Scion
temperlyne said:
Excellent! Thank you for explaining your process. Actually it sounds a lot like what I do when I'm starting a script, focussing incrementally but seeing through the lens of the project.
Your Deck's Symbolic Structure...
Excellent! Thank you for explaining your process. Actually it sounds a lot like what I do when I'm starting a script, focussing incrementally but seeing through the lens of the project.
Satori
Scion said:
Great response. Thank you.
The funny thing here is that as I was reading your response to OnePotato I was thinking that what if we were at a workshop, like the Reader's Studio, and we all had a pile of symbols, little magnets. Our task now is to communicate with each other. At first I thought, do a reading with the little magnets, then I thought, no just communicate with only the symbols.
And then you share your vision! Kinda weird, because the timing was right around when you might have been writing your response to me!
I love what you say about the art in the throwing.
So you are sort of saying, the real magic is in the attempt? In the attempt to create a symbolic language that has the potential for capturing an audience of like-minded beings?
I was thinking too of the ground the symbol lands in.
Since we are in fact discussing the creation of a tool that is seen as a spiritual and magical tool, there are going to be layers of mystery that lie within the perception or reception of the symbol. As a writer I know that there is a certain amount of meaning that the author has ascribed to a certain passage, but let the deconstructionists get hold of it and suddenly there is a maelstrom of image and meaning that may never have been intended.
I'm thinking this is true for art/artists/Creators.
Once the discerning public gets hold of something it is bound to be interpreted differently. Which is why I think there really is no good or bad art, just what you like or don't like. There is of course art that falls into categories like classical, cubist etc. Personally, I'm not about saying "what a bad painting". I think my 4yo paints masterpieces worthy of hanging beside the Madonna of the Rocks, but hey, that is my opinion.
I'm thinking that there must be some difference between artists who make Tarots and artists who do not. Now here is a very subtle line. Because show a Reader a piece of art even tho it might not be in card form, and I think you can still get a reading out of it, even if it isn't a Tarot reading. This speaks to the divination point that Karen/Rachel makes. (Someone get Ms. Rachel in here please!)
Those of us attuned to Seeing Images as More than some kind of Captured Moment/Moment in Time/Fantasy .....
Hmm. A Reader Reads.
edit:
(I come at this as a reader, trying to create the deck for the reader. May not be able to stay in this as a Reader. I don't see myself as Artist. May be a problem for me....)
I think I'm saying put a reader across from a sitter.
Hand the reader some images.
Let the sitter shuffle them.
Will you get a reading, regardless of symbol?
I think so.
So, what I'm still asking, is, does the symbol set, regardless of it's Universality, make the reading? I ask this because this is part of the equation some how, isn't it?
Because I'm not saying the symbols are meaningless, just that there may a certain genius is not really caring too much about the litmus test for an authentic Tarot symbol. I think that last line may get me into trouble...I'm playing with some ideas here, and sort of being a devil's advocate.
Please don't burn me at the stake.
Scion
elf said:
No stakes, or if there are save me a spot next to you! I'll bring marshmallows. You know I love some healthy diabolic advocacy. 
I do think the Magic is in the attempt to create/convey meaning. But that's pretty abstract. BUt also that I wonder how much people acknowledge that building a Tarot is in itself a Magical task that draws on a vast tradition.
I'd say that not caring about the authenticity is one of the strengths of modern art, and one of its weaknesses. Creating something entirely from scratch is an impossiblity because we are ourselves collages of our memories and impressions and senses. So more pointedly, how aware are we of those influences, and how consciously do we incorporate some and discard others? I'd say the Art (and the Magic) is in the selection of details.
And what would you say the litmus test is? I think that's what baba calls the Tarot Police: this is but that isn't a Tarot.... I'd say it's shades of grey. But I also think people appropriate a lot of material without identifying the sources. Anyone who puts a black cat at the Queen of Wand's feet and encircles the Magician with an ouroubouros is most likely lifting from the Golden Dawn. Anyone who retitles Strength Lust and gives us a multiheaded Lion is refrencing Crowley-Harris. The thing is neither of these two examples sprang out of thin air; they referenced other things themselves consciously or unconsciously. People have spent decades trying to understand the how and the why. Smith's triple-pierced heart has an identifiable source and she made that choice. My initial question in this thread was about the conscious choices people made, and how the choice changed the process. Again, I think I asked the wrong questions.
