Minimalism in recent and upcoming Tarot decks

[G6]

Part of the problem here is that our definitions of "minimal" differ.

I do not consider The Wild Unknown to be minimal — not in the slightest. It is MODERN, yes. Minimal? No, not really. Same with the Mary-El. I would not at all consider the Mary-El to be minimal.

And no, I'm not talking about abstract, though there are decks that I would consider "minimal" that are *also* abstract, or use abstraction as a way of attaining minimalism. To a degree, that is exactly what I have done with the Orbifold: it is minimal, modern, and some could legitimately argue *also* abstract, too.

As for "new systems" I'd encourage you to find what is common among representations rather than what is different. Remember, too, that between the 20th century's main systems, there are definite discrepancies. Is the Thoth wrong if your point of reference is WST? Is Waite-Smith "wrong" when your reference is Thoth? No on both counts. They may not differ as much as some more modern decks might, but they are significantly different. Many modern decks have attempted to consolidate the two — The Wild Unknown to some extent being one of them; the Night Sun being another — and they have often managed to be successful because they have found some underpinning that is consistent between the two streams.

Since you keep coming back to the Mary-El, I'll stay with that example: yes, the image is totally different, but how different is the meaning really, and does it stray further away from the essence or move us closer to it? Breaking it down, Cups are about the subconscious, illusion and delusion, reflection, the interior world — not just "emotions" but the sensual inner state of feeling. Sevens are about individuality; about splitting apart from the pack, about separating from the community either as a leader or an outcast. In a WST-style 7C, this is depicted as choice and indecision, someone having to choose among a multitude of options: will he choose what is best for him, or for his community? Will he follow his delusions, or will he reflect on the various choices in front of him until revelation occurs? In the Mary-El's depiction, it is a lone wolf. Wolves are pack animals, they have a community — yet this is an individual. He has been separated from his pack, though we are not sure if he is a leader or an outcaste. His head is bowed, and there is a moon (reflection, intuition, the subconscious, illumination) in the background — all adding to the idea that he is in contemplation, he is thinking about the options before him. I get the feeling he has not yet left the pack completely, that he is on the verge of that emotional decision, and weighing the choices. Do you see how they are not really so dissimilar? And this similarity is arrived at through deconstruction — "minimalizing" — to suit and number.

You don't need to learn a whole new set of meanings when you understand the scaffolding. Then again, you don't need meanings at all if the images are clear — you can read the story the images provide and glean an incredible amount of value from that without ever learning a single meaning. Knowing the root, the minimal, the structure, does however help

Minimalist decks (whether modern or as old as the Marseilles and earlier) are pointing you to that root, rather than the superfluous crutch of representation.

I have both. I use both. I value both. I love seeing how different artists draw different shades of each card froward... but for me at least, I like to see thee thread that connects them all — and when you see that thread, no deck is really that different from another, provided is follows the tarot's structure.

_/|\_

Nobody is saying any of these decks like the Thoth are "wrong". The OP labeled the Wild Unknown and some other decks as "minimal" decks in the original post and that is what this discussion is about. In truth, the most boring/annoying interactions I tend to have on this site are with deck makers that drop by to push product and can't accept honest feedback from people that buy and use these products or be humble about it. I wish you well with your deck.

 

[Pixna]

I've been following this thread, and have to say that I agree with Maveriker's points, from a reader perspective. The minimalist decks I find most thrilling are not less complicated for me to read than the decks with loads of heavy imagery. Nor are they "it could mean anything" images. They are just what Maveriker said - a distillation of the essence of the card.

Sometimes they offer hints of something more, or different, or deeper than the symbolism-heavy decks. The really good ones expose the nerve of the card, touch something profound, unencumbered by the weights and rules of more traditional cards. After reading with a minimalist deck that you have a strong connection with, reading using more standard RWS decks can feel like reading with a cheat sheet. But the cards in a good minimalist deck still hold very decisive and very rich meaning, in my experience.

