Luna-Ocean
Thanks nisaba, at least there is appreciation for the less rated decks here on AT and it will give some credit for the decks creator.
Are some decks better than others?
Thanks nisaba, at least there is appreciation for the less rated decks here on AT and it will give some credit for the decks creator.
gregory
I don't think Beth NEEDS any help in that area. Her work is hugely in demand as it is.
See under Bleu Cat and others
- hey THAT only got three stars too... Actually I think her work just doesn't appeal to Solandia... Oh well... I too have a Rubber Chicken Luna-Ocean
I don't think Beth NEEDS any help in that area. Her work is hugely in demand as it is.
See under Bleu Cat and others
Thanks Gregory, yes i doubt any of the deck creators here on AT need any recommendation on how good their artwork is? i'm sure they must believe that what they have created is worth showing on AT. i too like many of the low rated decks here and as said before about whats good and whats is bad its all to do with how you connect with the artists artwork that's important.
Winterchild
I have always been a keen photographer... I had a great set up with professional lenses etc which I built up over a number of years.... In a group I was a member of, there were some folk who would spend a fortune on every new lens, camera etc... Still their photos sucked. I sold all my photography gear a couple of years ago to afford a trip back to see my family in the UK. Since then I have used my phone as my camera... I still take great photos have made photo books etc. With photography the only lens that really counts is the lens of your own eye. But the camera/phone has to function as a camera... A plastic Fisher Price camera for babies would not take photos because it is a simulation of the real.
I think Tarot is similar... If you can connect intuitively to symbols and images then you will probably be able to read most decks that appeal to your senses ( and this is very subjective.) if you read by the book, well then a deck with a strong traditional narrative is probably going to suit you better. But if you read Tarot then I believe the deck does need to function as a Tarot Deck... Anything that follows one of the traditional systems ( including Hello Kitty) can do this. A deck that has been poorly conceived, out of a desire to jump on the Tarot bandwagon for whatever reason, is probably not going to function as Tarot.
Of course there is the argument that the reader is the author ... I am also reminded of a quote, but cannot remember who said it, but it was something like Art is not art without a viewer. So I guess if Duchamp could place a urinal in a gallery and call it art and the critics treated it as such, then the same can be done with Tarot.
The answers are as many as there are readers.
I think Tarot is similar... If you can connect intuitively to symbols and images then you will probably be able to read most decks that appeal to your senses ( and this is very subjective.) if you read by the book, well then a deck with a strong traditional narrative is probably going to suit you better. But if you read Tarot then I believe the deck does need to function as a Tarot Deck... Anything that follows one of the traditional systems ( including Hello Kitty) can do this. A deck that has been poorly conceived, out of a desire to jump on the Tarot bandwagon for whatever reason, is probably not going to function as Tarot.
Of course there is the argument that the reader is the author ... I am also reminded of a quote, but cannot remember who said it, but it was something like Art is not art without a viewer. So I guess if Duchamp could place a urinal in a gallery and call it art and the critics treated it as such, then the same can be done with Tarot.
The answers are as many as there are readers.
nisaba
I don't think Beth NEEDS any help in that area. Her work is hugely in demand as it is.
See under Bleu Cat and others
You know what? Solandia had no problem putting up the Rubber Chicken deck when I sent her a review and scans. She can't afford to buy *every* deck. If you send her scans and descriptions, I can't see her not putting them up.
gregory
Beth's decks ARE up here, no worries. (well, not the ultra rare ones with 25 copies, on the whole.)
But Solandia only gave them 3 stars. That was what was surprising us.
GlitterNova
Eh, I think discussing the artwork of a deck is missing the point of the original question. A reader could give accurate readings with a plain deck of cards, and in my mind an objective way of telling how 'good' a deck is for someone is how accurate it is with them. Now, are there decks that are very accurate with a large number of people? Well, maybe, but this thread: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=212951 seems to suggest that what makes a deck accurate for someone is a personal thing and not something inherently universal in the deck itself. So, I guess my answer to the original question is yes, but only really on a personal level.
