Concerning card magic, I would like to know your thoughts on flourishes. I ran across Giobbi quoting Tony Shields, "All that glitters is not magic." Those who don't do card flourishes, please give me your thoughts on why and how does it differ from stage magic where there are explosions, colorful props, exotic costumes....

Basically what you see in Vegas is ritzy and extravagant. Isn't that in a sense,
"flourishy?" Hence, is it not magic? I think in the 21st century people are intelligent and when they go to those shows they know that it’s technological entertainment when they see a beautiful woman being sawed in half. Is close-up magic held to a higher standard when you say flourishes are bad?

I think one should focus on entertaining people, rather than convince them that magic really does exist because some might take it that you're insulting their intelligence.

What has worked for me when performing card magic is awesome flourishes. I’m letting the spectators know that what they are seeing is sleight of hand. And on tricks such as Out of Sight Out of Mind by Dai Vernon, I let them know ahead of time that, hey if one could perform magic this is what it would look like.

Because I study legerdemain, I’m able to imitate what magic would look/feel like. When conveying this type of attitude during a performance, I find that people are more accepting and willing to be entertained. Thus, they don’t look at a routine as a challenge, a puzzle they must solve.

So in my style, flourishes are ok in my book. Just my 2 cents, please share yours.

There is already a topic on this in the Card Magic section, called " to flourish or not to flourish." Rather than start a whole new topic on it, please direct your comments there.