For Tarot Deck Creators - What is a Tarot deck? (revisited)

Major Tom

gregory said:
"Tarot is not primarily for divination."

Doesn't that depend on what you mean by divination ? It ISN'T just foretelling the future; it can equally well mean self discovery etc.

Hi Gregory - Thanks for joining the conversation. I do hope you've read what others have said.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying. Are you saying tarot is primarily for divination or even that tarot is only for divination?

Granted, we can define the term divination however we wish, but for me, when associated with tarot, the term refers to somehow 'reading' or 'finding meaning' in the cards by mixing them up and laying them out. Granted also that there are any number of ways to do this and no limits to the type of information obtained.

Again for me, this is distinctly different from using tarot as a pathway for reunion with God. It may be that you would also call this use divination. *shrugs* For clarity's sake I find it easier to try to define the term divination as a sort of 'consultation' or 'conversation' with the divine rather than a 'reunion' with the divine.

Your mileage may vary.

mythos

Major Tom said:
For clarity's sake I find it easier to try to define the term divination as a sort of 'consultation' or 'conversation' with the divine rather than a 'reunion' with the divine.

Thank you Tom ... mind if I steal this as a quote in my notes? I have never been able to put this into words.

mythos

gregory

Major Tom said:
Hi Gregory - Thanks for joining the conversation. I do hope you've read what others have said.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying. Are you saying tarot is primarily for divination or even that tarot is only for divination?

Of course I read what everyone else said. There wouldn't be much point saying anything myself if I hadn't.

Not that I'd pretend that I know enough to say much - I was reading the thread from interest/to learn rather than to contribute.

All I meant, though, was that I found it "awkward" if you like, to take on board what you said:

I don't consider tarot's primary purpose to be divination, so cannot agree with your analysis.

- when divination has so MANY meanings to so many people. It is easier to take on board what you say and discuss it further if you define what YOU mean by it.

Granted, we can define the term divination however we wish, but for me, when associated with tarot, the term refers to somehow 'reading' or 'finding meaning' in the cards by mixing them up and laying them out. Granted also that there are any number of ways to do this and no limits to the type of information obtained.

Again for me, this is distinctly different from using tarot as a pathway for reunion with God. It may be that you would also call this use divination. *shrugs* For clarity's sake I find it easier to try to define the term divination as a sort of 'consultation' or 'conversation' with the divine rather than a 'reunion' with the divine.

As you now have. Thanks.

Major Tom

mythos said:
Thank you Tom ... mind if I steal this as a quote in my notes? I have never been able to put this into words.

Give me credit and you can quote me.

gregory said:
All I meant, though, was that I found it "awkward" if you like, to take on board what you said:

Quote:
I don't consider tarot's primary purpose to be divination, so cannot agree with your analysis.

- when divination has so MANY meanings to so many people. It is easier to take on board what you say and discuss it further if you define what YOU mean by it.

Thanks for explaining what you meant.

And thanks also for joining in the conversation. I think you have plenty to contribute.

I would certainly like to hear from everyone who regularly participates on this board. I suspect everyone has something to contribute.

Satori

Ah Major Tom,

I have very much enjoyed thinking about the ideas you put forth in this thread.

Interesting because at first I'm aghast thinking, don't use Tarot as divination....and then I realize that when I break in a new deck I have a conversation with it in order to see what sort of relationship we might have. And this goes beyond the "New Deck Spread".

As you say, and I have said and others have said, a conversation with the Divine. So this conversation you have started here serves as a conscious sort of "mile marker" creating in the mind of the reader/deck creator a signal to be concious of the kind of relationship you want to have with Tarot and then what kind of relationship others might have with your deck as a Tarot.

I too have fantasized about creating a deck, and then I laugh hysterically at the thought, because I'm having enough trouble creating a card for the AT deck, and then I think, ok, metaphysics, think of the need for the thing. You create a thing (perhaps even re-create a thing) when you need a thing.

I find myself standing on the shoulders of giants all the time when it comes to Tarot. That I might have an original thought as regards Tarot is sort of like dreaming a dream and then having a deja vu later. (Personally, I love deja vu, and supposing I might ever learn enough about Tarot history and theory I might actually recognize the feeling of deja vu should it occur)

I think of what I know about Tarot as like a lawn.
When I look at it from the distance it looks beautiful. All green and verdant and seeming to stretch on. But then go walking on that lawn and suddenly as you look down, ooh better pull that dandelion, or yank that purslane or dig out that yarrow because it really doesn't belong in the lawn....but step away again and it all looks pretty....

So even tho there are a few weeds here and there in my thinking, and being here on the boards sure has changed the landscape let me tell you, there does seem to be a purpose for even the weeds.

