My RWS hate/hate relationship

Well, I don't want to say a whole lot here - there are some great posts. But... call me conservative (if you do, I think it may be the first time in my life, so it's actually quite interesting!) but I actually feel that having a firm, known and very established foundation lets us do all sorts of things that wouldn't work otherwise.

As I've said before, it's in some ways like designing a car. There is no point in replacing the steering wheel with a joystick, and making the break pedal into a break lever in the armrest (!). People want to have a basic structure that they already know. But then you can do all sorts of weird and wonderful (with the emphasis on wonderful I hope ) things on top of that structure. It just means that people can focus on the peculiarities/innovations of a particular set of cards without first learning a whole new system, which they then won't be able to apply elsewhere which cuts down the motivation a lot. I don't know Ric, maybe we will always happily disagree on this one. Maybe it's because my background is mainly in interaction design (I would never think of myself as an artist, I'm a designer) and so I see things in terms of a play between functionality and imagination/innovation.

I ought to add that I don't think it matters if that underlying structure is Marseilles, Thoth or RWS - but that there really is nothing much to be gained from trying to invent a whole new one at this point. It's not that it's "not worth it", I actually think it may be more that it's a distraction - creativity lies elsewhere. As I say, think of that car designer - there is plenty of scope to do new things, without ditzying around with something "innovative" to no purpose, such as making the gear-shift into a revolving button.

Good topic!

RiccardoLS said:

1. Tarot must be RWS, and if I resent doing RWS-like decks I should not do Tarot?

Click to expand...

Obviously tarot does not have to be RWS ; that deck itself was based on decks that came previously . Some people appreciate history , some have no use for it and see no relevance . You brought up hating the RWS and resenting doing decks like it . You're entitled to feel any way you want to about it . Not everyone else will agree that the RWS is hateful, irrelevant, and an obstacle to a new declared tarot evolution that not everyone got a vote on .

If you hate the fact that you fell back into the RWS minors for inspiration , you should perhaps try some methods with visualization to help you avoid that in the future . RWS users are not forcing you to do anything you don't want to do.

I have noticed the tendency through the years to dismiss new decks that follow the RWS imagery as clones , as lesser somehow than other decks . I find this rather insulting to the artists of those decks and I am sad to see it continue .

Well, I suppose I also ought to "come out" and say that I am prejudiced in favour of RWS because I have been passionate about W.B.Yeats for most of my life (ever since one of our teachers murdered "The Lake Isle of Innisfree" when I was twelve - at least it got me interested) and I just can't help being drawn to something associated with Yeats - even vaguely.

I agree.

In that I disagree.

But I've been one to make tarot my own, no matter which deck I'm using. I really feel that the rws is quite old fashioned and does not always fit into the present. And I don't agree with the traditional meanings of the minors at all. There just doesn't seem to be any reason or system to it. And don't get me started on the three of swords.

I hope it's time for an overhaul. But then, isn't that up to those who create the decks. To take us into their world of what tarot means to them? I mean, I cannot read it if you don't first create it. Who cares what anyone says. As long as the basic structure is the same, won't it still be tarot?

But I could be weird because I don't pick my reading decks based on anything other than whether I like the artwork. My meanings are my own but I'm always curious to discover what tarot means to everyone else.

A lot of change happened in the world between the introduction of the TdM and the introduction of the RWS. It's conceivable that the amount of change created the need for a deck like the RWS. I would postulate that there's been even more change between today's world and the world at the time of the introduction of the RWS than there was between the TdM world and the RWS world. So, why shouldn't tarot undergo another change to reflect the world as it is today?

The "new" tarot might only need 40 cards or it might need 100. 22 Majors? Maybe 30 are necessary now. Court cards? Royalty isn't as important in most of today's world as it was in times past. Maybe Court cards are unnecessary. Or maybe they need to be re-imagined as "Family" cards as some deck creators have begun doing. Four Minor Arcana suits? Earth, air, fire and water? How about a suit dedicated to spirit? (I know some people believe that the Majors represent spirit, but I'm throwing things out for the sake of argument.) Why only 4 Minor Arcana suits? Maybe 6 or 7 are necessary to reflect today's world. Are 10 pip cards per suit not enough, too many or just right? Does tarot even need to be cards?

The next question then is who, exactly, gets to decide what the "new" tarot will look like? People could do what they're doing with Internet 2.0 and have a team of experts lay down a basic foundation for the next iteration of tarot and then let artists and deck creators run with it. But something that seems to be prevalent in this day and age is that the only rule is that there are no rules. So why bother laying down a foundation? Why not just create?

Instead of trying to fit a new deck into what tarot currently is, why shouldn't a deck creator be able to make a deck that represents what tarot is to them or that showcases what tarot isn't but could be? (Yes, some of these decks already exist.) Such a deck may not be popular in the short term. But should tarot decks only be produced if they might be popular in the short term? What about the long term significance of a particular deck?

I understand that things these days are about money. In order for a deck to even be considered for publishing, there usually has to be a belief that there's a market for it. For it to continue to be published, there definitely has to be a market for it. But to a great extent, the future is what we make it. So why shouldn't artists and deck creators push the envelope and make tarot what they want tarot to be? Why can't they create the future that they want to see?