As for ignoring tradition, I think we're back to what Baba said about the unlikely event of constructing an entirely new system from scratch that succeeds. People just won't put in the effort with every new deck. And there is a history that is getting referenced even it's by rejection. Temperlyn is painting intuitively, but her inspiration comes from an esoteric source as she parses it. If it's Tarot it has meaning and therefore symbolic content. The symbols can't be stripped clear, because even smoshes of color conveying mood must draw on a set of meanings, and thence a structure. Even the most stripped down Tarot has certain elements that make it readable. The old story about reading sugar packets as virtual tarot bears this out, the reader was using imaginary images which in themselves followed a structure. The question is, how much can you strip away until it isn't a Tarot by anyone's defnition (other than the creator's)? And on what basis are you choosing your symbols? Which was my initial question. LOL
If people are making pictures, what is the guideline they're following that makes those 22 or 78 images Tarot as opposed to a random gallery of artwork? Even if they're not aware of doing it, artists draw on sources and ideological parents. As Picasso said, "No artist is a bastard." And I might add: "...no matter how hard they try."
Shawn
baba-prague
and in that spirit (pardon the pun)...Scion said:
I would acknowledge that. But I don't talk about it openly very much. Because I don't want to be written off as some sort of lunatic in part - and also because I have a strong belief that you strip magic of its power when you cheapen it by talking about it lightly (for example to draw attention to yourself - oh lord, just realised I should be clear I am NOT pointing at anyone here, more at people like the Miss Cleos and Mystic Megs). Sometimes I feel we should say more about the magical (in a real sense - not just as an adjective) experience that making the Tarot of Prague was. Other times I'm happier saying nothing. But I DO acknowledge it.Scion said:
I think the reason we are struggling so hard and so painfully with See of Logos is that it also has this quality. Though most people will only see the absurdity of the deck and not the figures in the smoke
No, I don't think I've ever used the term (except when quoting someone else) and I'm not wild about it as a description. I HAVE talked about "tarot purists" which I think describes the issue better. Purism - or puritanism - sounds such a good thing, but it can also be deadening - that's the problem. The Devil often tempts with promises of purity...Scion said:
I don't think that's a criticism. As I was trying to say with my software development parallel, the point is that people now don't have any motivation to learn a whole new system because there is no need - or so it seems. The systems are now "standards" and most of what we see is likely to build on those standards - if the intention is that it becomes widely used.Scion said:
Again, to go back to See. It is being done as "not a tarot deck" perhaps in part to avoid this issue. And I don't think it will be widely used, which is why we are putting it out in a very limited edition. But it will be an experiment in offering a whole new system (a post-tarot system
perhaps?) for those who want to try a different view or experience. I'll say here that I was disappointed and a bit in despair at the deck being taken as a parody deck at a recent Readers' Studio. But perhaps we come back to the embarrassment of magic? Maybe it's just easier at moments to say "this is a parody" than "this is magical". I wonder. The magician and the joker are never far apart. (that Celtic tale that we used for our Fairytale Magician - "The Storyteller at Fault" is the most complete story about this that I know). Edited to add. I'm trying to say - See of Logos will make things happen - for some people. Now, there is a claim! It is packed with symblism, and that's the whole point, everything is played with - juggled with even. The best magicians are also jugglers surely. So is that tarot? It's certainly divining with cards.
I'd sort of like to bring Alex in here as he is the most passionate believer in the necessity of art building on what went before. He can't bear (I'd put it that strongly) art that seems ignorant of history or the influences of the past. But just how and what one builds on is quite a large question. Personally, for example, now when I see Crowley's "Lust" I see it as an illustration of an old Russian amulet (I was very surprised when I found the reference three or four years back) but that doesn't mean that Crowley was aware that this imagery has been used in traditional Russian magic. So do we go back as far as Crowley - or back further to look at what he built on? Or what developed in parallel? Or back further still? Should we all, for instance, read the Hermetica? (I'd say yes, ideally, but OMG it's a slow read). How much research is enough? I don't have the answers, but you see what I mean about attempts to say "this is okay but this isn't" when judging various tarots' symbolism and structure? It's fraught with pitfalls.Scion said:If people are making pictures, what is the guideline they're following that makes those 22 or 78 images Tarot as opposed to a random gallery of artwork? Even if they're not aware of doing it, artists draw on sources and ideological parents. As Picasso said, "No artist is a bastard." And I might add: "...no matter how hard they try."
