Why do new artists change the suit names?

MagsStardustBlack said:

With The Victorian Fairy Tarot, you have Spring Summer Autumn Winter. And these seem to easily represent the traditional suits. I find this really easy to read, there is a very clear and understandable explanation of these seasonal suits and how they still represent the traditional meanings and elements. I don't see a problem. As long as its easily relatable, I enjoy the creative artistic aspect. Also the original tarot, whatever that is, I assume was created by an artist, that was his or her artistic expression, why should other artists not also have their stamp.... within reason?

Click to expand...

I can't echo this post enough. I honestly struggled with the classic rider waite and The Victorian Fairy tarot was a breath of fresh air. Seasonal suits made so much more sense in my brain.

Anyway, my opinion on this....

I really don't mind decks with suit names changed or even major arcana names changed as long as its a logical leap. I think the problem here is rigid reading styles with no ability to connect changed cards because it doesn't match the "traditional" deck one has learned on. If it's such a problem wait until plenty of images are out and then don't buy it like someone mentioned. It certainly is everyone's right to spend their hard earned money on decks that fit their personal preference. However, I really didn't like the comment about artists not considering readers or whatever in one of the responses on this thread. Sometimes, its easier for beginners to learn with a clone that might have changed suit names/is a bit more loose and then go back and learn with a true rider waite deck. To say artists aren't even putting any research or effort into learning what tarot is about is pretty inconsiderate. =\ Its hard work enough coming up with ideas for the art for 78 cards I'm sure. Just because you dislike the changes made doesn't mean the artist didn't do research or doesn't care about tarot/is just in it for the money. My thoughts on this excludes novelty decks which I don't really know if those are lumped in.

For the longest I was dead set against rider waite decks and obvious clones. For seven years or so I avoided them. It all boils down to preference, but decks with names other than what one is used to are certainly not useless, none sense, etc. *insert preferred word here*. I think it should be up to the learner what works best for them when starting out too. I really wouldn't want a collection of decks that's just a bunch of close rider waite clones. I'd definitely want something that speaks to my mind, imagination and intuition.... some variety. Different things speak to different people. I don't think these sorts of decks should be discounted or anyone should say they aren't destined to be in the community long. I agree with the response someone left (sorry, its late and I can't recall the username) saying, essentially, that's its great that we have such variety and decks to fit everyone's taste. The point in those decks with changed names is that they appeal to a certain set of people and that's all that matters in the end.

TheStarsAndTheMoon said:

Anyway, my opinion on this....

However, I really didn't like the comment about artists not considering readers or whatever in one of the responses on this thread.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that all artists don't consider their readers, maybe it's only a few, their deck is truly just an expression of their own art. But, if they want more people to use their deck and not struggle with it than they might want to consider not changing the basic RWS titles or call it an Oracle if they do. That removes the confusion for new users. I have friends who want to learn tarot and bring a deck with different titles, I see how they struggle to reconcile the meanings/titles.

My feeling is that if an artist is using the RWS deck and making their own version they should at least stick to the outline of the deck including major/suit names. With all the decks on the market, I would venture to say close to 500, I would be making it as appealing as possible to the most amount of buyers so that my work gets in the hands of as many people as possible. That would be My goal but that might be different from other artists. They may just be making it for their own use or expression.

I did not say that every artist who changes the names is ignorant of the new readers. I would hope that as an artist, they would consider who they are marketing the deck towards before beginning the deck. Some might only want to fill a small market. Some artists may genuinely feel they are representing the masses in their designs or that they are going to create some new tarot system. That is wonderful. I am all for expressing yourself and sharing new ideas. Then why go to the RWS for structure? Make up your own. Why have 78 cards? If they are attempting to convey a different theme or meaning then why consult the RWS? Why use the 22 majors/56 minors outline?

