Is everyone using computers to create decks these days?

Nineveh

Many people did; how long have there been Tarot decks and when did the computer come into our lives?

Doing a deck the 'old school way' is NOT more or less valid than using a computer. If it had existed at the time, Michelangelo might have used spray paint to do the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel - gotten it done in a weekend instead of two year's time. Michelangelo used what was the available technology of his time; the computer happens to be ours.

50-60 years from now when all you have to do is put on a helmet and 'think' your designs into existence, someone somewhere will be starting a thread about 'Doesn't anyone still use a computer to create a deck anymore?' ;)

Ha. That's funny about Michelangelo and the spray point but yeah I get your point.

Some people (in 2014) design their own decks as I had mentioned previously and I had thought that to be strange and questioned the validity. I wondered if the readings would still be accurate but after considering what tarot really is I am certain that the readings would be no different.
 

nisaba

Some people (in 2014) design their own decks as I had mentioned previously and I had thought that to be strange and questioned the validity. I wondered if the readings would still be accurate but after considering what tarot really is I am certain that the readings would be no different.

Well, of course.

If it had to be the first deck ever designed to work, we'd all be using the Visconti Deck, designed in the early 1400s. And I'll bet you work with a very much later deck than that!
 

nisaba

My deck was ENTIRELY hand drawn with Flair (nylon) felt-tip markers, on sheets of copy paper, then scanned in and digitized to jpegs to become the illustrations in my book. They are simple and very cartoon-y ... 'cuz I ain't no artist!
But they are very warm and human. I love that you yourself wander around in the deck - Granny Jones, of my favourite deck, also did that. I love that despite the deck's theme, it is approachable and friendly to me, someone completely not of that theme.

BTW - Thanks, Nissy .... <waves>

No - thank YOU. Did I ever do a review of it for you? And is the secret out yet about the gift you included with the deck, am I allowed to mention that if I do a review?
 

sladie

Fey's and Moores Steampunk Tarot was computer drawn and painted - but not generated. There's a difference between digital art and generated to me. They still feel very personal, and I know how much work it takes to make a drawing by hand using computer programs like Adobe and GIMP. I don't like generated decks - like the Draconis - they don't have a personal feel to me at all, and frankly the artwork to me feels a bit "cheap" and unprofessional. This is just my opinion though. I mean no harshness towards it, just doesn't speak to me.

I don't have a lot of experience with other decks though, so I'm not one to pass any judgement one way or the other.
 

cerenatee

All Artwork Is Drawn By Hand

All artwork doesn't appeal to everybody. Some people don't want a picture of the grand canyon. They want a painting. Others want the majesty of what's actually there. Yet neither is more intimate to the artist. The artist that spends a year trying to get the perfect shot of some aspect of the grand canyon, under harsh conditions, doesn't produce art that is any less "intimate" than the artist that spends a week creating a watercolor of the grand canyon. In both their spirits are there; it's just the medium that is different.

I think we've become so digitized that people believe computers are capable of way more than they are. All artist 2-D renderings, other than photographs, are hand drawn. No matter how "fake" it looks or feels to people, no one is taking a picture of a dragon. Whether digital tools were used or it was scanned in, the picture was hand drawn based on the artist's imagination. After that, it may be digitally colored and corrected, for one effect, or left with all the edges raw, for another. I think what a lot of people consider more real or intimate is just the fact that it still looks like someone hand finished it, yet I can get the exact same results from digital medium if that's the result I'm after.

I'm glad that there is such a wide variety of decks that each person can choose what appeals to them but I think we need to be careful using words that devalue the exact same processes based on the finished results.
 

StMary

All artwork doesn't appeal to everybody. Some people don't want a picture of the grand canyon. They want a painting. Others want the majesty of what's actually there. Yet neither is more intimate to the artist. The artist that spends a year trying to get the perfect shot of some aspect of the grand canyon, under harsh conditions, doesn't produce art that is any less "intimate" than the artist that spends a week creating a watercolor of the grand canyon. In both their spirits are there; it's just the medium that is different.

I think we've become so digitized that people believe computers are capable of way more than they are. All artist 2-D renderings, other than photographs, are hand drawn. No matter how "fake" it looks or feels to people, no one is taking a picture of a dragon. Whether digital tools were used or it was scanned in, the picture was hand drawn based on the artist's imagination. After that, it may be digitally colored and corrected, for one effect, or left with all the edges raw, for another. I think what a lot of people consider more real or intimate is just the fact that it still looks like someone hand finished it, yet I can get the exact same results from digital medium if that's the result I'm after.

