Deck orientation and numbering in minors?

Scutter

Landscape orientation?

Has anyone ever seen a tarot deck done in landscape rather than portrait orientation?

I haven't, but it seems like many of the ideas I have for cards would be better suited to a wider 'screen,' and I was wondering if I should follow my impulse or try to rework.

Okay, this deck will be just for my own use, so I'm sure the short answer is 'Suit yourself.' :-D I'm mainly asking if there are drawbacks to using that orientation that would make the deck less than useful?


Secondary question: I'm starting with the minor arcana (really, I'm not contrary about everything!) and I'm debating over the need to include explicit images of the card suit/number in the artwork. For example, if your artwork clearly conveys 'daydreams' and there's a label that says '7 of Cups.' is it necessary to include 7 literal cups in the design? Is having them overkill? Or, contrariwise, would leaving them out make the cards seem unfocused?
 

kayne

Hey Scutter - Welcome to Aeclectic!
(I split this thread to give it a focus all of it's own :D)

I like the idea of creating a deck that is landscape - why not? I imagine for the reader it would take a little getting ues to, especially for laying out some spreads but it would be easy enough to adapt known spreads or make up some of your own that particularly suit this card orientation.

Numbering - suit yourself! :D When I finally get to my minors I plan on 'hiding' the suit image in the card but not neccessarily use it as it was intended (eg. wallpaper pattern etc) I am also not using the regular image for each suit... but that suits the type of deck I am creating... Do what ever you like - it's yours! The Gill Tarot uses a large, decorated number, there are many rider-waite style numbered cards... do your own thing! :D

(You will have to share some of your cards with us when you are done! :))
 

Liliana

If you go landscape, you probably should do the entire deck that way. It kind of makes it hard to do reversed if some cards are portrait and some are landscape, not to mention making it nearly impossible to do a layout with cards facing dfferently like that. The Celtic cross would b a little odd with landscaped cards, but it could be gotten used to :) I believe the Medieval Scampi has some landscpe cards, and theres that wolf tarot thats not really a tarot deck, i seem to recall it uses landscape too.

If you dont want to put 5 actual cups in your 5 of cups, well then dont, you have to like your deck not anyone else really. I like to have the numbr of pbjects represented some way, but heck if the arts intuitive enough I shouldnt need it

:THP
 

Scutter

kayne said:
I like the idea of creating a deck that is landscape - why not? I imagine for the reader it would take a little getting ues to, especially for laying out some spreads but it would be easy enough to adapt known spreads or make up some of your own that particularly suit this card orientation.

I've played around a bit, laying out cards 'sideways', and most of the traditional spreads work fine if you just swap the spread from left to right and use bottom to top instead. Which I sort of like -- the idea of progressing, getting higher as time passes, you know?


Numbering - suit yourself! :D When I finally get to my minors I plan on 'hiding' the suit image in the card but not neccessarily use it as it was intended (eg. wallpaper pattern etc) I am also not using the regular image for each suit... but that suits the type of deck I am creating... Do what ever you like - it's yours! The Gill Tarot uses a large, decorated number, there are many rider-waite style numbered cards... do your own thing! :D

Ah, that's a clever idea. Putting the tokens there, but de-emphasized....I'll have to think some more. Got lotsa time for that, still, I'm only doing preliminary sketches.

I'm curious: when you say you are 'not using the regular image for each suit', do you just mean some substitution like, oh, the deck that uses pens for wands & mason jars for cups? And the divinitory meanings of the cards stays the same? Or are you creating different suits bases on different aspects of life, with entirely fresh meanings?

Sometimes I wonder how much you can change the cards and still call the result 'tarot'.


(You will have to share some of your cards with us when you are done! :))

If I can figure out how to get them into the computer, I'll be happy to. I don't have a scanner, and I probably couldn't figure out how to use it anyway. My deck will be low tech all the way: pen & ink, colored pencils, maybe watercolors.
 

kayne

Scutter said:

I'm curious: when you say you are 'not using the regular image for each suit', do you just mean some substitution like, oh, the deck that uses pens for wands & mason jars for cups? And the divinitory meanings of the cards stays the same? Or are you creating different suits bases on different aspects of life, with entirely fresh meanings?