Shawn
Your basic plea for knowledge and acknowledgement of history and past practice I entirely agree with. But beyond that, well, I am a bit befuddled really.
Scion
Oh, Karen you do kick my intellectual butt in the best possible way! 
) I feel like there's this misconception that the population of London in the 1880s was nonsexual, when actually some of the most shocking erotica comes out of that period. And all that sublimated force was channelled in these startling directions. (Yogis of the spat, yoginis of the corset) Granted, they believed that even the ankles of furniture had to be dressed, but not talking about sex just drove the stream underground. Back in my college days in this big thesis on Sade, I found a fairytale theorist (another link to y'all!) who argued that pornography is the fairytale of the adult, and that Magick is Sex for the young. That the only way to think about Magick from a child's eye view was to consider the ways adults focus on (or don't focus on) Sex, its power, its dangers, its promise.
Naming something Tarot is a promise, and the more anyone can honor that promise the better the results will be. If I pick up a new deck and the choices are clear (even if they're unfamiliar), then it will be useful. There are plays I love even though I NEVER would have written them, and there are those I would cut off a finger to have written because the work is so resonant and the choices are so close what mine would have been. I think the choices are the Art.
Last time I looked, this thread had over 750 views, but only a handful of replies. If nothing else, maybe folks browsing through all this text will bump into a few good questions to ask themselves that will clarify some details or connect some dots. People create decks for myriad reasons: study, meditation, artistic exercise, boredom, exploration. No one code of behavior could apply across the board, but isn't being clear about reasons and reasoning generally good? I'm not saying "purism" will get anyone anywhere, because Waite and Crowley broke a LOT of rules and accomplished amazing things. But they tried. No two decks (even by the same creator, natch) are the same. The Alchemy that blends the elements of any creative process is particular to each. Of course, Research is only one component among many... Skill. Vision. Wisdom. Organization. Talent. A Sense of Wonder. And Magick.
A little Magick isn't too much to ask.
Scion
I do know what you mean, but I think that remaining completely silent does a fair amount of damage as well. Like the Victorians with sex. (a topic near and dear to your heart I'm surebaba-prague said:
) I feel like there's this misconception that the population of London in the 1880s was nonsexual, when actually some of the most shocking erotica comes out of that period. And all that sublimated force was channelled in these startling directions. (Yogis of the spat, yoginis of the corset) Granted, they believed that even the ankles of furniture had to be dressed, but not talking about sex just drove the stream underground. Back in my college days in this big thesis on Sade, I found a fairytale theorist (another link to y'all!) who argued that pornography is the fairytale of the adult, and that Magick is Sex for the young. That the only way to think about Magick from a child's eye view was to consider the ways adults focus on (or don't focus on) Sex, its power, its dangers, its promise. Well, I may have been guilty of making you feel that, because that Tarot Studio thread was me typing the anecdote and I related the hilarious response to Rachel's reading, but I'll offer a small solace. If there's one thing I've learned in a lifetime of writing comedy is that Laughter is the sound of Truth. People laugh when they spot truths that shake them. The harder the truth the deeper the laugh. What is the line? "If I did not laugh, I would die." A strong link here to Magick (and Sex actually) and the embarassment we feel when faced with anything powerful.baba-prague said:
... is a much more useful term. Self explanatory and indicative of the appeal and the danger. Duly noted.baba-prague said:
That was probably my misphrasing; I didn't take it as a criticism at all, more of an observation of the status quo. Here we are over a hundred years since Book T was formulated and it has become a de facto standard. Bang. Like Plato, you can agree or disgree but you can't ignore him, plunked there in the middle of the intellectual road. Nowadays, even to throw out Book T entirely is to incorporate it, because you are consciously rejecting something with which you expect everyone to be familiar. Everyoine will be searching for them, the Book T fingerprints are still present (even by absence) on whatever "creation" you do.baba-prague said:
Hallelujah! That's probably why y'all do such consistently rich and beautiful work. A fresh eye and a sense of history is pretty much a recipe for Art with a capital A. And I'm sorry to tell you, but Alex and I may be neck and neck for the Passionate Believer title. It's the burning cornerstone of my entire existence, personal and professional.baba-prague said:
YES! YES AND YES I SAID YES I WILL YES!! I don't think everyone has to read everything, obviously because people are mortal and life intrudes. I asked about people's symbols because I wanted to know what they had researched, how they had proceeded, what they'd retained and discarded. I do think that people should be clear on why they choose to ignore things that are obviously important to work that they believe to be important. If you aren't reading Mathers and Waite and Crowley and Case and Levi and Etteilla and Fortune and Agrippa and Bruno and Picatrix, why not? No one has to read anything, but if you choose not to, what was the logic behind that omission. Why was People magazine useful, but not Pythagoras? That's not as combative as it might sound, but even no choice is a choice. I want to understand the artist's choice. For me, the choice is everything.baba-prague said:
It's funny, this thread has been transubstantiated in the past week. Originally I wanted to understand how people were making their choices and how the process played out for them. Then I thought people felt boxed in or confused by the choices presented in the poll because I hadn't been clear enough. Now I guess I hope that people reading through the thread will think more about the whys and hows of the process as they experience it.baba-prague said:
Naming something Tarot is a promise, and the more anyone can honor that promise the better the results will be. If I pick up a new deck and the choices are clear (even if they're unfamiliar), then it will be useful. There are plays I love even though I NEVER would have written them, and there are those I would cut off a finger to have written because the work is so resonant and the choices are so close what mine would have been. I think the choices are the Art.