I hope that makes sense!
I hope that makes sense!
nisaba
We haven't yet established the point of the question. There are any number of senses in which a deck may be good in different people's eyes. There is no objective measure of "good" that does not have reference to artwork, or accuracy of readings (and I get good readings from decks I personally dislike), simplicity of symbolism, complexity of symbolism, reference to different magical traditions, originality/traditional, or any other number of factors. And a deck that might be good with reference to some of these factors, might be very bad indeed with reference to others.
I'm just your average reader, nobody brilliant. I own over 150 decks, of very varied quality including a few I actively dislike (long story). I can get a good, in-depth reading that satisfies the client with any and all of them. In fact, I had a special request to read for someone today using a deck they like and I really, really don't, and they got an in-depth reading.
Whether you can read with any deck is down to the reader, not the deck. I put aside my dislike if I am going to read with a deck I dislike, and they still work and work well. So readability doesn't come into whether a deck is a "good" deck or not.
So again: What is the word "good" referencing?
kalliope
I thought ivanna eventually was pretty clear. She was wondering if people thought certain decks had the potential to give more accurate or insightful readings:
The discussion about artwork and quality and criticism is really interesting and fun to read, but I agree that's it's not exactly relevant to what it seems she was asking.
I'm with those who have said it mostly depends on the reader, his or her reading style, and response to any particular deck. While a more elaborate system, or deeper esoteric symbolism, might allow deep and accurate readings for one person, a different person may be inspired to accuracy by a deck that others would consider crude or simplistic. If one is looking for lots of symbolic goodies in the images, then an intellectual deck, or a deck informed by a spiritual tradition is probably the better bet. But if one can technically read bones, toothpicks, or a magazine collage, then in the end it's really about what any given reader resonates with and practices (a lot!) with.
The discussion about artwork and quality and criticism is really interesting and fun to read, but I agree that's it's not exactly relevant to what it seems she was asking.
I'm with those who have said it mostly depends on the reader, his or her reading style, and response to any particular deck. While a more elaborate system, or deeper esoteric symbolism, might allow deep and accurate readings for one person, a different person may be inspired to accuracy by a deck that others would consider crude or simplistic. If one is looking for lots of symbolic goodies in the images, then an intellectual deck, or a deck informed by a spiritual tradition is probably the better bet. But if one can technically read bones, toothpicks, or a magazine collage, then in the end it's really about what any given reader resonates with and practices (a lot!) with.
Debra
There's judgment and discernment, which involve developing and applying appropriate, intelligent standards. And there's personal preference, which doesn't always align with good judgment.
Aestheic judgments are no more subjective than other judgments. All judgment involves recognizing and articulating what's behind it.
By analogy, if I'm serving on a jury, I may not like the defendent, and be predisposed to want him in jail just because I find him creepy. But I'm bound to use my intellect, weigh the evidence, listen to the experts, and apply appropriate standards in judging whether he's guilty of the crime.
I judge the Crowley-Harris Thoth deck to be excellent. It's intellectually cohesive, no detail is arbitrary, the plan and meaning are integral to each card and the deck as a whole, the range of symbols--from the obvious to the most subtle--are consistent and meaningful. It has depth, and a kind of beauty. I respect it, and think it is miles ahead of most decks. Still, I do not like it.
Aestheic judgments are no more subjective than other judgments. All judgment involves recognizing and articulating what's behind it.
By analogy, if I'm serving on a jury, I may not like the defendent, and be predisposed to want him in jail just because I find him creepy. But I'm bound to use my intellect, weigh the evidence, listen to the experts, and apply appropriate standards in judging whether he's guilty of the crime.
I judge the Crowley-Harris Thoth deck to be excellent. It's intellectually cohesive, no detail is arbitrary, the plan and meaning are integral to each card and the deck as a whole, the range of symbols--from the obvious to the most subtle--are consistent and meaningful. It has depth, and a kind of beauty. I respect it, and think it is miles ahead of most decks. Still, I do not like it.