Why put a card that the artist wants us to view as the 2 of Cups, to represent the 2 of Cups in readings but call it something obscure? It's still supposed to be the 2 of Cups isn't it? The artist wants me to connect the card to the traditional meaning of the 2 of Cups. Then why not just call it that? If the cards aren't supposed to connect to the traditional meanings then don't use the traditional outline of 22/56. On the other hand, why have an artist try to force their artwork into the traditional titles? That is a struggle too only for the artist.

Again, these are just my opinions as a tarot reader and an artist. It's not meant to cause hurt feelings or criticize anyone.

Karen, I can understand your disappointment, but I can't really understand your worry. With Lo Scarabeo diligently filling the market with beautiful decks uniformly bearing the traditional RWS titles, why worry about new artists?

And surely, Tarot is more than just RWS, and the 22/56 structure was not invented by A.E.Waite. And his 'traditional' meanings are not even really his, strictly speaking. But if he hadn't brought certain things together, we wouldn't have RWS right now. Today's 'incomprehensive' deck might be tomorrow's new RWS.

Whether we like it or not, there will always be a number of artists who won't care about how 'commercial' their deck is, and will just express their vision. What really upsets me, though, is the wish for 'easy learning' with new decks. Struggle makes you grow. I want my new decks to challenge me, to broaden my horizons. But that's just me.

I have used some examples of decks listed here on AT they still have the typical Tarot titles like the Fool, Moon and Judgement but some suits have been done in a lighthearted way, one might call the Original dog Tarot an Oracle because the creator has used a different approach with the suit names, or because it was only made into a 30 card deck? i would of liked to of seen this one finished as a 78 deck.

http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/original-dog/

Here is another one listed the creator has used a different format again with the suits changing the swords, wands and court names, as Blue-fusion as already mentioned the changes can still be obvious to a reader if explained at first and it still manage's to keep a structure of a full Tarot deck.

http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/fashion-victim-tarot/


A creator will try and apply their own creative vision if they are trying to achieve a new modernized structure to Tarot, but some might feel they are Oracles if all the important 78 cards are not applied to them?

If you are most comfortable with decks that use the RWS names, there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But I'd like to offer my two cents, if I may. One of the many reasons I like decks that use other names for the suits (or majors, or court cards) is that it offers an opportunity to really READ the images on the card itself, not just rely on what I think I know about it. Tarot is a visual tool, and an intuitive one. It's a language of symbols. When a tarot deck creator draws on a new set of symbols for her/his deck, it invites me to expand my knowledge of the tarot as well as extrapolate from what I already knew. I can see the cards in a new way, rather than clicking into an automatic "Nine of Swords, fear, nightmare, yadda yadda" mindset. It keeps me from being complacent or stagnant. I can't speak to the experience of newcomers to tarot, as I've been working with it for 40+ years, but I know that a deck with new names puts me in Beginner's Mind, and that's always a Good Thing.

As a tarot deck creator, I want to bring fresh approaches to the tarot community, while honoring the essential meanings of the cards. In my opinion, there's no right or wrong here -- it's just all about what resonates with you.

Lunaea said:

If you are most comfortable with decks that use the RWS names, there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But I'd like to offer my two cents, if I may. One of the many reasons I like decks that use other names for the suits (or majors, or court cards) is that it offers an opportunity to really READ the images on the card itself, not just rely on what I think I know about it. Tarot is a visual tool, and an intuitive one. It's a language of symbols. When a tarot deck creator draws on a new set of symbols for her/his deck, it invites me to expand my knowledge of the tarot as well as extrapolate from what I already knew.-- it's just all about what resonates with you.

Click to expand...

I liked how you put this and it's exactly how i feel with having an opportunity reading with differently named cards? it can also offer a reader a new challenge with trying out another way on using their intuition.

