Art versus Concept

After three readings of the thread this morning I think I'm beginning to get a clearer picture. Thanks for all the careful thought behind the posts. There's so much to consider when embarking on the marathon of creating a full deck rather than just the majors.

So... a hopefully simpler question than the pure Art versus Concept one.

Answers will of course be subjective, but might provide just that little bit of extra insight from discussions on favourite decks etc. in the different deck threads on the forum.

Which tarot deck comes closest to the perfect marriage of Art and Concept?

Pen

Well make it really really hard now Pen

I can tell you one that doesn't.

I love the 22 of this deck.
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/tarot-iii-millennium/

Then the artist had this concept of the minors been part of a large tableau,
which told a story of a medieval scene. It was helped by doing an oracle thing with coloured insets of TdM cards to guide. I tried and tried to make sense of this total deck in readings. I could get a few- but most readings did not make sense.
Art Good...Technique Good....Concept interesting- For me it did not work together as a total deck. The theme...well I could not decide what it was.
Were the 56 cards wallpaper for the insets?
It was like the French Lieutenant's Woman with multiple choice endings for the book. Infuriatingly complex or did I over think it?
So it was not a perfect reinforcement of Art/concept and theme for me.

What is that perfect mix? Let me come back to that after a night's sleep.
~Rosanne

The 111 Millenium deck seems a real puzzle - the Tarot of Bologna inserts seem so at odds with the main images. Another that springs to mind is the Cagliostro, but then I definitely prefer decks where the style is consistent throughout.

I was thinking about tarot 'scripts' last night, wondering if Waite's The Key to the Tarot was written to give to Pixie as a guide to creating the RWS, or whether letters describing the individual images on the cards served as the script. More likely the latter I think, as parts of The Key differ slightly from the finished images. I wonder if they still exist?

Likewise with the Thoth. I've read all the letters I can find online between Lady Frieda and AC, but although they mention the images, there's nothing very detailed, and again, sometimes the images differ from AC's descriptions in the Book of Thoth. If AC made her paint some cards eight times as he said, you'd (I'd) expect to find more artistic direction in the correspondence.

I do like Lady Frieda's descriptions of the cards in a LWB that came with one edition of the Thoth - these tarot ladies, quiet as they are, have much to say if one reads carefully, but more would be better.

So perhaps the perfect fusion of Art/Concept and System (I'm coming to believe that there are three in this marriage), is most likely to be achieved with a collaboration between artist and 'magus' (for want of a better word).

Eco74 said:

My baseline is still what I added in my first reply in this thread.
The simpler the art - the better for me to read with. Mainly because my reading style is looking at the details, correlations and rhythms of the cards.
Too much detail, and too much 'perfection' and I get less out of the reading.

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that's the way to go, thank you Eco.

Thanks all, this thread is really helping me see the way.

Pen

goldenweb said:

There are decks with stunning art - art that simply bowls you over. You buy the deck, read the book but... the theme/concept is lacking, either it's too flimsy, too stretched, too complicated, too obscure. How much time and trouble do you take to get into the artist and/or creator's intention in order to read successfully with the deck? Or do you simply ignore the concept/system and read with it your own or another, perhaps traditional way?

Or... The concept is brilliant - a new take on tarot yet one so apt and fitting you can't wait to make it your own. Yet the art is either too slick, garish, ill-conceived and at odds with the theme, or else it's simply inept.

Do you buy the deck and hope you'll learn to love it, or give it a miss and wonder how things might have been if the art and concept had been a perfect (or almost perfect) partnership?

How important is it that the two come together?

For me, a vital concern - I'd value really your opinions.

Pen

Click to expand...

For me personally in most cases I don't really care much what the artist or deck creator [b[intended[/b] the cards to mean. I only care what they are saying to me at the moment I am using them. So no, to answer your question, I tend to use the exact same system of reading on any Tarot deck I have (an a very similar one with my Oracles).

I do get most of my answers throught the image, but says to me what it says to me each time and usually each image says a different thing each time. To me a reading is not me trying to access what was on the deck creator's mind and use it. It is, for me about trying to see what message the Divine is trying to give me through each image it has come up in a reading. That is my view, I know not everyone's, that reading for me feels like a communmciation with the Divine.

That being said, there are a few rare decks where I do consult the books with a deck, like my angels decks and something that has a spiritual system that is a bit foreign to me and that I am not likely to get on my own. Like my Native American decks or even at times my Osho Zen. Of course there's always an exception to every rule. But over 95% of my decks I read them with no concern with what the creator meant them to mean.

For me it's all about the artwork. That is where the meaning really is for me. So it's really rare that I will really love the artwork of a deck and it doesn't read well for me. After all these years I can sense that pretty well by now.

