Are some decks better than others?

ana luisa

Luna-Ocean said:
But how would you judge other wise without looking at the cards artwork? the discussion was just pointing out that in order to use a deck its artwork is what needs to be analysed first before one can really feel connected with it? my question was how can someone read with a deck that does not have any valued esoteric symbolism that might help more in readings, but there are people who are happy reading with the hello kitty, and there are those who feel they could read with the stick figures and yet these decks can still provide good readings.

If you use the cards as a trigger for intuition, you can pretty much read with anything. Even asparagus. http://www.eonline.com/news/508077/...-one-direction-fans-better-prepare-themselves

To me, it is the reader who makes the cards readale. Not the other way around.

Luna-Ocean

ana luisa said:
If you use the cards as a trigger for intuition, you can pretty much read with anything. Even asparagus. http://www.eonline.com/news/508077/...-one-direction-fans-better-prepare-themselves

To me, it is the reader who makes the cards readale. Not the other way around.

Yes i think intuition is the main factor here, whether or not the deck has got valid symbolism
or great art details then anything could be used just as good as a set of cards.

kalliope

Luna-Ocean said:
But how would you judge other wise without looking at the cards artwork? the discussion was just pointing out that in order to use a deck its artwork is what needs to be analysed first before one can really feel connected with it? my question was how can someone read with a deck that does not have any valued esoteric symbolism that might help more in readings, but there are people who are happy reading with the hello kitty, and there are those who feel they could read with the stick figures and yet these decks can still provide good readings.

I think we actually agree, so I'm not sure if you misunderstood what I wrote a little, or if I'm misunderstanding your question above, sorry!

Some people still seemed to be wondering what the OP was really asking about, and what she meant by "good." I said I think she was quite clear as to what she meant, and so in the end, the discussions of art quality weren't that relevant to her question, that's all.

Yes, you can only judge whether or not a deck will work for you and give you good readings by looking at it yourself and reading with it! One can only have a reaction by looking at the cards. I disagree with the idea (as discussed generally in the thread) that the quasi-objective "quality" of artwork or amount of rich esoteric symbolism in a deck correlates with whether or not most readers will get "better, more accurate readings" from it, which is what the OP wanted to know.

The discussion had shifted from talking about a person's own reaction to a deck to analyzing how to tell if a deck's art was truly better in the objective, art-criticism sense. As others have pointed out, I might personally enjoy or connect with artwork that is technically, objectively, "bad art". The connection, or ability to tweak one's intuition (as Grizabella put it) is what's important for good readings, not the actual quality of the art. Some readers may need to connect to a deck on an aesthetic level, other readers need esoteric symbolism that clicks with their brain, and for other people even ugly and symbolically spare images can spark their intuition.

My point was only that true art criticism and layers of esoteric meaning aren't relevant to a deck's usefulness unless that particular reader cares about them. Many do, but some don't!

Luna-Ocean

kalliope said:
I think we actually agree, so I'm not sure if you misunderstood what I wrote a little, or if I'm misunderstanding your question above, sorry! Some people still seemed to be wondering what the OP was really asking about, and what she meant by "good." I said I think she was quite clear as to what she meant, and so in the end, the discussions of art quality weren't that relevant to her question, that's all.

Yes, you can only judge whether or not a deck will work for you and give you good readings by looking at it yourself and reading with it! One can only have a reaction by looking at the cards. I disagree with the idea (as discussed generally in the thread) that the quasi-objective "quality" of artwork or amount of rich esoteric symbolism in a deck correlates with whether or not most readers will get "better, more accurate readings" from it, which is what the OP wanted to know.

The discussion had shifted from talking about a person's own reaction to a deck to analyzing how to tell if a deck's art was truly better in the objective, art-criticism sense. As others have pointed out, I might personally enjoy or connect with artwork that is technically, objectively, "bad art". The connection, or ability to tweak one's intuition (as Grizabella put it) is what's important for good readings, not the actual quality of the art. Some readers may need to connect to a deck on an aesthetic level, other readers need esoteric symbolism that clicks with their brain, and for other people even ugly and symbolically spare images can spark their intuition.

My point was only that true art criticism and layers of esoteric meaning aren't relevant to a deck's usefulness unless that particular reader cares about them. Many do, but some don't!

Thank you for explaining and i also agree with your thoughts on this, i'm not really one for using the esoteric symbols with any of the decks i read with when doing readings, i have also read with very basic limited decks that didn't give much away with the cards interpretation but made alot of sense for the sitter getting the reading?