Karen was talking about oracles and card number.
Then we spoke about suits and the archetypes.
What I find is that there is always a cycle, and the cycle, like the winding of a tornado seems to spin and layer and spin and layer. Some of the stuff gets blown away, other bits blow back again and then away and so forth.

So for me, the structure becomes important then it becomes less important then becomes important again. At least I know of the structure. Because then I can choose to forgo it, and also choose to use it.

I love the structure of Tarot. And then at times I'm all about the oracle and the looser structure and the ability to choose defintion or allegory or meaning. But ultimately I come back to Tarot, come back to decks that are sometimes even leaner than what I used to love. In fact, under Umbrae's influence I'm looking more and more at the Marseille decks.

The Marseille feels like a challenge because it feels like a more mysterious deck. Those unillustrated pips are like undiscovered country to me. Crying out for me to pack a light bag and go for an adventure.

gregory

If the tarot does not offer anything “different” – why use it ? Isn’t getting as far as we can into ourselves as much “divination” as anything else ?

I don't think any one use of the cards is ‘greater’ than another. You take from the tarot what it can offer you; you use it for whatever you find you can use it for. If one person finds they can use it to tell the future – which I certainly can’t – more power to them. There is nothing wrong with that per se, though I do have grave doubts about the use to which that kind of talent can be put.

Someone in another forum has said:

The Tarot is a means to hold conversations with the Divine.

As it happens I don’t believe in a god in any conventional sense at least. But I know what was meant there. And it sounds like divination of a sort.

Another one I do rather subscribe to:

To me tarot is about reading the sign posts that pepper the highway of life. Whether love questions or questions relating to the grand design of the cosmos, I believe the signposts are there to be read in a series of 78 interacting cards.

I think divination is a valid use of tarot – though I’d also defend the views of those who don’t agree. But like so many things in life – it depends what you mean. To quote someone rather more famous (Humpty Dumpty):

When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more not less.

I really don’t think any of this can really be defined or written in stone – which is why this thread puzzles me.

I would say a tarot deck is a deck of 78 cards (because I do “believe in” the minors – and like catlin I am a bit of a purist about the number of cards…) which “speaks” in a language of symbols, many of which have been around for years, but which in modern decks can mutate.

And I expect I have misunderstood it all – but that’s OK with me. I get from tarot what I need to; I put into cards that I create what I can. That’s all anyone can do. I am very much with baba-prague that the law cannot, must not, be laid down on this. If someone creates a deck that offends us – we don’t have to look at it. If a deck we lovingly created offends someone else – that doesn’t make it any less valid for us.

And the use that we may make of it is up to us; the use that we intend to be made of it if we create a deck - that too.

So - what is the purpose of Tarot? Well, that depends on what you use it for. There is no correct answer to the question. And that in turn may have a lot to do with "what is a tarot deck....."

IMHO she says carefully.

Major Tom

I apologise for being absent from the conversation for so long, but one of the wonderful things about an on-line bulletin board is that replies needn't be immediate.

elf said:
So for me, the structure becomes important then it becomes less important then becomes important again. At least I know of the structure. Because then I can choose to forgo it, and also choose to use it.

I love the structure of Tarot. And then at times I'm all about the oracle and the looser structure and the ability to choose defintion or allegory or meaning. But ultimately I come back to Tarot, come back to decks that are sometimes even leaner than what I used to love. In fact, under Umbrae's influence I'm looking more and more at the Marseille decks.

The Marseille feels like a challenge because it feels like a more mysterious deck. Those unillustrated pips are like undiscovered country to me. Crying out for me to pack a light bag and go for an adventure.

Thanks very much for this elf. You anticipate where I am going with this on several levels.

gregory said:
If a deck we lovingly created offends someone else – that doesn’t make it any less valid for us.

And the use that we may make of it is up to us; the use that we intend to be made of it if we create a deck - that too.

So - what is the purpose of Tarot? Well, that depends on what you use it for. There is no correct answer to the question. And that in turn may have a lot to do with "what is a tarot deck....."

I want to just say I agree with most of this gregory. However, I've got a tarot deck proping up the leg of my chair... I don't think it's a tarot deck because it props up my chair, but if it weren't there I'd fall over.

We're actually moving away from the topic with this.

gregory said:
I would say a tarot deck is a deck of 78 cards (because I do “believe in” the minors – and like catlin I am a bit of a purist about the number of cards…) which “speaks” in a language of symbols, many of which have been around for years, but which in modern decks can mutate.

This touches the real issue. At what point does the modern deck mutate into a new kind of animal, one that isn't tarot?