The best way I can express it is the feeling of playing an instrument in a classical quartet vs a jazz quartet. Both are valid, both require an intense connection to the music and its context. Both vary wildly in complexity, beauty, and genius. I would not talk crap about either genre. But they are profoundly different experiences.

I agree with you completely on all points. What I love about what I've seen of the Orbifold so far (because it isn't available yet, I've only been able to view it online and in videos) is that each card distills the traditional/standard meaning of Tarot but in a very intuitive yet systematic way. I don't think I've ever connected with the images or approach to Tarot as deeply as I have with the Orbifold (and it can't get to me soon enough -- so I hope it will be shipping soon!). I fell in love with it and the elemental approach the minute I saw it.

I have always felt that the RWS (which I've never liked or connected with -- to me, the images and colors are horribly grating) was a bit juvenile in its depictions and yes, very much a "cheat sheet." Similar decks have rubbed me the same way, although I've often been impressed with and intrigued by some of the more creative (and occasionally dark) illustrations by Tarot artists, especially in recent years. And while I love those dark images, I don't read well with them.

I've particularly had difficulty reading decks that are overloaded with imagery and diverse, disconnected colors. They kind of make my brain hurt -- it's as if the deck's creator is trying to hit us over the head with the meanings they want us to see. With minimalist decks, I can use my intuition in ways I find impossible with heavily imaged decks.

I think readers will invariably be attracted to one type of deck or another -- just as they will with one "system" of reading or another. I prefer minimalism with depth and logical, appealing colors -- one that is grounded in the elements and that gently provides guidance through a clear system while allowing me to rely primarily on intuition. Other readers prefer a variety of different features or more dramatic or direct or humanlike images. There's room for all of them. Go with what attracts you, calls your name, and speaks to you.

 

[Maveriker]

I'm sorry that my participation in this thread has been taken as "boring/annoying interactions [...] with deck makers that drop by to push product"

I can only speak from my experience, and yes, that is as a deck maker. I have tried, from that standpoint to provide a perspective on minimalist art in tarot from a creator's side. I am not doing so to "push product" — my interest in minimal art in tarot extends well beyond the commercial, and is far more fundamental from a reading and understanding viewpoint. I am a reader and collector just like anyone else here.

I've also, if you read carefully, attempted to provide tools to see what is seen as major differences in artistic interpretation are not so different after all. Again, it's in seeing the underlying principles that run through tarot's structure, no matter how different the depictions seem at the surface, that enables you to read ANY tarot deck without necessarily having to learn a "new system."

But, if you choose only to see the commercial potential of the content I've shared, then I can't change that. I never said, "buy my deck" — I did, however, in explaining my process and view, provide some ways to learn and work with tarot that I think are applicable to any deck, whether minimal or not, mine or another's.

 

[G6]

I'm sorry that my participation in this thread has been taken as "boring/annoying interactions [...] with deck makers that drop by to push product"

I can only speak from my experience, and yes, that is as a deck maker. I have tried, from that standpoint to provide a perspective on minimalist art in tarot from a creator's side. I am not doing so to "push product" — my interest in minimal art in tarot extends well beyond the commercial, and is far more fundamental from a reading and understanding viewpoint. I am a reader and collector just like anyone else here.

I've also, if you read carefully, attempted to provide tools to see what is seen as major differences in artistic interpretation are not so different after all. Again, it's in seeing the underlying principles that run through tarot's structure, no matter how different the depictions seem at the surface, that enables you to read ANY tarot deck without necessarily having to learn a "new system."

But, if you choose only to see the commercial potential of the content I've shared, then I can't change that. I never said, "buy my deck" — I did, however, in explaining my process and view, provide some ways to learn and work with tarot that I think are applicable to any deck, whether minimal or not, mine or another's.