I'm glad that there is such a wide variety of decks that each person can choose what appeals to them but I think we need to be careful using words that devalue the exact same processes based on the finished results.

I totally agree with what you're saying. When I started this thread it was because I was curious. It seems the tattoo trade has become similar; instead of drawing something original especially for that individual, they'll rip some things off google, call it original because they might have changed it slightly, but it's now original in my opinion. I think it's really important to tap into your own intuition and work from the heart, computer or otherwise, but don't worry about what people want, just create from somewhere in you that elucidates what you'd want to see in/on a deck that you'd use. Personally, I prefer something that someone put their heart and soul into. Of course, when you get to the stage that you want to sell prints, then of course PS or GIMP would need to come into the process. I seriously don't think I'd want to hand produce every deck or piece of art.

Sorry about the run on paragraph. I'm on my phone posting this.

Thanks for all the feedback too. I've gotten a lot of questions answered and appreciate that so much.
 

blue_fusion

It seems the tattoo trade has become similar; instead of drawing something original especially for that individual, they'll rip some things off google, call it original because they might have changed it slightly, but it's now original in my opinion.

I've recently been ripped off this way. The person even had the gall to comment on my old deviantart page saying s/he loved the art so much s/he had it tattooed on her/him - without even bothering to ask for my permission to use my artwork.

I've seen this being done to the works of other artists as well, which is why a number of people I know (myself included) have become reluctant to post a lot of our works online. :(

Going back to the topic: my method is to draw (and maybe shade) my stuff on paper, scan them and then color them in Photoshop. I try to use textures and other "tricks" I've developed to make the resulting work not look too digital, which is just my personal preference.

That being said, and like in everything else, it really is all a matter of taste. Though there's also this notion I've been encountering called forming an "informed opinion". While we know what we like, these things (one's tastes and preferences) are subject to a lot of factors and do change over time. It would be great if people open themselves to digital art more and explore the variety of styles it can offer, get more exposed to is, to broaden one's horizons, at the very least.
 

Melia

Doing a deck the 'old school way' is NOT more or less valid than using a computer. If it had existed at the time, Michelangelo might have used spray paint to do the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel - gotten it done in a weekend instead of two year's time. Michelangelo used what was the available technology of his time; the computer happens to be ours.

I agree with this, and many other comments here. I've seen some really good computer art decks, and some slap-dash computer art decks.

... and
Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel hands: http://sistinepuzzle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/sistine-hands.png
The gloves by the reincarnated soul of MA:
http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2006/02/20/349301/3TheGloves.gif
 

flyingwind66

I really hate most 'cut and paste' decks... like Gendron... I know I talk a lot about how much I hated this deck but I really do feel betrayed by the beauty of that Transformation card :(

I have the Mystic Dreamer deck... some of the cards are beautiful and blend well but some have obviously not had as much time spent to make them look nice... and a few of the cards have the exact same models in the exact same pose! I call that lazy... for reference I have a Certification as a Digital Animator and I'm a freelance model so I do feel like I'm allowed to criticize this type of thing.

I don't mind computer painted though... it's just another medium like watercolours, oils, acrylics or charcoal (all of which I have used at some point in my life). When I make my deck, I'll probably paint it all in photoshop.
 

Zephyros

About tattoos and other things people "rip off," I have to wonder about that actually. While it can be frustrating to see your work on someone else, a certain dialogue between present and past artists is inevitable. It used to be a situation where only the "famous" artists were copied or emulated, but today anyone can present their art to the world and contribute to that dialogue. Perhaps the most overused, yet most relevant, example of this is Duchamp's Mona Lisa with a moustache. It certainly is art, it makes a statement and has become iconic, yet today it could never have been made (and yes, I know that you can't copyright the Mona Lisa). Not to mention, a tattoo would seem to be covered under fair use. Personally I wouldn't want to live in a world in which I an couldn't deface world famous works of art, that are in themselves part of our human heritage and culture. But they were not always world famous, and depend upon that dialogue that takes place through the ages.

No one has complete control of their work once it is out there, and we all enjoy fair use, but the price is that it goes both ways. I am of course not saying that the whole culture of piracy is a good thing, just that when it comes to original art, there are, and should be, limitations on control.