Where do you start?

Major Tom said:

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Do you mean it's a tarot deck if the creator intends it to be a tarot deck, whether there's any knowledge of tarot or not?

Click to expand...

Yup. You or I may not agree, and it may not sell, but if the creator intends it so, then it is - for them, at least.

I know someone who constructed a "tarot" deck entirely in red and white triangles and squares so that "the images wouldn't get in the way of the reading". I thought it was awful, and there's no way I would introduce it to someone else as Tarot, but he was satisfied, and it worked for him.

That, of course, is an extreme case, but then I have trouble seeing the Thoth as a Tarot deck - completely personal opinion - and it certainly sells as one.

allibee said:

Are you saying Major Tom, that to validate a deck as tarot cards, they must be a copy of a certain deck?

Click to expand...

I've been struggling for an answer to this.

You could certainly look at it that way - that it must be a copy of a certain deck.

I prefer to look at it as an individual interpretation of tarot. Of course that begs the question of what tarot is. Is it really whatever anybody says it is?

It would submit that it is not. There is a certain structure. Tarot has 22 trumps, 16 courts, 40 pips. The trumps may be numbered but this must be a particular order. The suites are traditionally batons, cups, coins and swords. There are many details that are specifically of a tarot tradition. These can be discovered through learning.

I guess it just seems sensible to me to learn something about what I'm trying to create. Tarot has uses deeper than divination.

HudsonGray said:

Marseilles, Thoth & Rider Waite....I wonder what happens when the next great step forward gives us a fourth 'standard' tarot that others can derive works off of? Would we recognise it when it comes out? I mean, it's been done three times already, there's nothing that says ONLY these three types are going to be the standard tarot decks in the development of tarot history.

Click to expand...

I wonder what kind of uproar occurred when each one appeared..... I'm sure the Thoth deck was both loved and hated but Tarot users.... just as we love and hate current decks.....

I would think we won't know the "next one".... it will be one from our generation that future generations decide is a standard!!

I like what Astra pointed out about Picasso's painting..... what we create as our rendition of Tarot is really as valid as we are as readers..... we are each quite unique (as all humans are) and so our vision, our interpretation is really as legitimate as anyone else's...... what we are discussing here, really, is group consensus, not Tarot.....

Tarot is unique to each person. Group consensus is another matter altogether......

skytwig said:

I like what Astra pointed out about Picasso's painting..... what we create as our rendition of Tarot is really as valid as we are as readers..... we are each quite unique (as all humans are) and so our vision, our interpretation is really as legitimate as anyone else's...... what we are discussing here, really, is group consensus, not Tarot.....

Click to expand...

We are so close here but we aren't really talking consensus, we're talking about tarot. The original question remains, where do you start when you set out to make a tarot deck? What is it exactly that the artist is interpreting? Do you start with the fact that tarot is a deck of cards? What makes it different from any other deck of cards?

Matisse painted the Stations of the Cross. In a few simple lines he painted images in a series that have been repeated innumerable times. I suspect he had a look at what had been done before him. Most artists producing work in this post-modernist world have a strong grounding in art history.

An artist, without any knowledge of tarot, upon setting out to create a tarot deck would be well advised to learn something about tarot. The artist could use the deck creation process as a learning process. Although certainly the artist will produce something to use for divination whether there's any knowledge or not, it certainly is unlikely to be tarot. Oracle decks have complete freedom from history, tarot certainly does not. There have been decks of cards called tarot for 500 years.

I guess my real question for the artists here is where in the history of tarot did you start when you set out to create your deck? Who are your influences?

But, Tom, we ARE talking about consensus here - and running into the same problems Diana's thread did. A lot of what tarot is, is what people who read the Tarot think it is - and that varies so widely as to probably be incapable of any stringent definition. The name of the forum is Aeclectic, yes?

As an artist, I can't really specify the influences that affected the deck, although I can say that some specific cards were strongly influenced by the Robin Wood, some by the Hoi Polloi, some by the Douglas Deck (which I'm not sure qualifies as Tarot by any stringent definition), and some of it came from scraps and bits absorbed over 30 years of working with different decks and readers. And of course, some of it was because of my personal dislike for certain cards, and some of it was the constraints of the programs I was using.

