Temperance

Yelell

In art, once a work is made public it no longer belongs (in terms of meaning and what it expresses) to the creator. Rather all meaning exists in the observer/experiencer.

In that way it seems we do make our own decks, even if we don't draw them out ourselves. It reminds me of inkblots - it's a bat, or a vase, or two women, or a demon!
 

Teheuti

I've met a few deck creators who insist that their images mean one specific thing. Usually it is a deck that I don't find that interesting. Most of the truly creative artists who do decks are continually amazed and delighted by the things that people see in the images. In fact, they often develop new understandings of their own images from others who interpret them differently - and use these new 'meanings' in their own readings. I've seen Rachel Pollack, James Wanless and Vicki Noble do this frequently, as I've gotten to experience them reading with their own decks.
 

ravenest

Just a bad artistic representation ... instead of a curved path, its straight.

Unless one wants to assume the first images are representing gravity fluctuations, sound waves, magnetic interference 'quantum scrambling' .... or any other associations discovered long after the image became popular.

besides, in the RW card any hands directly under another is going to obscure the 'relevant' symbolism of the angel's insignia ;)
 

Teheuti

In that way it seems we do make our own decks, even if we don't draw them out ourselves. It reminds me of inkblots - it's a bat, or a vase, or two women, or a demon!
Yes, a deck I use a lot definitely becomes an expression of my own world view and psyche.

Jung said that the difference between a sign and a symbol is that a sign has a single, set meaning (a Stop Sign), while a symbol is multi-valenced with an infinite number of possible meanings and may be interpreted personally, culturally and archetypally.
 

Emily

Jung said that the difference between a sign and a symbol is that a sign has a single, set meaning (a Stop Sign), while a symbol is multi-valenced with an infinite number of possible meanings and may be interpreted personally, culturally and archetypally.

I haven't seen this before, thanks, I like it - makes sense. I need to copy this out for my journal. :)
 

Parzival

In the earliest Italian Tarots, there is no fluidic flow between the two vessels --only invisibility. What do you suppose this meant to the artists who painted the mysterious first image of Temperance, before the later artists "watered" the space between the two vessels?
 

Yves Le Marseillais

Motion

Hello all,

And what happens if you strongly flush the "water" out of the upper recipient in direction of lower one ?

Let's try...

YLM
 

Parzival

You are invisible about the original emptiness/space in the Visconti Sforza Temperance card.. I accept your reference to which way the waters might flow, but there were no waters there to go anywhere in the first painting. What was this about? Hmm...
 

Philippe

I havn't looked too much into that detail until now but it seems that what you draw our attention to applies only to the Visconti-Sforza and the Mantegna.
 

Yves Le Marseillais

Many ways to see a detail

You are invisible about the original emptiness/space in the Visconti Sforza Temperance card.. I accept your reference to which way the waters might flow, but there were no waters there to go anywhere in the first painting. What was this about? Hmm...

Bonjour,

In fact one could say:

I am materialist: I see water
I am esoterist: I see a fluid of spiritual energy
I am psychologist (Jungian): I see a symbol.
I am historian: I see nothing on some versions and something on many others.

This list could be extended of course.....

Salutations

Yves