I think there are "bad" examples and - if not exactly "good" - "much better" ones. Brian Williams' Post-Modern Tarot sets my teeth on edge every time (and it's rarely) that I open the box, largely because of the renamed suits. On the other hand, I'm kind of taken with the reimagining in the Chrysalis tarot. The Shining Tribe falls somewhere in the middle. I'm less concerned about renaming than I am about reassigning the elemental attributions. For example, I've never seen a really convincing reason for wanting to make Swords "fire" and Wands "air." The other two - Cups hold "Water" and Coins are made of "Earth" - seem safe from such aberrations.

Barleywine said:

I think there are "bad" examples and - if not exactly "good" - "much better" ones. Brian Williams' Post-Modern Tarot sets my teeth on edge every time (and it's rarely) that I open the box, largely because of the renamed suits. On the other hand, I'm kind of taken with the reimagining in the Chrysalis tarot. The Cosmic Tribe falls somewhere in the middle. I'm less concerned about renaming than I am about reassigning the elemental attributions. For example, I've never seen a really convincing reason for wanting to make Swords "fire" and Wands "air." The other two - Cups hold "Water" and Coins are made of "Earth" - seem safe from such aberrations.

Click to expand...

I've just seen some of the suits for the Chrysalis, i think the four suits ''Scrolls, stones, spirals, mirrors'' could also be seen as not easily understood elements by some readers? again like with the spirals which i think is wood / fire and mirrors are water... but with some imagination i think the four could work well together.

Luna-Ocean said:

I've just seen some of the suits for the Chrysalis, i think the four suits ''Scrolls, stones, spirals, mirrors'' could also be seen as not easily understood elements by some Tarot readers? again like with the spirals which i think is suppose to be fire and mirrors are water?

Click to expand...

Probably. But it doesn't take too much of a mental stretch to see where they're coming from. I have no idea how the creators defend their innovations in the LWB, except for the blurb on Amazon that talks about the conceptual "mirror."

The Water in a cup is reflective (unless you're stirring it or slurping it), and a pool of placid water was most likely the first mirror (although Ogg the Troglodyte probably tried to bash his reflection with a club ), so Mirrors seem to be an OK fit (not great for all manifestations of the element, but workable).

Scrolls imply "words" to me, which are the province of Air and the intellect it implies. There is a precision and orderliness about the concept that convinces.

Stones are a stand-in for Earth in other decks, so that doesn't need much noodling over. I'm surprised they settled for such a prosaic alternative.

That leaves Spirals, so by process of elimination that suit gets Fire; philosophically, though, since a spiral implies movement at any point along its trajectory (unlike air, which can be completely - or at least perceptibly - at rest), the perpetual acceleration of the spiral is a satisfactory surrogate for Fire. Also, the dormant Kundalini is described as "coiled" at the base of the spine like a serpent, so the process of raising it could be envisioned as a spiral "uncoiling;" the experience has been described as "an electric current running up the spine," clearly a sublimation of elemental Fire.

On the other hand, Fire is more fitful and less relentless in some of its expressions, whereas a spiral is a more structured and inexhorable force, so the analogy isn't perfect in all its aspects. There is an inevitability to a spiral that Fire doesn't really match unless it's being experienced as an inferno. One could also argue that a tornado is a spiral and is a function of air, but it isn't air alone that sets up the atmospheric dynamics that cause them; it takes a lot of heat.

Bottom line: there is certainly room for improvement, but the mental gymnastics required in puzzling out the underlying principles are their own reward. Once reconciled to them, I think they will present no difficulty.

As a designer I'm really glad I read all these posts on this - I agree there should be a "logical leap" if using a new suit names. I haven't changed them on any of mine but I can see where at some point it might make sense to. In fact the Deck of the Dead could have been bones for wands, etc. But when I'm reading I'm like you, there are some things I just don't want to waste time thinking about & converting to what I'm used to. And for me, I do like coins instead of pentacles, just because coins make more sense to me as far as what they mean in the deck. Originally, though, I suppose they were all hearts, clubs, spades & diamonds, weren't they? (I really should study the history of Tarot at some point.)