Ryan
Re: The Warning
~nod~ That is fair - but I suppose a certain defensiveness at being misunderstood can be appreciated on my part owing to my work choices and hence a polite warning for those who might not be as mature about the artistic expressions of others as you are.
This card, while depicting the awakening of the faceless woman as I said, is functionally a new depiction of a Dark Goddess called Baphomet by one of the Orders I am an adherent of. The depiction of Baphomet prior to this Order was firmly established to be a hermaphroditic goat as per the hearsay from the inquest of the Knights Templar and the difference of opinion as to the nature, meaning and distortion of this particular archetype and its symbolism. The history behind Baphomet as represented by the Order in question is fascinating but differs greatly from the Goat version of Eliphas Levi - and XV is in accordance with that change in representation. What Baphomet represents in terms of her association to Lucifer, Traditional Satanism, Sacrifice, the Giving, is largely invisible to anyone whose occult apprehensions are built on the qaballah - the cards I draw now as opposed to those I undertook for the Order when younger no longer feel the need to clutter the image with endless or even many tributes and symbolisms of what is to me a very simple archetype: the Sinister Feminine. Here we have the symbolism of a faceless dark goddess severing the head of the Dark God Lucifer - a practice rumoured to be undertaken by said Order in one of its Rituals as the Order says was practiced by Solar Cults from Albion. Behind Baphomet an army of similar faceless entities each clutching the innocuous kitchen knife advance forward to repeat the bloody heirosgamos. Lucifer's role in the system used by the Order is to cojoin with Baphomet - and this is repreated by the Satanic Priest and Priestess who use a crystal tetrahedron to open a gateway to the acausal and release the Dark Gods.
That at least is some of the story of Baphomet: but I don't think it is dark myself either - because I understand the necessity of what might be called Dark Acts that this card is intended to be a representation of. What I had originally wanted to do as I said, is show the difference between my art now and then by comparing it with a former and older deck of cards I had created.
I don't expect anyone to know, or understand the difference between my Baphomet and other satanic representations: what I do expect is that it is considered untenable to suggest to an artist that they have not done enough research or have missed out this or that. And I on my part admit to being resentful of having my artwork compared to a Setian depiction: but who could know my own venom towards that group - so my apologies also ravenwing and thank you for your msg.
Now that I'm a little more aware of what can be done:
http://rapidshare.com/files/138662511/CHANGE_VII.jpg.html
For comparison, here are my older versions of Change.
http://rapidshare.com/files/138664165/8.jpg.html
I suppose, on reflection that these are not particularly dark cards. Though as I have said, I also find an essential aspec of the Sinister to be Beauty. And I at least, think my cards are beautiful.
Isn't the difference in art striking?
~nod~ That is fair - but I suppose a certain defensiveness at being misunderstood can be appreciated on my part owing to my work choices and hence a polite warning for those who might not be as mature about the artistic expressions of others as you are.
This card, while depicting the awakening of the faceless woman as I said, is functionally a new depiction of a Dark Goddess called Baphomet by one of the Orders I am an adherent of. The depiction of Baphomet prior to this Order was firmly established to be a hermaphroditic goat as per the hearsay from the inquest of the Knights Templar and the difference of opinion as to the nature, meaning and distortion of this particular archetype and its symbolism. The history behind Baphomet as represented by the Order in question is fascinating but differs greatly from the Goat version of Eliphas Levi - and XV is in accordance with that change in representation. What Baphomet represents in terms of her association to Lucifer, Traditional Satanism, Sacrifice, the Giving, is largely invisible to anyone whose occult apprehensions are built on the qaballah - the cards I draw now as opposed to those I undertook for the Order when younger no longer feel the need to clutter the image with endless or even many tributes and symbolisms of what is to me a very simple archetype: the Sinister Feminine. Here we have the symbolism of a faceless dark goddess severing the head of the Dark God Lucifer - a practice rumoured to be undertaken by said Order in one of its Rituals as the Order says was practiced by Solar Cults from Albion. Behind Baphomet an army of similar faceless entities each clutching the innocuous kitchen knife advance forward to repeat the bloody heirosgamos. Lucifer's role in the system used by the Order is to cojoin with Baphomet - and this is repreated by the Satanic Priest and Priestess who use a crystal tetrahedron to open a gateway to the acausal and release the Dark Gods.
That at least is some of the story of Baphomet: but I don't think it is dark myself either - because I understand the necessity of what might be called Dark Acts that this card is intended to be a representation of. What I had originally wanted to do as I said, is show the difference between my art now and then by comparing it with a former and older deck of cards I had created.
I don't expect anyone to know, or understand the difference between my Baphomet and other satanic representations: what I do expect is that it is considered untenable to suggest to an artist that they have not done enough research or have missed out this or that. And I on my part admit to being resentful of having my artwork compared to a Setian depiction: but who could know my own venom towards that group - so my apologies also ravenwing and thank you for your msg.
Now that I'm a little more aware of what can be done:
http://rapidshare.com/files/138662511/CHANGE_VII.jpg.html
For comparison, here are my older versions of Change.
http://rapidshare.com/files/138664165/8.jpg.html
I suppose, on reflection that these are not particularly dark cards. Though as I have said, I also find an essential aspec of the Sinister to be Beauty. And I at least, think my cards are beautiful.
Isn't the difference in art striking?
