Artistic conception, "artwork" - imagination and/or creativity - which matters more?

[Alta]

I have and use both the Tarot of Prague and Shining Tribe. You could hardly ask for two more different decks, but I tend to pick them up preferentially.
The Tarot of Prague does not need any explanation, and I have already posted on its qualities several times.
Shining Tribe is a thoughtful and interesting deck. Rachel Pollack, as some may not know, was emulating the style of very ancient art, mostly cave drawings and that sort of historical remnant. She was trying to get back to the very roots of where we came from. I find the deck powerful and evocative. That said, I think a few of her cards are not good representations of the concepts, but when she gets it right (and that's most of the time) it can give almost stunning readings. For example, I find her choice of image for "Strength" to be not especially helpful. But then, as baba knows, in TofP I also find the presence of snow in the Ace and Knight of Cups to be almost disturbingly off-base. Maybe because of living in a northern country, snow is powerful symbol for me.
So, there are two decks, one so perfectly done with a strong artistic and personal vision followed up with wonderful execution and another also with a strong coherent vision but off-putting art which has stopped many from reading with this wonderful deck.

 

[Marie]

But then, as baba knows, in TofP I also find the presence of snow in the Ace and Knight of Cups to be almost disturbingly off-base. Maybe because of living in a northern country, snow is powerful symbol for me.

I just got the Shining Tribe and love it. I didn't think I would like it as much as I do, having read several not so flattering reviews about the art. To me the art is very pure though, expressive.
Marion, I found your comment quoted above very interesting. Several years ago I noticed that a lot of people associate the suits and the elements according to the geography of where they grew up. For example, here, the big mountains are always to the North and the Ocean is to the West. So it is easy to see Earth as North and Water as the West. I've heard similar examples from all over the world and how they affect ones perceptions of the elements.

Having said that, I have never noticed the snow in those cards, though to me I find it approriate to my personal POV where I attribute Water/Cups to the North/Winter. I do that for a lot of different reasons which I would love to discuss if anyone is interested! I Love talking about the elements! In fact I just realized that I am sadly off topic!

To be more on-topic I would make the observation that a lot more value tends to be placed on decks with deeper meaning than decks that are beautiful but just a pretty face. I just recently got one of Kaplan's Enclyclopedia of Tarot and it is full of examples of beautiful, artistic decks that we don't even talk about now. In fact, when someone calls my deck (the Mary-el) an *Art Deck* I consider them fightin' words <wry grin>.

Marie

 

[punchinella]

Hi everybody--since noticing this thread last night, a reply has been simmering in my mind . . . In regards to art vs. 'concept', or possibly possibly good art vs. bad art . . . Well, the background that I have is in language (poetry) & we have a saying in writing departments that 'less is more'. This is just pretty much categorically true! Fewer words, less explanation, a single strong image as opposed to five . . . make for both a more powerful & a more interesting poem--BECAUSE they force the reader to do the work, to invest in the poem herself, rather than just sitting back & allowing it to roll along & do its thing without her.

In the case of the very clumsy/childish/primitive-looking artwork in decks like, say, Shining Tribe (which, by the way, I do not actually own) I'm thinking that the same principle might be in effect. These decks might work precisely because the art alone does not do it for the reader. & I think, for me at least, that the same principle is true of the many decks featuring genuinely bad (i.e., mediocre) art . . . If the deck is gorgeous, it's possible to lay out the spread, turn the cards over & then flip off the brain: to sit back, relax, gaze at the amazing artwork & feel fulfilled. With bad art that simply isn't going to happen. With bad art, one has to work, to make oneself understand what the cards actually mean, before one can feel fulfilled.

Of course, if the concept isn't there either then the whole thing's no good: no matter how hard one works, one is unlikely to find what one needs . . . Concept really does have to be viable, if a deck is not pleasing to look at.

I got the Mythic deck a few weeks ago in a trade, & it's what really set me thinking along these lines. It just does nothing at all visually, the artwork is utterly blah, sort-of like a bad calendar . . . but in spite--or possibly because?--of this I find it to be an intensely deep read. The concept, of course, is solid.

Anyway, food for thought.

(&, baba, that's not to say that there isn't PLENTY of space in the world for breathtaking & devastating decks too . . . but this goes without saying, doesn't it . . . )

P.

 

[Cerulean]

I like a blend of beauty...

