For Tarot Deck Creators - What is a Tarot deck? (revisited)

[Major Tom]

Would you rule out such decks as the Blue Moon, then ? Or the Tarot of the Dead ? I certainly wouldn't !

I don't think I've been entirely clear. I'm not saying the Blue Moon Tarot or the Tarot of the Dead are not tarot decks, even though the Blue Moon has only 22 cards. I'm saying they would make a poor departure point for any artist creating their own tarot.

The reason I react with worry to the idea of defining too closely is that next we could end up with some idea of "approved" and "not approved" tarots

I do hope my response to gregory helps with this too, but I don't think there could ever be an 'approved' list. As long as someone is willing to print a deck of cards with the word 'tarot' on the front, they will do so regardless of whether it truely is tarot or not. I may tell someone that in my opinion their deck isn't tarot but they are still welcome to call it tarot if they wish.

Can we talk a bit about this idea of a tarot extended family? I think that may be a good way to go as it does allow this type of flexibility.

Thanks for this Karen. As I said before I do like the idea of an extended tarot family. We already have one in a way. There's the Visconti decks, the Minchiate, the Etteilla decks, etc. The trends with names seem to be to either use the name of the place the deck was created, the name of the family the deck was created for, or the name of the person who designed the deck. If we consider the Rider Waite Smith a type of tarot, then the publisher's, designer's and artist's names were all used. I suspect anyone bold enough to alter the structure of tarot ought to be bold enough to put their name on it and call it by their own name. Naturally, people will do as they wish.

The structure of the Gematric Tarot can be directly one-to-one related to the RWS deck. I believe it to be Tarot.

Sounds like Tarot to me. You used the RWS as a departure point so you were very likely to succeed in creating a Tarot.

Am I making any sense here? I do wish more deck creators would join the discussion. What's your opinion?

 

[mythos]

I don't think I've been entirely clear. I'm not saying the Blue Moon Tarot or the Tarot of the Dead are not tarot decks, even though the Blue Moon has only 22 cards. I'm saying they would make a poor departure point for any artist creating their own tarot.

Like the Infinite 'Tarot'. Okay it has 76 not 78 cards, but that is not what makes it 'not' tarot, in spite of it's title. There is no major arcana. It has four suits which include High Ace, king, queen, gift, joker, and then cards 1 - 10. Then it has a group called family cards - again in suits equalling 16. The 'sneaky' thing is that on the side of the box is says that Infinite TarotTM "presents a timely oracle for everyone. It is definitely NOT tarot, but merely advertises itself as such.

Apart from four suits (which are renamed), there is nothing but the name 'Tarot' that suggests anything even remotely tarot related-extended. The remoteness is just too far from tarot to be considered either extended family or a departure from some tarot point.

When I was working on my High Priestess-Papesse last night, I realised that, for purely artistic purposes, I need to add 'something'. My mind instantly began digging through my meagre receptacle of High Priestess/Papasse card related symbolism (empty brain syndrome).

I instantly thought of this thread, and realised that what makes tarot tarot, as opposed to something else - regardless of name changes, card numbers and so on, is it's meaning-symbolism. There are some utterly superb 'Majors only' decks out there with extraordinary artwork, which I own and love ... but apart from titles, and (sometimes) a single related symbol, most are just paintings - beautiful and inspiring for this wannabe artist, but not tarot.

So, for me, at the very core of tarot is the meaning of the particular card (which is variable within a range of possible related meanings) and the symbolism which communicates that meaning.

I am not advocating a 'definitive' list of meanings - heaven forbid - but a beautifully painted nude with a star in her hair (for example) does not a Star card make. It makes a superb painting, but not tarot. It is the capacity of a card to carry the instrinsic meaning (in all it's forms and versions), it's essence, through symbolism, that make the star card the tarot star, or any card tarot, or not tarot.

Don't ask me to define what that essence is, because I can't. It is that je ne sais quoi, that non-verbal something, that makes tarot tarot, and not oracle, or not a bunch of beautiful paintings with tarot titles. Or at least, that's what my experience with the High Priestess/Papesse told me last night. Maybe I actually managed to prise one or her secrets out of her

mythos

 

[FearfulSymmetry]

Okay Major Tom,

I've been working on this one forever. But there's finally light at the end of the tunnel-- it should be totally imaged by the end of the year (fingers crossed here).

Yay! I am very happy for you!!!! I can't wait to see it!
btw, I moved to the East coast, are you stll over here?

Marie
(Mary-el)

 

[FearfulSymmetry]

Sounds like Tarot to me. You used the RWS as a departure point so you were very likely to succeed in creating a Tarot.

Am I making any sense here? I do wish more deck creators would join the discussion. What's your opinion?

I totally get what you are saying here! Its like the numbers 1 through 10, you can rename them anything you like, color them, do them in calligraphy, add a number, only count to 5, but it will never change the root concept of 1-10.
If 1-10 were the elusive concept of tarot then some have gotten pretty close to it, or at least as close as our paradim has allowed so far, and some of them are the Rider Waite, Thoth, Marseille, Visconti...