Last time I looked, this thread had over 750 views, but only a handful of replies. If nothing else, maybe folks browsing through all this text will bump into a few good questions to ask themselves that will clarify some details or connect some dots. People create decks for myriad reasons: study, meditation, artistic exercise, boredom, exploration. No one code of behavior could apply across the board, but isn't being clear about reasons and reasoning generally good? I'm not saying "purism" will get anyone anywhere, because Waite and Crowley broke a LOT of rules and accomplished amazing things. But they tried. No two decks (even by the same creator
, natch) are the same. The Alchemy that blends the elements of any creative process is particular to each. Of course, Research is only one component among many... Skill. Vision. Wisdom. Organization. Talent. A Sense of Wonder. And Magick.A little Magick isn't too much to ask.
Scion
baba-prague
Scion said:
Now there IS a writer who knew about building on the past. My hero.
That may be a disgression. But well, you know...
______
Anyway. A little magic tends to come unasked doesn't it?
Too much to say at this point. So I will go to bed instead.
Edited to add. No, I'll say one thing. I didn't mean one should not talk about magic. I meant more that one should be very discreet in talking about personal experiences of it. It seems to me almost disrespectful to do so in some circumstances. But to read the whole argument, for instance, about the battles that raged about magic and the Hermetica, and to discuss those - yes, of course we should do so. If Bruno was burnt at the stake for it, the least we can do is endure a bit of ridicule.
Edited to add. Hmm, on the other hand if I could write like Justine Picardie I might feel better about talking directly about such things. That's an awfully good book to read ("If the Spirit Moves you" - sorry amazon link is too long to post) if you want to think about the place of magic in our modern mind set. Okay, it's about spiritualism specifically, but it made me think a lot about divination too. And about all the Victorian table-turning and seancing that would have gone on around the time of the Golden Dawn.
I think I might in fact argue that Picardie is important for me as a deck designer (definitely for the next deck) whereas Pythagoras isn't. There! You got one very clear and definite answer. I will wait until tomorrow before I retract it
Scion
Funny that you should mention it! I ordered it after you mentioned it in an earlier post.baba-prague said:Justine Picardie I might feel better about talking directly about such things. That's an awfully good book to read ... I think I might in fact argue that Picardie is important for me as a deck designer (definitely for the next deck) whereas Pythagoras isn't. There! You got one very clear and definite answer. I will wait until tomorrow before I retract it
I figure we have so many overlaps in our interests that it was a safe bet! Very much looking forward to it.S
Leo62
Very interesting thread, although it makes me feel like I'm back in college...
To return to the original question, my own process tends to be "high-concept", to borrow a term from filmmaking, i.e. I come up with the structure first. I don't do a single image until I have the skeleton in place. That's just the way it works for me. Also, unlike many others, I'm not drawn to historical decks (though I do read with historically-themed decks). I just seem to be future-oriented in the ideas I come up with. This is not a result of any concsious credo or principle, it's just the way I'm wired I guess. And I suspect this is the case for most creative people, though they may then tack on elaborate rationalisations for why they work in a certain way, or in a certain area. We like to find reasons for what we love, what obsesses us. Likewise, we also like to find reasons to make the things that repel us "wrong." There are some decks that do nothing from me, some that I actively dislike. But that's about me, not the deck itself.
