Minimalism in recent and upcoming Tarot decks

[G6]

my sense is, at least in the artists who come here to show progress on their decks, is many of them aren't familiar with the history and symbology, hence the minimal art. I haven't bought any of them, I have lovely oracles for making things up, my tarot I like to talk to me.

I agree with this and LFs point about the oracle-isation of tarot. I'm all for creativity within the bounds of established tarot systems. If you're just making stuff up though call it an oracle or a meditation deck or something new. This is coming from someone that generally doesn't mind decks like LoScar puts out that are not super RWS. Ludy Lescot being an example.

ETA: Tarot of Transformation is similar in that it seems more like an oracle deck, but calls itself a tarot deck. At least with that one I feel the oracle-isation is more coming from a place of understanding of tarot meanings and a sincere attempt to reframe the cards into an oracle context/interpretation. The reasons for this is an emphasis on psychology theory. I guess what I'm saying is I don't mind a hybrid type deck if the intention is clear. However, if the meaning is not commenting on traditional tarot meanings or framing them in a different context that makes sense maybe they should just call it something else.

 

[Maveriker]

The Rider-Waite system, however, is far from the be-all-and-end-all, and is not even "the original" in the sense that it is only (now) around 100 years old.

Much of the symbolism we've come to know as "tarot symbology" was entirely made up by Waite and/or Smith — and I do not mean to disrespect them or their contribution in saying that. Quite the opposite in fact, these "made up" elements work and contributed in some very major ways.

However, Tarot is larger and yes, much more open than that: do not forget the Marseille and other pip traditions. The symbology shifted a lot in the pre-Waite and pre-G-D European tarots. Some elements of course, especially through the Majors persisted and survive to today, but my point is that what we've come to know as "standard" tarot symbology has only become standard in the last 100-150 years (and was, at one time "made up").

It is also possible within minimalism to still acknowledge many, even if not ALL of those symbols. Take for instance my version of the High Priestess: there is still duality, moon phases, piercing the veil, the pomegranate, the threshold between light and dark, and the "book" of wisdom that is contained in illumination. Other artists communicate these symbols in other symbolic ways — that's the awesome thing about symbols: they are SYMBOLIC, which means that there are other ways to visually communicate their meaning even if the literal symbol (an oxymoron in itself — WTF is a literal symbol??? It doesn't exist!!!) is different than what you're accustomed to.

Also different things speak to different people in different ways. For some, a picture of a woman sitting on a throne with pomegranates in the background and moons in her crown "speaks" to them. For others, a more abstract representation "speaks" just as much — if not more.

Just because something doesn't fit your definition or expectations, doesn't mean it's any less valid or real. I'm reminded of how people are expected to behave based on dress, sex, color, or social status — and yet are often completely contrary to those expectations. Opening up to and recognizing that deepens your understanding of human nature, which, ultimately is what tarot does too, no?

 

[G6]

The Rider-Waite system, however, is far from the be-all-and-end-all, and is not even "the original" in the sense that it is only (now) around 100 years old.

Much of the symbolism we've come to know as "tarot symbology" was entirely made up by Waite and/or Smith — and I do not mean to disrespect them or their contribution in saying that. Quite the opposite in fact, these "made up" elements work and contributed in some very major ways.

However, Tarot is larger and yes, much more open than that: do not forget the Marseille and other pip traditions. The symbology shifted a lot in the pre-Waite and pre-G-D European tarots. Some elements of course, especially through the Majors persisted and survive to today, but my point is that what we've come to know as "standard" tarot symbology has only become standard in the last 100-150 years (and was, at one time "made up").

It is also possible within minimalism to still acknowledge many, even if not ALL of those symbols. Take for instance my version of the High Priestess: there is still duality, moon phases, piercing the veil, the pomegranate, the threshold between light and dark, and the "book" of wisdom that is contained in illumination. Other artists communicate these symbols in other symbolic ways — that's the awesome thing about symbols: they are SYMBOLIC, which means that there are other ways to visually communicate their meaning even if the literal symbol (an oxymoron in itself — WTF is a literal symbol??? It doesn't exist!!!) is different than what you're accustomed to.

Also different things speak to different people in different ways. For some, a picture of a woman sitting on a throne with pomegranates in the background and moons in her crown "speaks" to them. For others, a more abstract representation "speaks" just as much — if not more.