I find myself getting more traditional as I go along and find 78 to be pretty much perfect. If a deck has less I consider it tarot but maybe incomplete, like the majors only decks, I always have a sense of anticipation for it to be finished.
If the deck has more than 78 it feels like it has an extra card, and sometimes it even feels washed out, like in the decks which add a suit, it seems the meanings get stretched to cover the extra cards, other times they just feel a little redundant to me (sorry!!!). Sometimes the changes are made to fit another system and that's fine with me but it is a departure not a root, if that makes sense. Many decks are a departure and not a root.

I hope my deck accomplishes being a root!! It's what I am attempting but time will tell I guess

I don't know if anyone has a responsibility to do anyhing regarding the tarot, I Guess everyone just needs to do their best, do do their highest potential and sooner or later the paradigm will shift again.

I am weird about not having feelings for oracles. One example would be the Frouds Fairy oracle. It's gorgeous! I have been a fan of the artists for a long time, however, I get as much, maybe more, satisfaction from the books I own with the art in them. They don't tug at my guts at all in that tarot way.

I spend a lot of time looking at art. I often get the same feelings from art and music as I do tarot, and recognize the same archetypes, so there is a tarot feeling for things which were never intended to be tarot at all.

I have been using the Sola Busca lately and its not considered tarot yet gives me the tarot feeling if I don't pay too much attention to the titles, since they often seem to be the wrong card, just misplaced, go figure!

I do believe wholeheartedly in archetypes. I wouldn't put all my faith in just Jungs definition, he may have put a name to it but it is a phenomenon that exists independently of him or any of us. I beleve tarot illustrates them.

That enough opinion for you Major Tom? LOL

Marie

 

[Major Tom]

Don't ask me to define what that essence is, because I can't. It is that je ne sais quoi, that non-verbal something, that makes tarot tarot, and not oracle, or not a bunch of beautiful paintings with tarot titles. Or at least, that's what my experience with the High Priestess/Papesse told me last night. Maybe I actually managed to prise one or her secrets out of her

With this you go where I've not yet dared, I prefer to point to the structure and leave it at that. The way I figure it, if someone's design speaks to them the meaning then it's bound to speak to someone else also. The thing with Tarot is it's meant to be universal and personal interpretations are unlikely to be understood by everyone.

Sometimes the changes are made to fit another system and that's fine with me but it is a departure not a root, if that makes sense. Many decks are a departure and not a root.

You make perfect sense to me. I feel that many of the departures are not Tarot.

I do believe wholeheartedly in archetypes. I wouldn't put all my faith in just Jungs definition, he may have put a name to it but it is a phenomenon that exists independently of him or any of us. I beleve tarot illustrates them.

That enough opinion for you Major Tom? LOL

I would wish to point folks to Goethe's definition of an archtype. I also believe Tarot illustrates archtypes.

Thanks so much for joining the discussion Marie.

Every additional voice adds a new perspective to what I feel are important considerations for artists working with Tarot.

Please! Add your voice and opinion if you haven't yet or add your thoughts or questions if you have.

 

[blackroseivy]

All I can say here is, my deck hugs the RWS more or less - not entirely, BUT: There are 5 suits, Major & Minor Arcana; there are 4 court cards & 10 pips; there are 22 Majors which have differing titles to the "standard" but they are easily cross-referenced to the original titles.

Other than that, I really have very little to add!

 

[FearfulSymmetry]

Major Tom,

I would wish to point folks to Goethe's definition of an archtype. I also believe Tarot illustrates archtypes.



Marie:
I found this:they are a demonstration of the fundamental underlying unity of all of nature. It is the archetype which enables the drawing of effective analogies that are true on all levels, not merely as conceptual aids: the archetype says that all the world truly can be found in a grain of sand, just as turbid glass can hold all of the atmosphere inside of it (Goethe, 304).

Marie:
A very lucid ay of describing it! I have had great discussions on tarot and archetypes, it could be whole thread on its own.


Major Tom:
Every additional voice adds a new perspective to what I feel are important considerations for artists working with Tarot.
and
I would submit that as artists we have a responsibility to keep this structure in the back of our minds as we create our own tarots, if only to insure that what we create is definitely a tarot.


Marie:
Something in the way you say these things give me the feeling that you think, as artists, we are *distilling* tarot into something more advanced, more pure, more true to archetype; am I right? Or are you just wanting to protect the tradition? Both valiant in my opinion.

 

[mythos]

If I remember correctly ... and I might not (it is a long time since I read Plato), he used the word 'archetype' in describing/ defining his notion of 'perfect ideas'. If I remember rightly (and again I may not, though it is not so long since I read Jung), he drew on a host of sources to build his theory of archetypes.

With this you go where I've not yet dared, I prefer to point to the structure and leave it at that. The way I figure it, if someone's design speaks to them the meaning then it's bound to speak to someone else also. The thing with Tarot is it's meant to be universal and personal interpretations are unlikely to be understood by everyone.
.

Just call me 'daring shirl' . I do worry about the problem of personal symbolism, as opposed to universal entering into deck creation. I agree wholeheartedly that one should ensure that their symbolic images speak to the universal, otherwise, unless the deck is solely for one's own use, it becomes meaningless as tarot.