Also IF I did really like the concept behind a deck and what to make use of it I could put aside my views on the artwork so that I could use the deck if it meant enought to me. I have a couple like that. I still use them sometimes.

Babs

goldenweb said:

Art doesn't have to be 'pretty' to be meaningful or stimulating.

Click to expand...

<nodding> Some of the best art in the world isn't.

greycats said:

The decks I appreciate the most, the ones that I usually have within easy reach are those in which the art and the tarot reinforce each other--which they can do in so many different ways.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I read through this thread up to your post trying to find the right words to express this very same thought.

A themed RWS clone was the deck that "hooked" me for this reason. This doesn't mean that I want more themed RWS redesigns (I own three now), but that I would love some kind of similar approach to future decks.

And, this may be a bit of a nitpick, but I really enjoy seeing six long pieces of wood on the Six of Long Wooden Things. Likewise with the other numbers and suits.

I wish I had a good answer for Goldenweb's question: Which tarot deck comes closest to the perfect marriage of Art and Concept?
I don't know that I have seen the deck. The three that stick out to me are two RWS re-images (Halloween and Fradella Adventure), plus the Dark Grimoire. The DG gets credit for depicting journeys within the suits.

Three modern takes

I like the LS Universal Fantasy as it is softly sci-fi and still tarot. The art is fantastic although no fantasy story is attached.

The Revelations from Llewellyn from Zach Wong does the circular and reversal art well I think--gorgeous bright colors--although some of the lines and designs for me are more masculine and architectural and perhaps remind me of manga that is computerized or digital art rather than hand-drawn and watercolor washes. No story, straight RWS meanings--one could do their own take on the art.

I like the Shadowscapes from Llewellyn by Stephanie Puimin Lau (sp?). The art and soft fantasy and personal touches in the tone of the writing work for me. But I would find it easier to just read it for myself as I have a personal inspiration and reaction to the characters depicted.

I am only picking one aspect of imaginative and colorful decks that I have and found vibrant and different, also appealing. I do not know what narratives or themes inspire other readers in modern tarot. I like illustrations that suggest an imaginative theme. I don't need my pictures to be so simple to see all stages of the same flower wilting to get the successive progression of the pip cards...

Two examples of interesting entertwinings of tarot and Western historical themes redone in the way I like include the Celestial Tarot from U.S. Games by Kay Steventon snd Brian Clark and the Alchemical--the Alchemical deck, I will return to later.

I do want my tarot theme books to help suggest new ways of using the deck that fits in the theme, not a redo of many beginning spreads. The Celestial Tarot from U.S. Games in its LWB and bigger book were great in this way.

I have always liked the original Thorsen's companion book to the Alchemical Tarot with Robert PLace and Rosemary Guiley. The deck and book was a great integration to me.

Best

Cerulean

Thanks for your thoughts, Cerulean - I'll look at the decks you mentioned. I'm not familiar with the LS Universal Fantasy or the Revelations. The Shadowscapes is beautiful, and there are wonderful large images with text on her website. I like (and have) Kay Steventon's Spiral Tarot - if only the cards were larger and borderless so I could see the art properly - must check out her Celestial too.

Of course it's all subjective, but good (and really helpful) to know what works well for different people...

Oh, and I have (and enjoy) Place's Alchemical too - good to spend time with.

Pen

Art is indeed a subjective thing, for the way one sees the world through their own eyes would always be different another. This uniqueness gifts us an opportunity to collectively grow as collective conscious through eternal dialogue.

Anna said:

The art is irrelevant.

The concept MUST be based upon a sound knowledge of Tarot backed up by many years of serious study and understanding of what Tarot is. It must be true to Tarot and have something relevant and new to say, or teach, about Tarot.

The only deck that has done this in modern times, to my mind, is the Thoth.

Click to expand...

I would place Robert Place's Alchemical Tarot in that category, too.

Anna's statement brings us to the core of the issue: what is Tarot? In order to write "it must be true to Tarot..." one has to have a definition of Tarot.

If we go back to historical sources, this adds to the confusion as the early decks had different numbers of Major Arcana cards. So what standard do we accept as the reference point?

My take on this is a little looser - as I "read" from the images and what my intuition prompts me to see at the time, I'm more interested in cards that tell a story. For that reason, I have no problem reading with a deck from an artist who is relatively new to the world of Tarot, if the pictures yell a story.

How do we decide if that story is genuinely "Tarot" or not?

Interesting thread, made me think a lot

Blessings, Light and Love

Nic

PS: "Theme" vs "Concept". Until I read this thread, I always thought that theme was wider than concept. In our context, "Theme" would mean I am going to create a deck with the theme of cats. Concept would then interpret the theme as, for example, there has to be at least one cat in each card.

Having read the thread, I'm no longer sure that this is the case and am beginning to think that for Tarot, the two words may be synonymous!