Debra
Often discussion here turns to the question--how meaningful are all the details on the cards? For example, see Rosanne's recent thread on the Hermit.
I think that we might have differing ideas about the independence of the artist and how much leeway he has in making the images.
Two modern examples--the Rider Waite and the Crowley Thoth--raise questions about the relations between Pamela Colman Smith and AE Waite, and Frieda Harris and A. Crowley. For example, afficionados of the Thoth deck often suggest that all or most of the details were dictated by Crowley, with Harris doing the execution--composing, rendering, and painting. I don't know if this is historically accurate or if we could ever know for sure. (And not to diminish the difficulty and value of composition, rendering, and painting!)
In other words, a card might include some commonly recognized elements, some elements included for the sake of tradition, perhaps some as a nod to the patron and his interests, and even some ideosyncratic to the artist, because he likes them for whatever reason.
If the artist had a lot of independence, I'd expect the cards to be different than if he was working with detailed "specifications."
For decks like the Visconti's, I think it's worth consideriing if the patron gave specific directions, or more general directions with the expectation that the artist would flesh out the details on his own, or maybe just a general request (a deck of Triumphs, please!).
So maybe we could discuss this question specifically--not about individual cards, but if there is any evidence one way or another about the creative freedom of medieval artists to do as they please in some aspects of their work.
About which I know nothing, except that Medieval manuscript illuminators put all sorts of fanciful creatures in the margins, seemingly just for the joy and decoration they provide--nothing directly connected with the text at all.
I think that we might have differing ideas about the independence of the artist and how much leeway he has in making the images.
Two modern examples--the Rider Waite and the Crowley Thoth--raise questions about the relations between Pamela Colman Smith and AE Waite, and Frieda Harris and A. Crowley. For example, afficionados of the Thoth deck often suggest that all or most of the details were dictated by Crowley, with Harris doing the execution--composing, rendering, and painting. I don't know if this is historically accurate or if we could ever know for sure. (And not to diminish the difficulty and value of composition, rendering, and painting!)
In other words, a card might include some commonly recognized elements, some elements included for the sake of tradition, perhaps some as a nod to the patron and his interests, and even some ideosyncratic to the artist, because he likes them for whatever reason.
If the artist had a lot of independence, I'd expect the cards to be different than if he was working with detailed "specifications."
For decks like the Visconti's, I think it's worth consideriing if the patron gave specific directions, or more general directions with the expectation that the artist would flesh out the details on his own, or maybe just a general request (a deck of Triumphs, please!).
So maybe we could discuss this question specifically--not about individual cards, but if there is any evidence one way or another about the creative freedom of medieval artists to do as they please in some aspects of their work.
About which I know nothing, except that Medieval manuscript illuminators put all sorts of fanciful creatures in the margins, seemingly just for the joy and decoration they provide--nothing directly connected with the text at all.