I have seen books where some excellent writers dip their fingers into painting mode and some of the authors include Natalie Goldberg and Rachel Pollack. They have the ability to use words to make their concepts accessible. Rachel Pollack wrote the companion book to the Vertigo and she wrote a well-thought and questioning commentary to the Dali. I do recommend Rachel Pollack's and Natalie Goldberg's writings, but I don't find their 'artwork' stimulating. Original, yes.

If one wants to dip into Rachel Pollack's well of wisdom, her commentary in Illustrated Guide to the Tarot gives a taste...I believe the Golden Dawn Magical Tarot is also illustrated in that book. Their value schemes are bright, about the same 'temperature,' so the colors resonate in the eyes in that pop art effect.

For me, I like modern decks that have a strong artistic theme to hang my mental hat, artwork, imagination and at least some descriptive language that shows some tarot resonance and structure...if they are historical or based on a literature concept, it just has to be in an area that I want to learn concepts.

 

[Shade]

I read an article once which discussed the split between tarot readers who based their readings solely on intuition and inspiration (what does this lion mean to me at this stage in my life...) and readers who were primarily concerned with esoteric interpretation (the lion is an alchemical symbol also relating to the planet...). Personally I prefer to have a balance of the two traits as I've seen many other folks here do.

I bring this up because I've noticed a tendancy to make beautiful decks that don't say much of anything. I love looking at the Winged Spirit Tarot, I feel deeply connected to some of the art, but when I take a look at the Devil card I think "Well he drew a Devil". It took me a while before I bought the Shining Tribe but there the cards are opening new doors for me.

The "primitive art" decks remind me of Shakespeare in the Park where you have a great and compelling story with no speical effects or lighting and the "art" decks remind me of Cirque de Soleil where you have amazing acrobatic feats and special costumes and effects but no deep plot. Both are in their own way enjoyable.

 

[baba-prague]

This is interesting. We were invited at the last minute to a private viewing of a big art exhibition last night. Because it was so unexpected I had no time to think about any preconceptions so I just walked in expecting anything.

In the event it was mostly terribly disappointing. Because most of the work was in what I think of as the "just good enough" category. The conception was okay - but not very original or challenging - and the artwork was the same. We thought the best piece, in some ways, was a tapestry by an elderly woman artist who has been working in this medium all her life. You could see a certain refinement of thought and technique. Though even this was not breathtaking (but I bet some of her work is).

This made me think again that what I want in a deck - or in any art or design (which is a deck? art or design? that's another question lol) is something that doesn't look like it was dreamt up by a marketing committee. I want either a really strong conception, or really strong artwork. For me, the ideal is to have both. What I don't want is something that is just okay - I'd honestly rather have a deck that makes you react.

Now I know this is quite different from Punchinella's view - and I don't think my view is "right" - just different (maybe because I've spent my whole life doing visual work, so in the end it matters a lot to me). I find that I can get over primitive artwork (by the way, I think much "ethnic" artwork is anything but primitive, but that's maybe a digression) but I can't get over something that just looks like it was done as a job of work - there has to be some passion whether of concept, or artwork or both. Without it, to me there's a kind of blandness that is a total barrier - it sparks nothing in me and I can't read well with it. But I think Punchinella's very different reaction is really interesting, and it's made me think

Anyway, more of this later - thanks for responding to this thread because this whole question is much on my mind (and probably every other deck creator's)

_________

Also - Marie, and Marion, shall we start a thread on the Elements? I would really like that but maybe it needs to be separate? I've just done a sketch for our new Queen of Swords and I kept wanting to put snow in there and thinking "no, wait, there doesn't always have to be snow for this queen". In the end I just could not put her in sunlight - so she is sitting at a window in the early evening. Why does the sun feel so wrong for this card to me? I'm not sure exactly (I know there are some obvious answers, but it's a matter of a feeling that is less rational too) - it would be GREAT to discuss all this.
(edited to add)
I am in a Northern country too of course, and snow here is a powerful presence - but maybe it means something different to me because I was brought up in Ireland where we didn't get much snow and I used to long for it - it was never horrible, always exciting. Also, Alex and I both read and reread "The Snow Queen" when we were children - it's yet another thing we found we had in common. Oh - a lot to discuss. I really need to sit down and think about this.

 

[lunakasha]

This is veeeery interesting....

