur the line.

If you really want to know if juggling is the same as magic is the same as flourishes, then go out in public and juggle. Ask 100 people what you are doing. Then repeat this while doing magic, and again while performing flourishes. I am guessing that 100 people out of 100 will nail juggling and magic. The flourishes however may get all kinds of responses: XCM, card tricks, juggling, magic, playing, etc.

Saying that magic is juggling is like saying that rock and roll is rap. They're both forms of music, but it's up to the person performing or appreciating the art to decide under which definition the performance falls.

Joe

Check out Daniel Madison's 'Lethal' DVD - Really nice effects. It will teach you how to do that and more.

I agree with Chappo, Steven, et al.

Let your flash -- and the evidence of your skill -- come from the finale of each effect you perform, not from how fast, elaborate, and confusing your moves are.

Do a great piece of card magic while moving as slowly, naturally, and deliberately as you can, leading up to a mind-blowing finish, and no one will question your skill as a magician. Who cares what they think of you as a card juggler?