Once the first set of graphics was done, looking over what I had sparked a series of major revisions to almost every card, and, really, whatever the original ideas were, the integrity of the deck itself was the final influence.

If required to by marketing criteria, I could probably put together a coherent story out of whole cloth. It would be purely fantasy, but what the heck.

Artists who've never worked with the Tarot in any way have produced some incredibly useful imagery - the World Fantasy Tarot, which was done by 80 different science fiction and fannish artists, is a great example. Some of the cards beg for a deck of their own. (some have since, I believe, gotten one).

So, does it matter?

Major Tom said:

Is it really whatever anybody says it is?

Click to expand...

Well, it has to be because *nobody* knows the real answer to the origins of the tarot, and until someone provides firm proof, then it can only ever be personal interpretations.

There is a certain structure. Tarot has 22 trumps, 16 courts, 40 pips. The trumps may be numbered but this must be a particular order. The suites are traditionally batons, cups, coins and swords.

Click to expand...

Indeed, so as long as a deck has this structure, it is indeed a tarot deck

There are many details that are specifically of a tarot tradition.

Click to expand...

This is it then, the crux of it .... tradition does not necessarily equal historical fact however, which brings me back to the point that as no one knows the origins, it is all personal how we surmise what makes a tarot deck (as long as it has the correct structure)

I guess my real question for the artists here is where in the history of tarot did you start when you set out to create your deck? Who are your influences?

Click to expand...

Well, why didn't you say so, LOL

Influences: none really. Historically I often think of the Mamluk cards etc, the early spanish cards too ... and then I try to go back even further ... to Elysium et al ... which is why I have my deck set around the Rape of Kore, as its as far back as I care/dare to go. I have set my deck in the researched history and myth of the time and hopefully - if a tarot deck had been around in this period - it would look/feel like my one does.

I am a heathen in so much as the marseilles, rws and thoth leave me totally cold and I pay them no mind ... they are just some other geezers take on it.

And that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!

A.

Astra said:

But, Tom, we ARE talking about consensus here -

Click to expand...

No - I insist that I at least am talking about tarot. I suppose it could be looked from the pespective of language. If I say the word chair - you have no difficulty visualising a chair because we have agreed through our common language upon what a chair is and you know what a chair is. Why should it be any different for tarot? You know what tarot is. If this is the type of consensus you mean then OK its a consensus. I can point to a chair and call it a car but I wouldn't be right. You could say tarot is a deck of cards used for divination but you wouldn't be completely right. A poker deck can be used for divination and certainly isn't tarot.

Astra said:

As an artist, I can't really specify the influences that affected the deck,

Click to expand...

For not being able to specify influences you did a fairly good job. As an outside observer may I just point out that most of your cards seem to owe a lot to the work of Pamela Coleman Smith? This is not intended as criticism, because most of the cards in Major Tom's Tarot do as well.

Allibee said:

Well, it has to be because *nobody* knows the real answer to the origins of the tarot, and until someone provides firm proof, then it can only ever be personal interpretations.

Click to expand...

I don't think the question of origin enters into what tarot is. Does anyone know the origin of the chair? I can easily point to a Marseilles Tarot and say that's a tarot deck. I can do the same with the RWS and Thoth. Beyond those three examples the waters do get muddy - don't they? Unless a tarot is based at least loosely upon one of those three decks it isn't likely to really be tarot even if someone calls it such.

I suppose arguments could be made for including the Visconti decks and antecedents like the Mamluk cards, etc., but at least as far as the antecedents I'm aware of - they are definitely not tarot. Any more than a poker deck is tarot or an oracle deck is tarot.

I think this is an important question for any artist or student setting out to make their own tarot - and I certainly want to encourage anyone who thinks its a good idea. I'd certainly like to hear from other people who have followed the conversation.

