Tarot Archetypes- the old, and possibly new?

I had a thought while sitting and looking through my decks... there are ones that clearly can be seen as a start of a new system- an archetype (if you will) that shows an actual philosophical/artistic change in the tarot system and from which newer ones emerge.

For instance, these historical/classics all fit that bill for me:

Visconti (prototype Cary-Yale)
Sola Busca (first minors illustrated deck)
Marseilles (prototype Noblet)
Etteilla (prototype Grand Etteilla)
Rider Waite
Thoth

Each was the start of an era, each showed a significant change in artistic style/philosophy while retaining the traditional form of tarot.

So- my question to myself (and to my fellow AT members)- is there a deck that you feel has come more recently that can be viewed in this light? I see most of the new decks as being variations of these older ones- be it RWS type, Thoth type, etc. But perhaps there are different points of view?

And what do you think the next great archetype will look like? Just a general feel rather than something concrete... Or do we even have the ability anymore to create such giants?!

Feel free to add in a historical/more recent deck I may have missed- I am trying to keep within the typical tarot format (which is why the minchiate didn't get included). I am interested to hear others thoughts/opinions on this matter. It was funny though- when I thought of it- if I ever had to capture just a few decks from my collection to ensure that they lived on forever- the above would be those that made the list. I can't think of any new one that hasn't been spawned/inspired/created based on these archetypes. Though it would be nice to see...

Hmmmm, maybe not in the same league as those you posted above, but I have always considered Paul Huson's Dame Fortune as something very new and refreshing - he does use Etailla's meanings (mostly, I think, or maybe always - I am not sure) for his numbers, follows French playing cards tradition in his courts, and combines those with Trumps that are certainly historical, but not TdM.

I would have thought that his deck would get a lot more following than it seems to have gotten.

Otoh, maybe I am only partial to it because it is really close to my personal perfect deck, you know, the one that you have been working on for years and hope to have published one day...

A really interesting question - and I have an equally interesting answer. Several years ago I might have said the Transparent Tarot, but I really don't think that's an evolutionary advance in the tarot - it's more of a novelty, albeit a very clever and compelling one.

There is however, a deck that I think does make the kind of advance you're talking about. It's only just over a year old, and I suspect we'll see more of this kind of thing as tarot evolves. I'm talking about The Tarot of the Silicon Dawn. It's not that the meanings have changed (none of the decks you've cited have truly radically changed the meanings throughout); what's new and different and, I suspect, will lead to more decks of the same type, is that the creator simply created the cards she thought were appropriate, without regard to tradition or standard, but ensured that they fit the pattern, the sensibility, of her deck. In my opinion, this is a very delicate evolution; creators won't just be able to throw any cards they like into the mix; the additions will need to be carefully thought through and truly add something to the traditional deck, without compromising the standard archetypes, and will give readers and users a large variety of options to work with.

I have to be honest though. There are many positives about this deck, not the least of which is that with the thoughtfully-added cards it seems to be paradigm-changing; I'm not talking about Happy Squirrels, or alternate cards, or a Significator. It does read pretty well - I use all 99 cards (yes, I got the 'black card' on my first reading, in a very appropriate place). And I have enjoyed the book more than almost any other companion book I've read. But I just don't like the deck. The cards are too small for one thing. But worst of all, and what will keep me from using this deck regularly, I find the art and coloring to be, well, just short of ugly.

But that's just my humble opinion. As I say, though, it's a really intriguing question. Thanks for asking it.

I feel that the Magic-Realist Press' tarot decks define new archetypes in the tarot. Specifically the Victorian Romantic and the Fantastic Menagerie Tarot. They are less RWS and more oracular because they tell the usual story in a very different way. I find it impossible to read these in RWS only manner but I love them for it.

Except for the Marseilles, Visconti and other pre-de Gebelin decks, the "advances" in Tarot were made by occultists who also dictated their aesthetic design. It was they who really gave Tarot its esoteric structure. The Sola Busca may have pictures, but it has, I believe, a lot more in common with the Marseilles than with the RWS.

The artists may change, but not that much has changed since the Golden Dawn, except superficially. This must be kept in mind when speaking about Tarot evolution. Not that I'm saying it can't, or shouldn't, but I don't see an uninitiated artist being the one that does it.

Thanks everyone for the feedback/answers. I find the question becoming even more elusive as I look at the iconography of the old decks and compare/contrast the basic images that create the idea behind each individual card. (My own little word document of research and clarification. ) The more I dig, the more I really see these as the giants of tarot.

And while I like that there are artists making the tarot their own- it makes me wonder if the evolutionary process will end up culling some of the original ideology behind the meanings, especially for the trumps. I guess that is why I am very happy to see a large body of interest continued for the research and reproduction of the historical decks!

closrapexa said:

The artists may change, but not that much has changed since the Golden Dawn, except superficially. This must be kept in mind when speaking about Tarot evolution. Not that I'm saying it can't, or shouldn't, but I don't see an uninitiated artist being the one that does it.