Np, you seem very passionate and knowledgable about your perspective on tarot and your approach to your deck There also seem to be posters here (especially the ones that find the RWS "system" juvenile and unsophisticated ;-) that are on the same page with your vision and would be happy to continue a conversation with you. If you haven't opened a thread about your deck you should. I was sincere in my well wishes about your deck. Have a glorious Sunday. Paz.

 

[Maveriker]

Thank you G6

There is a study group dedicated to the Orbifold, and I'd of course be happy to discuss it in more detail there: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=239669
(more topics to come as decks ship out)

It can sometimes be easy to misconstrue context and become defensive, I'm not immune to that foible

<taking a back seat for a bit>

 

[Pixna]

Np, you seem very passionate and knowledgable about your perspective on tarot and your approach to your deck There also seem to be posters here (especially the ones that find the RWS "system" juvenile and unsophisticated ;-) that are on the same page with your vision and would be happy to continue a conversation with you. If you haven't opened a thread about your deck you should. I was sincere in my well wishes about your deck. Have a glorious Sunday. Paz.

Just to clarify ... I didn't say the RWS system was juvenile or unsophisticated (if, indeed, you're referring to me). I never used the word "unsophisticated." What I said was that I feel the images appear to be juvenile to me (however, I know many readers love this deck and consider it "the" deck by which all others should be measured).

I've been reading Tarot for almost forty years, and I've never been motivated to buy or read with the RWS (although I've owned decks that were based on it, of course, since so very many are). I simply have been unable to tolerate the colors and depictions in the RWS. Nevertheless, I wouldn't call the RWS "system" juvenile, because, frankly, I don't believe the RWS deck actually has a system per se. Many contemporary decks have what I'd call more of a system -- for example, those that are based on chakras or a similar ideology that have a specific, logical approach while still being based on standard Tarot (e.g., RWS) interpretations.

Most decks don't have a "system," but I tend to gravitate toward those that do. For me, it's just a pleasing extra layer of logic on top of (but not in place of) the traditional Tarot meanings. My personal preference is for decks that are minimalist in their depictions but rich in their meanings, colors, and approaches, and that integrate the deck with a fluid, consistent theme. That's what initially drew me to The Wild Unknown Tarot and what has also drawn me to the Orbifold Tarot.

 

[alchemiholic]

There also seem to be posters here (especially the ones that find the RWS "system" juvenile and unsophisticated ;-) that are on the same page with your vision and would be happy to continue a conversation with you.

First, I don't think this piece of the conversation is out of place at all for this thread. Varied interpretations of minimalism have been offered from several different perspectives; it seems like that has been part of the conversation all along. In addition, many of the points on either side of your interaction stand regardless of whether we are talking Orbifold or Wild Unknown. In fact, in the same post with Maveriker's differing take on minimalism vs modernism, the Mary-El is still example given in the heart of the argument.

Second, winky-face aside, I think it's a somewhat bold interpretation of my post and Pyxna's (if those are what you're referring to) to summarize our take on the RWS as "juvenile and unsophisticated". You have simplified, but you have not distilled the essence.

 

[The Happy Squirrel]

To me, "minimalism" involves taking something established and reducing it to its elements — NOT CHANGING IT INTO SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY; that is something else. Minimalism is not just slapping one simple thing in an image — especially something that narrows or changes the possibilities. Minimalism is reducing a concept to its essence and communicating it in as simple and sophisticated a way as possible. Sometimes a single line can do that, or a circle placed in a certain way, other times it requires more. This is the challenge that the minimalist artist faces.

THIS.

 

[The Happy Squirrel]

Part of the problem here is that our definitions of "minimal" differ.

And THIS.

 

[The Happy Squirrel]

[...] but I think we are talking about different things here: distilling vs changing.

Distillation. That's the word I have been looking for! Thank you!
From now on I will use the word "distilled" in describing art work in tarot, and not "minimalist". The term "minimalist" bothered me for a long time, but I could not put my finger on it, other than it feels inaccurate.