Just because something doesn't fit your definition or expectations, doesn't mean it's any less valid or real. I'm reminded of how people are expected to behave based on dress, sex, color, or social status — and yet are often completely contrary to those expectations. Opening up to and recognizing that deepens your understanding of human nature, which, ultimately is what tarot does too, no?

Yes, of course, different things speak to different people. I could make up a system this morning of real world symbols people may see and attach meanings to them. For example, in my made up system whenever you see a squirrel it could have the divinatory meaning of frenetic energy, foresight, etc., BUT I wouldn't call my system tarot.

There is a certain expectation when you label a system tarot that the audience has and if you are not playing within it call it something else.

 

[Maveriker]

I agree, but I also think it is not only careless, but disrespectful to creators who work hard to encapsulate and communicate tarot's structure in new and engaging ways.

There certainly are many decks (not just minimalist) that have little or nothing to do with tarot's structure that are nonetheless called "tarot" — which causes confusion. I cannot tell you how many times I correct people who categorize ALL divinatory card systems as "tarot" when many clearly are not.

However, I spent a great deal of energy in encapsulating the tarot's structure in my deck. Although it may look "simple" it is in all ways absolutely a TAROT. Not and oracle, not a Lenormand, not a "made up" system — it is built on the same scaffolding that every TAROT from TdM to contemporary decks is built on and shares.

I can only speak for what I've created, of course, and not for all minimalist decks. I'm sure many break all the so-called rules and should not be called "tarot"

I'm sure I don't have to reiterate this on this forum, as we are ALL familiar with what tarot is and what its structure is, but for me, to be called a tarot, a deck MUST have the following:

-22 trumps
-4 suits, of 14 cards per suit, Ace (or 1) to 10 and 4 Court ranks

This is the bare minimum. I personally have no qualm with "extra" cards (because you can always take them out if you disagree with them, and earlier forms of tarot had differing numbers of Trumps and Courts, causing widely varying total card counts).

Card meanings change constantly according to context (the reading itself, the reader, the querent, the culture, the era — did the "traditional" meaning of 9S ever mean "too much time on Facebook"?? Hell no, but it certainly can mean that very thing in this day and age!!)

Despite tarot having to exhibit a certain structure, dogmatic fundamentalism (especially when based on images that only have a 100-year tradition and were also "made up") does not help us understand tarot better or use it for its best and deepest applications. Studying all of the "traditional" and technical aspects helps, but being dogmatic about it only creates rigidity — and can be blinding. The essence of the system persists, that is its strength. When the tool is only upheld on the basis of tradition, what is the point? Who does that help?

It's been said that tarot is a language — well guess what? Language changes to suit those who use it! Do we still speak Latin? Not really, but its strength, its essence is peppered throughout modern language — and so it is for tarot, it does not NEED to be what it has always been for it to still be tarot. It does not NEED to be what it has always been to be useful and effective. It does not NEED to be what it has always been for it to be POWERFUL. Its power, instead, is in those aspects that go unchanged throughout iterations, which for the most part are those basics I stated above.

Tarot is a reflection of life, but not life itself.

 

[Pixna]

I for one am delighted to see the Tarot evolving. I hope that it never remains stagnant and always reflects the time period in which it's being used. I far prefer decks that speak to the world as we know it rather than time periods that we reflect on nostalgically, no matter how unrealistic that nostalgia may be, particularly epochs that existed long before any of us were born (at least in our present life and form).

I especially like decks that don't depict human figures, because rarely do those figures represent me or people I know and interact with. I was over the moon about The Wild Unknown when it first came out for all these reasons. But typically animals are anthromoporphized when used in Tarot, even when an artist tries to avoid that, and they are a bit in TWU because they're taking the place of their (usually) human counterparts in the cards.

I'm eagerly anticipating the Orbifold Tarot now and have a feeling I'll love it even more than The Wild Unknown for numerous reasons. The simplicity speaks to me in volumes (despite how oxymoronic that sounds). I love that the creator of the deck uses color and form in such unique ways, and that the elements are woven so intelligently throughout the deck, from the minors to the majors, integrating them in the most unadorned yet complex ways.