It's my belief that the creative process is, at its heart, a great big mystery. And too much analysis while one is in the process can kill it.
The rationalisation, the understanding of why one has created a certain thing, comes later - if at all!
To return to the original question, my own process tends to be "high-concept", to borrow a term from filmmaking, i.e. I come up with the structure first. I don't do a single image until I have the skeleton in place. That's just the way it works for me. Also, unlike many others, I'm not drawn to historical decks (though I do read with historically-themed decks). I just seem to be future-oriented in the ideas I come up with. This is not a result of any concsious credo or principle, it's just the way I'm wired I guess. And I suspect this is the case for most creative people, though they may then tack on elaborate rationalisations for why they work in a certain way, or in a certain area. We like to find reasons for what we love, what obsesses us. Likewise, we also like to find reasons to make the things that repel us "wrong." There are some decks that do nothing from me, some that I actively dislike. But that's about me, not the deck itself.
It's my belief that the creative process is, at its heart, a great big mystery. And too much analysis while one is in the process can kill it.
The rationalisation, the understanding of why one has created a certain thing, comes later - if at all!
Scion
Leo, I hear you talking.
The process is strange and delicate. And I do understand high-concept creation; scriptwise I've found myself working both ways depending on the gig and the amount of time I'm afforded.
Perhaps that caution abouut disturbing the muse does explain people's reticence, though I'm not convinced. Again, I believe in finding the path as you walk (as Winnie and Sidhe describe above), but that in itself is a way of discovering symbol, and so is another thing that could be described.
I am a big proponent of artists interacting; it kicks everyone's butt forward in a good way. There was a time when Racine could say to Corneille, "I think your Phaedra is ludicrous and I'm going to prove it to you by writing a better one." The exchange of ideas and the sense of community makes for dynamic art. Isn't Artaud the one who talks about being burned alive and signalling to your fellows through the flames? One of the downfalls of modern Western "civilization" are these sheetrock boxes to which it happily consigns anyone willing to live out their days in a cubicle under fluorescent lighting and the drone of an air conditioner.
Your idea of rightness and wrongness is a useful one, because I do think we create and recreate what we find resonant. And we rationalize the things we find resonant. The Art is in making it resonant for other people. I wasn't asking for understanding; I was asking about choices. And everyone in the creation Forum is making choices for various reasons. Again, a better question for me to have asked is: what element in the art you create makes you think its a part of a Tarot, and why was that element useful to your process?
Scion
The process is strange and delicate. And I do understand high-concept creation; scriptwise I've found myself working both ways depending on the gig and the amount of time I'm afforded.
Perhaps that caution abouut disturbing the muse does explain people's reticence, though I'm not convinced. Again, I believe in finding the path as you walk (as Winnie and Sidhe describe above), but that in itself is a way of discovering symbol, and so is another thing that could be described.
I am a big proponent of artists interacting; it kicks everyone's butt forward in a good way. There was a time when Racine could say to Corneille, "I think your Phaedra is ludicrous and I'm going to prove it to you by writing a better one." The exchange of ideas and the sense of community makes for dynamic art. Isn't Artaud the one who talks about being burned alive and signalling to your fellows through the flames? One of the downfalls of modern Western "civilization" are these sheetrock boxes to which it happily consigns anyone willing to live out their days in a cubicle under fluorescent lighting and the drone of an air conditioner.
Your idea of rightness and wrongness is a useful one, because I do think we create and recreate what we find resonant. And we rationalize the things we find resonant. The Art is in making it resonant for other people. I wasn't asking for understanding; I was asking about choices. And everyone in the creation Forum is making choices for various reasons. Again, a better question for me to have asked is: what element in the art you create makes you think its a part of a Tarot, and why was that element useful to your process?
Scion
baba-prague
Scion said:
Every time I go to the studio I walk past the palace (which now has a convenient little grocery store on the ground floor, oh how times change) where Mozart first met Casanova. This also brightens my purchase of the odd pint of milk or packet of peanuts. "Here on this very spot..." I think to myself. Though I doubt Mozart ate many peanuts.
Maybe one day there will be a blue digi-plaque (http://www.blueplaque.com/) pinned to the homepage of AT?