Maybe the questions should be:

1. What tarot deck(s) did you study before you started work on your own tarot deck?

2. What tarot deck(s) would you suggest someone study as they started to create their own tarot deck?

I'd only really studied the BOTA and RWS decks before I started. I added a few more as I went along.

I would recommend to anyone thinking of creating their own tarot decks to get copies of the Marseilles, RWS and Thoth and study the images as they create their own versions.

And of course, if you are creating an oracle deck, you are absolutely free to do whatever you want.

But if you want to create a tarot deck, don't you think it would be a good idea to know something about tarot?

Yes, I agree, it would be helpful to know something about tarot before creating a deck ~ just as it would be helpful to know something about carpentry before building a cabinet, or to know something of sewing before constructing a garment. However, some skills can be learned, and techniques studied and mastered. But artwork is so subjective, and the gift of being artistic and creative can go so far beyond a basic skill: I guess if you tried hard enough and had a good teacher, you could learn to produce something called "art," but if you were born with it, you just do it. So you could cut some lumber and nail it together and maybe it could be called a cabinet; or piece some fabric together and it would be a garment. But unless you have that elusive ability, what kind of cabinet or garment would it be? So with creating a tarot deck, there's not just the criteria of what exactly is a tarot deck (for the sake of argument, the 22 majors, 4 standard suits, etc., is a good definition, I think) but there's also the aspect of how the artist is inspired and how the artist interprets the information into the artwork. Plus the constraints the artist may have to deal with. So I guess the creator needs to know something about tarot in order to comply with the accepted definition of what a tarot deck is (as mentioned before) plus be able to interpret their ideas in an "artistic" way (which is very subjective). I don't think I've expressed myself clearly here but it's the best I could do, this is a difficult topic.

Jeanette said:

I guess if you tried hard enough and had a good teacher, you could learn to produce something called "art," but if you were born with it, you just do it.

So with creating a tarot deck, there's not just the criteria of what exactly is a tarot deck (for the sake of argument, the 22 majors, 4 standard suits, etc., is a good definition, I think) but there's also the aspect of how the artist is inspired and how the artist interprets the information into the artwork.

Click to expand...

Let me reassure you Jeanette, that you make a good point here.

Though I would encourage anyone to create their own tarot deck, I would not encourage everyone to try to publish.

The creation process provides it's own benefits as discussed in this thread.

The only reason I can think of to publish is if there is enough interest in your work. There could be other reasons too.

Problem with trying to define tarot is.... which aspect shall we define? its function? its form? We have to define our definition.

Take the chair. What is a chair?

• a thing to sit in (function)
• A thing with four legs, a seat, and a back... (but what about beanbag chairs... are you saying its not a chair?) (form)

With tarot: Okay so: What is tarot?

• functional answer:
  - It's an Artform. It sits in boxes and collects value.
  - no, no! its an Oracular Device. You shuffle it and use it to tell the future.
  - no no no!! its an Initiatique Journey! You meditate on the pictures and gradually achieve enlightenment in steps.
  - no, no, no! its a game, you ninnies, a game with trumps, and a fool, and suits
  - no, no, no, it's a Historical, Cultural Artefact.
  
• structural answer: ... depending on which aspect of the function of tarot cards we choose to focus on, our answer about what form a deck of cards should take to be "tarot" will vary. Easier to demonstrate if we look at *what it's not*.
  
  When is it *not* tarot?
  - (Art) It's not tarot if the pictures suck.
  - (oracle) It's not tarot if it doesn't predict the future.
  - (initiatic journey) It's not tarot if the steps are in the wrong order, or renamed, or missing.
  - (game) It's not tarot if you can't tell what suit something is.
  - (cultural artefact) It's not tarot if it's differs at all from the historical specimens we've collected...

In conclusion, we can define Tarot, but each of us will define it according to the criteria we hold most dear. Now I will share with you the true definition of the tarot, which I have divined from meditation in a deep transe:

Ready?

Tarot is: 78 pretty pictures in a decorated 4" x 6" box with the word "Tarot" printed on it, and which can be sold like hot-cakes for under 20 euro, and neatly stacked in a display case. (And which function do you think forms the criteria for this definition?)