There are always going to be people who are going to argue that anything other than 78 cards arranged in a specific sequence with a set number of Major Arcana, Court cards and Minor Arcana pip cards is not tarot. That's their right. And anybody who creates tarot should know going in that they're never going to make those people happy. But there are other people who enjoy seeing what tarot could be, who want to see something new and different in what could easily be described as a stodgy and stale system that isn't relevant to the world today. Personally I appreciate decks that turn tarot on its head by adding cards or rearranging the sequence of cards. "But that's not how it's always been done!" some people will say. Well, if we only did things the way they've always been done, we'd still be living in prehistoric times and wouldn't be having this discussion cause tarot cards wouldn't have been invented yet, much less the internet.

I think I had a point. I'm not sure if I've expressed it. But I'm rambling, so it's time for me to stop.

Rodney

rwcarter said:

Instead of trying to fit a new deck into what tarot currently is, why shouldn't a deck creator be able to make a deck that represents what tarot is to them

Click to expand...

They already have , they already do, they already are .It's done routinely.

rwcarter said:

So why shouldn't artists and deck creators push the envelope and make tarot what they want tarot to be? Why can't they create the future that they want to see?

Click to expand...

There are no laws that they can't create whatever they want . Nobody can stop them. But not everyone has to like or agree with it , or agree to call it tarot if they don't want to . And in the creation of new versions of tarot , why is it that the more traditional tarots have to be labeled as something lesser , irrelevant , old fashioned , something to be hated ? Do they just have no value any more ? If you don't like a deck , or certain styles of decks I don't think anybody particularly cares . But trashing a tradition that has proved its' worth over the last hundred or more years seems rather extreme and insensitive . Just because you don't see anything in it doesn't mean there is nothing to be seen .

RiccardoLS said:

I have the feeling I'm walking into an elitist modd, where only me, those willing to make a big study effort, can se the structural side of a deck.

Click to expand...

It's very ironic that you use the term elitist Riccardo . The elite are the tarot creators , the publishers ,and the authors who have the means and permission to decide what the next viewpoints on and incarnations of tarot will be . The rest of us really have no voice .

I often wonder- what are the qualifications and motivations of people doing the creating , the publishing , the authoring ? Have they had genuine spiritual experiences ? Do they even believe in them ? Is their new version of tarot created solely for money or truly motivated by something higher ? Is it only a reflection of ego , or their own misunderstanding ? Is it the desire to have something new that will sell for the sake of novelty or sensationalism , a book that will say anything to be noticed ? Are authors telling people only what they want to hear in order to be popular ? I think if we are honest, most of us could find examples of these things .

I am not insinuating anything about you Riccardo . I don't know you . But I wish you well , and that you will excel in your work .

Dark Inquisitor said:

There are no laws that they can't create whatever they want . Nobody can stop them. But not everyone has to like or agree with it , or agree to call it tarot if they don't want to .

Click to expand...

Different strokes for different folks. That's what I was trying to say.

Dark Inquisitor said:

And in the creation of new versions of tarot , why is it that the more traditional tarots have to be labeled as something lesser , irrelevant , old fashioned , something to be hated ? Do they just have no value any more ?

Click to expand...

Just as with different strokes for different folks, what is of value to one person or group of people probably isn't of the same value to another person or group of people. My valuation of a particular deck or school of decks is most likely quite different than your valuation of that same deck or school of decks. But neither of our valuations is more valid than the other persons. All that our valuations are is different. And that's fine.

And that's the funny thing about what's considered traditional. Something that's considered untraditional/unconventional now might well be considered traditional in 50 years time.... I'm sure when the RWS first hit the market, it wasn't considered traditional, although it is now.

Dark Inquisitor said:

If you don't like a deck , or certain styles of decks I don't think anybody particularly cares . But trashing a tradition that has proved its' worth over the last hundred or more years seems rather extreme and insensitive . Just because you don't see anything in it doesn't mean there is nothing to be seen .

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you're using "you" in the plural sense since I didn't express any dislikes of certain styles of decks. Nor did I trash any traditions. And I don't see how I was being extreme or insensitive in what I said. If you check my profile, you'll see that I have decks from pretty much every tradition in my collection. I cut my teeth, as it were, on the RWS tradition. I haven't explored the TdM or Thoth traditions in any real depth, but I appreciate them and understand their importance in the world of tarot. But I also understand that none of those traditions is necessarily the final word in tarot. They might be, but then again they might not.

Rodney

baba-prague said:

but I actually feel that having a firm, known and very established foundation lets us do all sorts of things that wouldn't work otherwise.

Click to expand...

I agree with you.
That's why I get back to work with RWS structured minors.
BUT...

baba-prague said:

I ought to add that I don't think it matters if that underlying structure is Marseilles, Thoth or RWS

Click to expand...

Actually I think it matters a lot.
Marseille does not offer any real unified structure for pictorial minors.
Thoth integrates such complexity that in order to use the Thoth, you have to play with the whole bundle.
And both of them... don't offer the great high up: recognizability.

baba-prague said:

but that there really is nothing much to be gained from trying to invent a whole new one at this point.

