THIS is a thread which could go on forever, people in general will never agree that cardistry is an art. Kind of like the debate on whether God is existent. You guys could keep on arguing and branching off until you question "english scholars" and end with the answer on how the universe started. I'll still recognize cardistry as an art.
And by the way, MOST of these posts on the last 2 pages (RDC especially and KeoSilver) are made by magicians who perform cardistry for finger strength and the sake of learning a few moves "here and there". You guys aren't the ones who have dedicated your time all your "card time" (for lack of a better term LOL) as this. Your strongest fields are in magic (cards, coins, etc.), so when you are asked to make a DESCISION this humongoginormous and imput your opinion into this thread it is NOT clear and definite.
Here's an example; say you knew NOTHING about music. You see a guitarist on the street playing the.......guitar. From a quick glance (IF YOU KNEW NOTHING) you would probably say "thats cool" but your perspective would be decieved and you wouldn't know the time it takes to perfect the playing, how to correctly strum a chord, and all the things that make it an art.
"Oh....thats cool" - is exactly what most of you guys are saying.....because you do not comprehend the complexity and that cardists display cardistry as an artform.
To all those other RDC and KeoSilver that are likewise to them: What experience, what evidence, what proof can you give me that tells me that you understand cardistry and that you are intelligent enough to STRONGLY WITHOUT AT DOUBT criticize others and give your opinion on this subject?
MLB, I do agree that you have a point. I'd be one of those people. As far as experience goes - I have very little except for what I have seen and experienced, but it still gives me the right to an opinion. It doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong - but if compared to the opinion of an experienced cardist, I agree that it may well carry less weight. Nonetheless, art is of course subjective. And, I think by nature, everyone has a right to define art - not just artists, but the spectators and participants as well. I can appreciate the Duchamp perspective, but I think it goes a bit further than that.
As far as evidence and proof - that, or the lack thereof, can be deduced from my arguments. If, from your experience, I or anyone else am far off the mark, then there you go. I don't mind being called out on it if I have made a mistake, personally. But if my argument is strong, then by the same token, there you go.
As far as intelligence - take it from my other posts on this forum, and this thread, because, to be honest, we're on a relatively anonymous internet forum, so you're free to make up your own mind as to whether we and our arguments are intelligent enough to warrant consideration.
And as for the actual question of art... Well, yes, I agree, but I'm also interested in your opinion. The example you gave is faulty - I don't think time invested and proper technique in and of themselves constitute art necessarily. What comes to mind, for example, is exam taking technique - a lot of my life taken up - but as far from an art as I could imagine.
What I am particularly interested though is your perspective on Randomwrath's excellent post on page 12 - he says, paraphrased, that it is difficult to convey meaning in cardistry. This to my mind is one of the biggest arguments against cardistry being an art. You addressed his post, but not this point, which I think is very important. What do you think?