I do wish others would join in at this point in the conversation.

So far for the structure of tarot we have 78 cards consisting of 22 trumps, 16 courts and 40 pips. I think most have agreed that a deck of cards with these basics is at least a type of tarot.

For conversations sake what if we then specified the order of the trumps, taking the Tarot of Marseilles as the pattern? There can be no question that this is definitely tarot. Further suppose we take the rest of the pattern of the Marseilles. Courts must be named King, Queen, Cavalier and Valet. And finally suppose we also specify the suite names from the Marseilles, that is, batons, cups, coins, and swords. Clearly, if we start with these details as part of the pattern, what we end up with is likely to be tarot without any doubt whatsoever.

For me, the further from this structure a deck deviates, the further from tarot the deck deviates. One could make similar arguments for the Rider Waite Smith and the Crowley Harris Thoth tarot.

I would submit that as artists we have a responsibility to keep this structure in the back of our minds as we create our own tarots, if only to insure that what we create is definitely a tarot. Obviously, if the intent is to create a deck to use as an oracle for divination then the structure doesn't matter at all, but the underlying structure must be present if the deck is to be considered by the world at large as tarot. Artists being artists this structure can be used as the departure point in creating a personal vision of the tarot.

If however you use the Happy, Hippy, Hoppy Dragon Gnome Tarot with suites of tooth, nail, eye and stomach as a departure point you're quite likely to end up with another animal altogether.

As always, your milage may vary.

I would especially enjoy hearing from artists who have changed the order of the trumps, changed the names of the suites or changed the names of the courts.

gregory

Would you rule out such decks as the Blue Moon, then ? Or the Tarot of the Dead ? I certainly wouldn't !

If one person takes the Marseille rules line, what about the old Strength/Justice argument ? Would they have to say decks that take the opposite route aren't tarot ?

And I think you are stretching a little close to the sublime/ridiculous parameter to bring in the one propping up your chair. Then again, you never know what it might be up to down there....

baba-prague

Well, without commenting on the chair-prop (MT, if it's one of ours I will take firm issue!

) I would say again that I think we should be flexible with definitions. After all, tarot itself has changed a lot over time. I would count in the Blue Moon, the Tarot of the Dead, the Minchiate and many other decks (new and historic) that don't follow the exact 22-56 form. The reason I react with worry to the idea of defining too closely is that next we could end up with some idea of "approved" and "not approved" tarots (aaaaarrrrrggghhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Okay, I know no-one here would advocate that (I hope!) but it's a slippery slope.

I just tend to like flexibility and a bit of assuming the best about the good sense and good-will of tarot creators. If someone feels that their deck really benefits from added Majors, for example, then who am I to point at them and say, "Your deck is now not a tarot." ?? I'd rather say that their deck is - hmm, let me think - a tarot with some unconventional additions, or a tarot that veers slightly from the usual structure or somesuch. But I would still support their rights in calling it a tarot.

Can we talk a bit about this idea of a tarot extended family? I think that may be a good way to go as it does allow this type of flexibility.

Ravenswing

the gematric tarot

Okay Major Tom,

I've been working on this one forever. But there's finally light at the end of the tunnel-- it should be totally imaged by the end of the year (fingers crossed here).

The Gematric Tarot uses the RWS as a structural templet-- though it is definately NOT a clone. There are two major divisions: the Small Secrets and the Larger Secrets.

The Larger Secrets is basically equivalient to the RWS Major Arcana. The card titles are the same, although I do not number them.

The Small Secrets consist of four elemental suits, each suit having 10 numerical cards and 4 court cards-- same as the RWS. But...

I've re-titled Wands-- they are now Snakes.

Rather than cardinal numeration, I use ordinal numeration. (Huh?? you say...) Instead of the Three of Cups, I have the Third Cup-- the image has only one cup on it which IS the Third Cup; instead of the Five of Wands, I have the Fifth Snake-- again, the image has only one snake on it which IS the Fifth Snake . As you can see, each suit is a collection of ten individual, distinct objects. I feel that this makes for a more "natural" association with the kabalistic tree of life.

The courts cards are: King, Queen, Knight and Lady. Rather than the Queen of Cup, she is titled the Cup Queen; the Knight of Pentacles is the Pentacle Knight...

As you might notice, I've eliminated the word "of" from the Small Secrets...

The structure of the Gematric Tarot can be directly one-to-one related to the RWS deck. I believe it to be Tarot.

Any thoughts?

fly well
Raven

For Tarot Deck Creators - What is a Tarot deck? (revisited)

Major Tom

mythos

gregory

Major Tom

Satori

gregory

Major Tom

gregory

baba-prague

Ravenswing