Click to expand...

On this, I disagree.
Not because it should be done.
Not because we need it, always.
But I think many and many examples of decks, why a new structure would work (narrative decks, for instance)

I understand why creativity could work within the stone-built structure.
But it doesn't mean that it should only work that way.

baba-prague said:

without ditzying around with something "innovative" to no purpose, such as making the gear-shift into a revolving button.

Click to expand...

Maybe I disagree with the "innovative to no purpose".
Why should innovative be "to no purpose"?
Sometimes it is, of course. It's only purpose is to test the limits.
Other times, innovative has a purpose, a fuction.

Staying practical... let's talk design of an hipotetical deck: minors.
Let's suppose that we want to integrate a narrative journey within the minors. The journey build up as the Journey of the Hero. starting with the Ace meaning ultimate potential, to the ten meaning ultimate realization.
In the middle, we have a growing process and challanges matured through a theme, symbolized by the suit symbol.
This is a very very simple structural layout.

If You work that with the RWS minors, mantaining recognizability, you will find a definite challange. That's what I mean when I say that the RWS structure plays against you, and not in favour.
But, in the ends, the virtues, seems to beat the defects. (but does it mean the defect do not exist?)

Still, I'm not happy that we have only one possible choice (with all the needed changes) to stay within the confortbale "plug and play" path.
The end result is that MOST Tarot decks on the market don't work with structure, but only with images.
(I should add that most of the discussions on decks as well as reviews, are about the images and almost never about the structure).
Working with you car metaphore, it is like we forgot the engine and only went for the design. ^_^ Yes, the car still goes on (and good), but it is a bad blind spot, because that engine is old (and maybe burns out a bit too much pollution).

I'm not saying RWS bravo. Or non-RWS bravo. Not at all.
And besides, preferences and choices should only be worth for a single deck.

Dark Inquisitor said:

why is it that the more traditional tarots have to be labeled as something lesser , irrelevant , old fashioned , something to be hated ?

Click to expand...

Where did you read that?
Old fashioned, maybe. But that's the price for being "traditional".

Dark Inquisitor said:

Not everyone else will agree that the RWS is hateful, irrelevant, and an obstacle to a new declared tarot evolution that not everyone got a vote on .

Click to expand...

And where did you read that?

Yes, I indeed think that the RWS has become obsolete.
It doesn't make it less a jewel.
And the fact that it is a jewel, doesn't make it more up to date.
Still it is the best choice, and I "hate" that (not "hate" it).

Dark Inquisitor said:

Rather than attempting to redo the entire Tarot to suit yourself on occasion , why not experiment with adding what you think might be missing without losing what is already there ?

Click to expand...

I actually did. Quite a few times.... and that's why I'm on this thread.

Dark Inquisitor said:

It's very ironic that you use the term elitist Riccardo . The elite are the tarot creators , the publishers ,and the authors who have the means and permission to decide what the next viewpoints on and incarnations of tarot will be . The rest of us really have no voice .

I often wonder- what are the qualifications and motivations of people doing the creating , the publishing , the authoring ? Have they had genuine spiritual experiences ? Do they even believe in them ? Is their new version of tarot created solely for money or truly motivated by something higher ? Is it only a reflection of ego , or their own misunderstanding ? Is it the desire to have something new that will sell for the sake of novelty or sensationalism , a book that will say anything to be noticed ? Are authors telling people only what they want to hear in order to be popular ? I think if we are honest, most of us could find examples of these things .

I am not insinuating anything about you Riccardo . I don't know you . But I wish you well , and that you will excel in your work .

Click to expand...

I was about to send a reply... but then I noticed this last post, and I had to change it.
I really don't know how to answer that.

Are you aware that I may be considered among the "tarot creators , the publishers ,and the authors"?
If so, in this thread, in this context... all of your rethoric questions ARE insinuations.
(and I must see that there is a thread in this section, just beside this very one, I started with the LS deck in progress. So yes, I assume you know.)

What I may answer?
I will simply explain what I meant for an elitist approach.

When I designed the Gothic Tarot of Vampires I made the opposite choice I'm doing today. I used a structure that was totally functional to the deck.
OOOohhhh, the layers of complexity ^_^
In the end I felt a deck that was exactly as I wanted. But it had became really difficult.... not a tool one could use, but rather a temple up the mountain.
Or maybe take the Liber T tarot of Stars Eternal... a deck I had nothing to do with. It is really something, but in order to really work with it, people have to study and study and study.
--> Elitist

Elven said:

.. and that is a valid point as well - I think alot of Tarot creators (and readers) try to take that angle on occassion and do succeed. But sometimes (like in any field) there comes a time where great leaps and bounds are made - they are revolutionary and inspirational, and often very simplistic but have great impact and benefit to the whole, and yet can be so confronting to the conformed ideas that they are almost seemed as being threatening in some way.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I've seen some really great decks that are based on RWS but end up doing their own thing, almost to the point that they seems like a separate thing.
My preference is to use different symbols that still means the same or similar thing. Instead of cups or chalices for water, use a waterfall or a puddle. Still gives the same idea, but a different feel.