Click to expand...

And this is a fantastic point of view closrapexa! And I would be tempted to add that perhaps the lack of "new" archetypal decks may come from the fact that the newer "initiates" and lines of mystical schools do not place focus on making your own personal tarot as a guide for learning. Rather- if they use the tarot at all, it is more in learning what is already there, rather than taking the basic iconography and expanding it to the particular esoteric system. Or, if a new one is made- sometimes it is muddled with so much extraneous information and changes in the imagery- it loses the original feel (thinking of the Greencraft in this regard).

The one possibility that I ponder is the Greenwood. Kind of like the mother of the shamanic/nature based decks. My only issue is that if the entirety of the original iconography is lost- is it still the same system? Or has a new one been reinvented based on the old meanings with new imagery? My Ironwing is fantastic- but definitely falls outside all the traditional norms- yet I would consider it a tarot, even without the traditional imagery. That leads me to say yes. But if all tarot decks were lost- and someone was trying to reinvent what the tarot meant to us now- with growing the ideology for the future, it wouldn't be the one deck I would want left (at least with no other comparison) as it doesn't truly define tarot. Which leads me to say no. Not an easy answer to say the least!

I am enjoying the insights though- and hope to read more!

I think the Wheel of the Year analogy is onto something. That to me feels like a system that works and ties in well and tightly with the deck, with 78 cards, a system that can go deeper and which has mileage in it.

I also agree with Dame Fortune's Wheel though you could argue that this is a system that (Majors & Courts apart) has made the Etteilla system accessible.

The question is whether a new system ends up being a quirk - from which tarot swiftly moves on - or a deck that somehow sticks. There are many unusual systems that last a few years but so few that have staying power.

Tough question to answer but interesting nonetheless.

Yes it is an interesting question, but perhaps premature. Tarot is we know it today is about five hundred years old, and has developed pretty rapidly in historical terms, but not dramatically in the spans of peoples' lifetimes. It was only in 1773 that De Gébelin published his book, Etteilla published his two years later and Levis's appearing only in 1855. While I'm sure there were other important figures, I'm guessing those are the most known. In 1888 the first GD temple opened, the RWS was published in 1909 while the Thoth had to wait many more years, with the first exhibition opening in 1942 and the first official publication in 1969.

Tarot history has a very deep breath, but in terms of timelines, it seems we may indeed witness a systematic revolution even in our lifetimes. On the other hand, those were different times, when decks didn't come out in the hundreds of varieties annually as today. It may very well be revolutionary decks come out all the time, but get drowned out in the noise.

But still, figures like Waite, Crowley and Mathers went back to the roots like the Picatrix mentioned in another thread, worked things out for themselves, really did their homework. Most decks today, even very original ones like the Deviant Moon, follow the basic outlines of the RWS without knowledge of the decans or where the images, and meanings, came from. Standing on the shoulders of giants is fine, but it seems the trend is to innovate stylistically and artistically rather than philosophically. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Devil, which the GD all but stripped of his "evil" and turned him into a much more interesting idea. Nevertheless, the exoteric portrayal is still the guilt-laying "anything material is bad" figure of Christian tradition.

The Enochian comes to mind. Although I don't have it, it is something really and completely different.

I agree on many levels with what was posted. My only concern is that the recent trend has brought about changes from the original intent for some of the majors. The newest trend may be relatively young- but the tarot itself has been around for quite a while longer.

As far as card changes, the Devil is one- but what about the Hermit? Initially- he was more of a father time figure- the light actually being an hourglass. That is another one that seems to have gotten lost. My fear is that if all the new decks just jump on the new archetype bandwagon- some of those old esoteric meanings may get lost. Imagery jumpstarting from incomplete/incorrect iconography will just further move away from the original ideology.

On a more humorous note- it reminds me of the Southpark episode where they kept trying to come up with an original idea, unti they were reminded that it had "already been done" on the Simpsons.

Le Fanu said:

I also agree with Dame Fortune's Wheel though you could argue that this is a system that (Majors & Courts apart) has made the Etteilla system accessible.

Click to expand...

True- but I didn't love it as much as my Medieval Scapini- which I think does a splendid job mixing Visconti and Marseille imagery with Etteilla-like minors. (And incidentally, has a more historically correct hermit).

Perhaps I am missing the point or being too simplistic, but the following decks seem to me to meet the criteria as I understand it. They are taking us in new directions, with new Iconography new Archetypes, new attitudes, new meanings. All of them require work, all of them are worth the work.
In no particular order:

Ironwing

Greenwood

Wild Unknown

Silicon Dawn

Mary El