Sometimes I wonder how much you can change the cards and still call the result 'tarot'.
If you go to my site you will get a better idea of what I am doing: 21st Century Tarot. I think some people may argue it is not tarot because it does not use traditional names but I have tried to reflect the meaning as much as I can in each card. For me the traditional meaning is the foundation and all the images in the card need to reflect that meaning - but in my case, in a modern way and without too much influence on previous ways that meaning has been depicted. The four suits will be Keys (wands), Pens (Swords), Rings (as in the things you put on your fingers, Cups) and Coins (Pentacles).
 

Major Tom

Scutter said:
Sometimes I wonder how much you can change the cards and still call the result 'tarot'.

This is an interesting question. Tarot has indisputably evolved and the rate of evolution is increasing exponentially. Being something of a traditionalist - I think that some of the things tarot has evolved into can no longer be properly called tarot. This doesn't take away from the usefullness of the resulting product - I just don't think you can call it tarot any more.

Strictly in my opinion - to be properly called tarot - a deck of cards must number 78 in total consisting of 4 suits representing the 4 physical elements - each with ace through 10 and 4 court cards (the 56 minor arcana) plus the 22 major arcana representing the universal archtypes. Renaming the courts or majors doesn't really alter this form. Adding or subtracting cards or suits does.

By this standard the deck my friend Kayne is working on can be called tarot but the deck my friend Blue_fusion20 is working on can not. Again, this is not to say one is superior to the other - it's just an acknowledgement that some of the things tarot is evolving into are no longer tarot.

Naturally - anyone is welcome to a different opinion as to what constitues tarot. })
 

Scutter

kayne said:

If you go to my site you will get a better idea of what I am doing: 21st Century Tarot. {/B]



I went, I saw, I was conquered. :) *Very* interesting take! I was charmed from the instant I saw your interpretation of the Fool as Hitchhiker -- beautifully appropriate! And I like the relative spare style, too. It leaves the main thrust of the card clear. There are some very intricate, ornamental decks that are lovely to look at for a moment or two, but which I find don't inspire me when it comes to reading from them.


The four suits will be Keys (wands), Pens (Swords), Rings (as in the things you put on your fingers, Cups) and Coins (Pentacles).


Oh, dear -- I was playing with the idea of Pens for Swords, too. I hope you'll believe I'm not stealing your idea. (Well, actually I did steal the idea, from the Victoria Regina deck, though there they were used for the wands.)

The other two substitutions strike me as inspired. Keys carry so much symbolic sense, as do rings. The only potential drawback I can see is maybe confusion between rings and coins, given their similar outline -- but I'm sure you've solved that already.


I've barely begun sketching ideas for my cards, but I think my deck will have the traditional cards for the Major Arcana -- the archetypes still resonate with modern life for me -- but I'm leaning towards renaming the court cards.

Kings, Queens, Knights, Pages....they just don't have immediate, gut-deep significances for me. Not that I have settled on my replacement titles, yet. I do want to keep the flavor of the ultimate yin and yang aspects of a suit, but avoid the (to me) implications of the Queens being subordinate to the Kings.

The Knights will be Seekers, I'm fairly sure. At the moment the Pages are Apprentices.
 

kayne

Thanks Scutter. About two years of thinking, planning, trialling different media etc went into my deck before settling on an idea I liked. I think that is important because you have to really relate to every aspect and justify any changes.

I am going to name all of my courts differently but show evidence in the picture that the person was a queen, king etc traditionally (like I have hiddent the RW name in each Major card). The genders of the cards will vary too - for example in the suit of pens they will be: Trainee (male), Employee (female), Administrator (male), Executive (female) and in the suit of rings they will be: Artist (female), Designer (male), Coordinator(female), Artistic Director (male). See them all here.

I am still developing these associations so they could change but I am happy with this idea at the moment...
 

WillieHewes

WOW!

Kayne, I just wanted to say, they're brilliant! I really love what you've done. Get them published so I can buy a copy. :p

Wow, yes, yay, cool, you rule!

*hides, ashamed of her childish enthusiasm*

Seriously, they rock.
 

Melvis

Willie Hewes: Go, 'childish enthusiasm'! :D I am unabashedly in love with Kayne's 21st Century Tarot, and I don't care who knows it! ;)

I also love the idea of Keys as a suit, especially for Wands!

BTW Scutter: I love the idea of a landscaped tarot!

Waiting (im)patiently for the publication of the 21st Century Tarot,

Peace,

Melvis
:TSTRE