Rejected Aeon?

Lillie

I have compared (best I could) the pic in my book of the no Harpo card, and the top middle picture of the no Harpo card.

Yes, they appear different.

The lines that go down diagonally from the winged disc thing, where the wings are, appear to be at an entirely different angle.

Who wants to hazard a guess at why that one pic has a different frame?
 

Abrac

How cool is this???

Just when you thought there were no more surprises. :)
 

Lillie

I know!

It's wild.

It's like exploring an undiscovered country!
 

archer1

Was just going thru this thread very interesting...I, however, did like the art exhibit photos. But as for the missing child I have a newer printing of the Bot and the plates have the image but, I wonder, some of the book shops here in America still sell the blue covered Bot if that will make a difference...mmm
 

Aeon418

archer1 said:
But as for the missing child I have a newer printing of the Bot and the plates have the image but, I wonder, some of the book shops here in America still sell the blue covered Bot if that will make a difference...mmm
It's the same book with a different cover, that's all.
 

Aeon418

The more I have looked at Abrac's scans and compared them to the regular Aeon card, the more I have become convinced that they are one and the same. I'm almost positive now that Harris must have added Harpocrates after the painting was photographed.

There seem to be too many points of similarity between the two images. There are areas of asymmetry in the Aeon that are identical in the two versions. For example the golden egg containing the seated Ra-Hoor-Khuit is slightly off to the left hand side towards Nuit's legs and away from her arms and body. The wings of Hadit are exactly the same in the two versions. The left one is thicker than the right.

The Hebrew letter Shin is identical on both cards as are small areas of shading on Nuit's body. In particular the legs.

Would Harris have been this exact in copying one of her own original paintings? Personally I doubt it. I could understand it if she was trying to forge a famous work of art, but these are originals. So why go to so much trouble?

I'm convinced that the two cards are the same. But we are seeing them before and after Harris got her paint brushes out again.
 

ravenest

Fascinating! I never noticed, going home to check my old thoth book.

{nah! I'm not going to guess}

Is it possible? Poor Frieda! Years of hassles from the laziest man in 3 continents ... finally finishes the work after numerous repaints ... they get photographed even ... and then ...

{But I could do my 'chanelling '}

Crowley: "Ah, Frieda ... the Aeon card ...
 

Voron

Hmmm...

So is this where we do a poll as to whether or not Lady Freida's brushes should have *remained* silent w/rt the fat ghost-boy?

Symbolically, we all know he's there, even if we can't see him, right? Kinda like gravity?

Aesthetically, I'm not so sure it can be effectively argued that he is a positive additional artistic accoutrement... it may indeed be that at least in this case children shouldn't be seen *or* heard...?

Anyone...?

Beuller...?
 

ravenest

So, why add it when it's been finished and potographed? It makes me think AC had further revelations about his card that were so important that they needed to be represented .... perhaps it's related to the different parts of the BotL Ch 3 and the hints of more than one God (Ra-hoor Khuit) or one form of THE god in Ch 3 and manifested in New Aeon.

I was about to get into a rave ON the child, but I guess this about why it was included later, so I'm assuming that after photography of the painting AC got further insight into what was in BoL Ch. 3 ....?
 

ravenest

P.S all my pics of card show child.