Brown Dots On Ancient Tarots Of Bologna

baba-prague

Rosanne said:
Good Point kilts Knave! I looked again as Thinbuddha suggested and they do look 'meant to be'. On saying that could they be on the woodblock itself? Like imperfections in the carving that were going to be something else like a halo on the Star. I do not think every woodblock was carved by a master. Also even when you are very careful with a stamp process- unintentional things happen and then get copied. Woodblock printing was perfected in the east for many hundreds of years before the skill came West.~Rosanne
Click to expand...

No, woodblocks don't deteriorate in this way (they tend to split more than anything) - and a fault would not be so intentional looking.

I think we're just seeing a decorative way of filling in the "ground" to make the illustration look richer. If you look at this page of Lubok (much later, but interesting as these are also cheaply produced woodcuts and have some things in common with woodblocked cards) you'll see that the ground is often filled in by small elements. I don't for a moment think they're significant symbolically - it's more a case of style. Hit the "religious lubok" button on the left and scroll down to see what I'm referring to:

http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/Lubok/lubok.html

Of course, these are not mere dots, but then again, cards were smaller items and the detailing was more crude even than much Lubok.
 

blackairplane

I believe that the dots were placed on the deck surface decoratively, and perhaps the presence or absence of them did determine the "value" of the deck in the same sense that a deck with foil stamping or gilding today might be seen as "higher value" than one without. It seems to me that the dots were perhaps hand applied on the originals and most probably were not brown at all, but another color that has faded or changed with age, perhaps red or purple. Purple has a history of being considered a valuable color because of the difficulty in making it and it was certainly not a stable color at the time the cards were produced. The changing of color on things like this with age, is called fugitive color. I think we are looking at hand applied spots that have been changed due to fugitive color.
 

OnePotato

Sorry to disagree, but they don't appear to be decorative to me.
If they were, I would imagine the artist/craftsman that was capable of producing such a nicely colored woodblock would have been capable of more than random spots as "decoration".

I should like to examine them in person to be sure, but I would suggest that they may be stains caused by spots of glue, or perhaps wax, that were used to temporarily keep the stencil firmly in position while the color was applied. Even if the glue or wax was cleaned away, the residue could have caused the paper to brown with age. Perhaps not everyone used this method, so the "decorative spots" are not always there.
 

Abrac

blackairplane said:
I believe that the dots were placed on the deck surface decoratively, and perhaps the presence or absence of them did determine the "value" of the deck in the same sense that a deck with foil stamping or gilding today might be seen as "higher value" than one without. It seems to me that the dots were perhaps hand applied on the originals and most probably were not brown at all, but another color that has faded or changed with age, perhaps red or purple. Purple has a history of being considered a valuable color because of the difficulty in making it and it was certainly not a stable color at the time the cards were produced. The changing of color on things like this with age, is called fugitive color. I think we are looking at hand applied spots that have been changed due to fugitive color.
Click to expand...
This makes a lot of sense.

As for the back, torchbearers are common in Classical art; it's hard to say who this one is supposed to be. To me who the torchbearer is seems less important than the torch itself.

Front and Back
 

thinbuddha

OnePotato said:
Sorry to disagree, but they don't appear to be decorative to me.
If they were, I would imagine the artist/craftsman that was capable of producing such a nicely colored woodblock would have been capable of more than random spots as "decoration".
Click to expand...

I would argue that it is very unlikely that the same artist who carved the wood blocks would be the same person who colored all the cards. Even back in in the day before the assembly line, there would have been a division of labor.

Your idea about the spots being a negative side effect of the stenciling process is interesting. I still think that the spots are intended by the colorist.
 

Abrac

OnePotato said:
I should like to examine them in person to be sure, but I would suggest that they may be stains caused by spots of glue, or perhaps wax, that were used to temporarily keep the stencil firmly in position while the color was applied.
Click to expand...
I'm partial to the idea that a previous owner of the original deck put them there after they left the factory. Some of the cards don't have any dots at all like The Hermit, while The Lover has them meticulously placed around the points of the "cloud." This doesn't appear to be random as you would expect if they were simply there to hold the stencils in place. And there are so many of them. Why would someone use 10 drops when 3 or 4 would do? It looks like someone did it intentionally with something in mind that only they will probably ever know.
 

blackairplane

The decorative placing of the spots would have been done by someone other than the original engraver. Much like photos were hand colored by less skilled painters and such. The colors are often quite hastily and randomly applied, as in old real photo postcards, and seldom realistic, but seen to the intended audience as adding value or realism to the piece. I have never heard of a stencil being used to hand color engravings or photos. People proficient at such work as hand coloring, hand bordering, work very quickly and usually without any sort of jig or guide.
 

le pendu

I always thought the dots were hand applied by fingertip, (should I just say "finger-applied"?). I probably read that somewhere, but I have no idea where; I usually don't come up with stuff like that on my own. :)
 

blackairplane

le pendu said:
I always thought the dots were hand applied by fingertip, (should I just say "finger-applied"?). I probably read that somewhere, but I have no idea where; I usually don't come up with stuff like that on my own. :)
Click to expand...

Really interesting idea, and I think, possible. A close examination would reveal fingerprint lines I would think, if this were true. I'd love a look. I am partial to the thought of something made more like a cotton swab though -as an application tool. A small stick wrapped with a leather end or something like that.
 

blackairplane

My last thought before I take off. If the dots had any metallic sheen to them they would have had to contain scrapings or dust of a real metal. Some metals would tarnish and this would make dots that once glittered now look brown and dull. I am a printer and I experience this with many modern inks which do not contain the metals once used and thus are dull and do not have the same look as inks formulated in the 19th or early 20th centuries.
It is also posible the dots were made with some form of iridescent for a glittery look which would have likely been formulated from fish scales. Age would probably ruin that too, but the scales would suspend easily in various inks, as they do in some nail polishes and similar substances today.
 
A My Readings Style Reading TdM TdM rant session