talkmagic.co.uk

There is no way to say which is better when simply taken in the side by side context of each other. A really good flourisher looks great next to a bad magician. And a really good magician looks great next to a bad flourisher.

I remember early on reading that magic is about entertaining people, not showing off skill in an effort to show someone "look how great I am"
Sadly, I don't see an extended entertainment factor in floursihing.
I acknowledge it takes a great deal of control, dexterity, practice and skill. But it just isn't all that entertaining.

This is what I consider a likely possibility.
I could do a three packet false cut in the duration of a routine, and the guy next to me could do 5 faces of Sybil, but to the audience sat down in front of us we have pretty much done the same thing as each other, for that moment. It looks like he has done a portion of what I presented.

Now I could do a different card trick entirely, and the flourisher could do a different multi packet cut from the one they just did, but in the eyes of the audience it is likely to appear to be much the same thing as before, because they don't understand the intricacies (sic) behind it.

I have the utmost respect for everyone out there capable of such feats, but the reason I don't choose to learn them is because I don't feel it will hlp my performance at all.

Magic creates conflict in the spectator's mind. What they see and experience contradicts what they think they know about the world (by breaking the rules of what they think is possible). Teller emphasizes this point quite often, and I think he is right.

Flourishing doesn't even try to do such a thing. It's a display of skill and dexterity, that, when done well, can create pretty images such as a card fan oddly balanced on top of another. Not impossible or even improbable, just very, very difficult.

The props and means (dexterity, practice, and thought) are very similar, but the intended ends are completely different.