Consequently, when an 'idea' flashes into my mind about what a painting 'needs', I do go and check out the symbolism of the idea to see whether there is any general consensus of meaning (as much as there can be with symbols that is) to ensure that it has a good psychospiritual tarot 'fit' with the card. Through this process, I try to maintain the integrity of the painting as an expression of tarot.

And maybe that the je ne sais quoi of what makes tarot tarot, and not something else, may very well be definable in terms of the integrity of symbolism chosen to reflect the 'archetypes', be they majors, or number and element in the minors.

This is not to say that symbolism cannot change over time. Of course it can and does. One only needs to see the difference in meaning that the swastika holds post WWII for Westerners, compared to the meaning it still holds in Hindu-Buddhist societies. I guess what I am saying is that one internally recognises tarot intuitively, not necessarily by structure (though I do believe that structure is important), but by the integrity of the symbols chosen to reflect each particular archetype.

That still, of course, leaves an immense amount of room for variation because symbols of a universal nature exist everywhere in life whether understood consciously, or recognised unconsciously. I think that when we fall into the use of personal, rather than universal symbolism, we fall out of tarot, and into something else. The Tarot du Chat ... the Marseille deck done with cats is obviously tarot. The fact that it has cats instead of people is irrelevant because the underlying symbolism as well as it's structure, are recognisably tarot symbols of a universal nature. One can even use baseball caps .

Oh, and by the way ... I have been convinced of the need for minors as well as majors via this discussion. Thanks Baba and others. Drats ... I hope I live long enough to paint this entire deck. Just call me slow but daring shirl

mythos

 

[Major Tom]

All I can say here is, my deck hugs the RWS more or less - not entirely, BUT: There are 5 suits, Major & Minor Arcana; there are 4 court cards & 10 pips; there are 22 Majors which have differing titles to the "standard" but they are easily cross-referenced to the original titles.

Thanks for joining the conversation danubhe.

You must realise I have to ask: Why did you feel the need to have 5 suites in your deck? For me, Tarot has four suites consisting of Ace through Ten and 4 court cards. Have I added it up right and your deck has 92 cards? Again, I'd say in my opinion a Tarot deck has 78 cards.

Something in the way you say these things give me the feeling that you think, as artists, we are *distilling* tarot into something more advanced, more pure, more true to archetype; am I right? Or are you just wanting to protect the tradition? Both valiant in my opinion.

Thanks for this Marie. The short answer is yes.

I believe that every time an artist creates a Tarot deck, in a way, it is the archtype of Tarot finding a new expression in the world. Just as the archtype of a rose finds a new expression every time a new cultivar is bred and introduced to the market. Some of these new expressions will be more true to archtype and some less so. I believe it is the artist's responsibility to attempt to create a more pure expression. Adding cards, and suites, changing titles, etc., willy-nilly is an abnegation of the artist's responsibility. I'm certainly not saying these things cannot or should not be done, but only that they should be done in an attempt to create a more pure expression of the Tarot archtype. For me, the structure is already perfect.

These beliefs also lead me to try to protect the tradition.

As always, your mileage may vary.

I agree wholeheartedly that one should ensure that their symbolic images speak to the universal, otherwise, unless the deck is solely for one's own use, it becomes meaningless as tarot.

OK! Daring Shirl it is.

I cannot go quite so far as you. A deck consisting entirely of personal symbols will speak to someone else even if only one other. For me, even if it only speaks to the individual who created it - it cannot be meaningless. I'd prefer to say something like 'of limited appeal'.

That still, of course, leaves an immense amount of room for variation because symbols of a universal nature exist everywhere in life whether understood consciously, or recognised unconsciously. I think that when we fall into the use of personal, rather than universal symbolism, we fall out of tarot, and into something else. The Tarot du Chat ... the Marseille deck done with cats is obviously tarot. The fact that it has cats instead of people is irrelevant because the underlying symbolism as well as it's structure, are recognisably tarot symbols of a universal nature. One can even use baseball caps.

There is infinite freedom for the artist within the structure of Tarot.

I have been convinced of the need for minors as well as majors via this discussion. Thanks Baba and others. Drats ... I hope I live long enough to paint this entire deck.

I'm really glad to hear that this discussion is so useful for you Daring Shirl.

I do hope more of our resident artists will feel able to voice their opinions.

 

[baba-prague]

I'm certainly not saying these things cannot or should not be done, but only that they should be done in an attempt to create a more pure expression of the Tarot archtype.

Oooooo! Sounds a bit purist for me to be honest. When we work we are not attempting to create a more "pure" expression of the "Tarot archetype". That word purity worries me - what is "purity"? Can decks be "impure"? No, I find this too judgemental - though I hope it's not meant to be.

I'd say - in Rachel Pollack's words - that we are doing something much more like jazz improvisation. Taking the familiar theme and playing it in our own way, with our own unique expression. And isn't that a lovely and worthwhile (and fun, creative and broadening) thing to do? I'm with Rachel on this one!