First of all, the distinction between "good art" vs. "bad art" is completely subjective, so it can be difficult to make an argument that one deck is more beautiful, or interesting, or intuitive than another. Several posts have used the Shining Tribe as an example of "less-than-pretty" artwork, yet there are obviously some people who find that particular style very pleasing and easier to read with. I have not seen this deck myself (but will check it out here at Aeclectic!).

Personally, I have a strong preference for the most beautiful cards I can find........I like bright, bold colors, or sometimes pastels, but the emphasis for me is *COLOR* and lots of *DETAIL*!!! For me, detail is also important when reading with the cards; as a relatively new tarot enthusiast, I am still learning to use the cards intuitively, and the more detailed the card, the easier it is for me to connect with my intuition.

Having said that, I think we all choose different decks for different reasons. The most important thing is to find a deck that speaks to YOU, regardless of how other people feel about it. I am becoming a serious Tarot collector (aka ADDICT), and I can honestly say that some of my favorite "pretty" decks are not very effective to read with....yet I will probably not purchase a deck unless it is visually appealing to me.

But that's just me!

ADDENDUM: I just looked at the Shining Tribe cards here at AT, and I would have to agree with others who described the artwork as "childlike" or "rudimentary" in quality. I also felt that maybe that was the look they wanted to present, in order to illustrate the primal symbolism of ancient cultures??? I did appreciate the use of color in these cards, and I get the sense that these cards would be easy to read with, as the symbolism is clear and straightforward.

In all honesty, though, I have to admit that these cards did not attract me at all, there was no "connection", and for that reason they probably would not be a good choice for me.

 

[Lady Eclipse]

For me, artwork is important but even more essential is that the deck must also inspire me as well. If I do not like the way a deck looks and feels, I simply won't buy it. I've been given many gifts over the years of decks that did not appeal to me in the least and I couldn't read with them because they did not feel right to me. I ended up just adding them to my ever-growing collection.

The decks I almost always gravitate toward are well done, colorful, bold, and especially different. The more unusual the deck, the more likely I'm going to want to buy it and read with it. That's the main reason I purchased the Shapeshifter Tarot when it first came out. I feel the same way about the Voyager Tarot and it's still one of my all-time favorite decks to read with (next to my own of course!).

The one I'm having a lot of fun working with now is the Quest Tarot. Do any of you own this deck? The artwork is beautiful and I especially like how all of the court figures are metallic looking. This idea even carries over into the Majors.

Joy to you,
Maralee

 

[baba-prague]

Well, I sort of agree and disagree when you say that art is purely subjective. I think that you can have a great concept, but then execute it better or worse - in other words, you can make an objective judgement about whether artwork is well done or poorly done. I think with decks we can see great concepts badly done, and poor concepts that are lifted (to some extent) with good artwork. But you can like "bad" artwork - or dislike "good".
In fact, maybe the very words "bad" and "good" are misleading, because they almost imply a moral judgement, whereas I am talking purely technically - for instance, whether someone simply gets the perspective wrong in a drawing.

I've been reading Rachel Pollack's "The New Tarot" recently, and it's interesting how she grapples with this issue in her reviews. I think she is someone to whom concept is more important than artwork, but it made me smile when she says that the Gareth Knight deck is interesting - but too ugly to be appealing (I'll try to pull out the exact quote). I think for all of us sheer aesthetic attraction plays at least some part in our decisions.

We have had this same conversation many times here, and it's always interesting and valuable. I suppose at either extreme one would agree that some art simply is generally agreed to be good or bad - for instance, no-one, surely, would say Vermeer was a bad artist. But there is a whole lot in between, where of course personal taste and preference plays a big part. Look at the UK Turner prize - no-one ever agrees on that!

Oh dear, I'm not sure I haven't muddled the issue even more!

Interesting though, and I must say that I think the Quest is very well done - but I don't relate to it and couldn't ever use it myself.
So personally, I don't always go for artwork - though it's very important to me.

 

[Page]

HHHHmmmmmm

First I admit that I didn't read all the treads. So will catch up later as I do find this interesting

I was a little lost with this one because I think some poor artwork decks are very good. e.g The Starter Tarot but that's how I started reading the tarot. I cringe to admit it To me this deck works with the childlike drawings

I think it's all down to personal taste, so I would choose conception.

e.g of my bad conception was is my own Tarot cards