I don't believe minimalism necessarily means bare bones. There can be a profound depth and richness to decks (like the Orbifold) if the system is true to Tarot and yet allows the reader to rely on intuition, color, shapes, and elemental representations. This will evolve a Tarot that's not only contemporary and original but will withstand the test of time, just as decks of yore (with their heavy imagery, human and humanlike depictions, and often extraneous or disconnected colors) have done.

 

[G6]

I agree, but I also think it is not only careless, but disrespectful to creators who work hard to encapsulate and communicate tarot's structure in new and engaging ways.

There certainly are many decks (not just minimalist) that have little or nothing to do with tarot's structure that are nonetheless called "tarot" — which causes confusion. I cannot tell you how many times I correct people who categorize ALL divinatory card systems as "tarot" when many clearly are not.

However, I spent a great deal of energy in encapsulating the tarot's structure in my deck. Although it may look "simple" it is in all ways absolutely a TAROT. Not and oracle, not a Lenormand, not a "made up" system — it is built on the same scaffolding that every TAROT from TdM to contemporary decks is built on and shares.

I can only speak for what I've created, of course, and not for all minimalist decks. I'm sure many break all the so-called rules and should not be called "tarot"

I'm sure I don't have to reiterate this on this forum, as we are ALL familiar with what tarot is and what its structure is, but for me, to be called a tarot, a deck MUST have the following:

-22 trumps
-4 suits, of 14 cards per suit, Ace (or 1) to 10 and 4 Court ranks

This is the bare minimum. I personally have no qualm with "extra" cards (because you can always take them out if you disagree with them, and earlier forms of tarot had differing numbers of Trumps and Courts, causing widely varying total card counts).

Card meanings change constantly according to context (the reading itself, the reader, the querent, the culture, the era — did the "traditional" meaning of 9S ever mean "too much time on Facebook"?? Hell no, but it certainly can mean that very thing in this day and age!!)

Despite tarot having to exhibit a certain structure, dogmatic fundamentalism (especially when based on images that only have a 100-year tradition and were also "made up") does not help us understand tarot better or use it for its best and deepest applications. Studying all of the "traditional" and technical aspects helps, but being dogmatic about it only creates rigidity — and can be blinding. The essence of the system persists, that is its strength. When the tool is only upheld on the basis of tradition, what is the point? Who does that help?

It's been said that tarot is a language — well guess what? Language changes to suit those who use it! Do we still speak Latin? Not really, but its strength, its essence is peppered throughout modern language — and so it is for tarot, it does not NEED to be what it has always been for it to still be tarot. It does not NEED to be what it has always been to be useful and effective. It does not NEED to be what it has always been for it to be POWERFUL. Its power, instead, is in those aspects that go unchanged throughout iterations, which for the most part are those basics I stated above.

Tarot is a reflection of life, but not life itself.

Sorry, I had to figure out who is going to win the next Presidential debate on the Republican side based on rune and pop song interpretations.

You will get honest feedback here from people that buy and use these tools. Some have said they are convinced or more aptly put have use for minimalist or out of the box imagery and some do not. I think there is truth that minimalist decks can provide more of a one dimensional experience for some readers. For example, in the Book of Shadows So Below deck, the Devil card is represented by an ice cream sundae. I get that choice and would argue it fits within a traditional meaning for that card, but does it open me up to other interpretations or not?

Let's also look at the Mary-El tarot. The 7 of Cups is a portrait of a black wolf. In her guidebook she acknowledges the discrepancy between her imagery/assigned meaning and the traditional RWS. Although the Mary-El uses the structure you define tarot by above I think there's a case that the Mary-El is not a tarot deck because for me if I have to learn a whole new system of assigned meanings and cannot read the traditional meaning in the imagery in some way, it's not a tarot deck. That's not to say what is produced is any less valid it's just something else. To put it more simply, if someone tells me they want to play tennis and I agree and show up at the tennis court, but the game we play on the tennis court has nothing to do with tennis, in my mind we didn't play tennis.

Yes, everyone decides for themselves what meaning they assign to everything not just tarot cards or other systems of divination. I have only been working with the tarot for 8 years. Some people on this site have been working with it all their lives. It's not a matter of rigidity it's a matter of having respect as deck makers for the practice users have developed within the bounds of the system we have all chosen to work within.

It's like if I worked with an ordinary deck of playing cards my whole life and have built up a significant ability to read based on the images in a deck of playing cards and all of a sudden someone wants me to buy a deck of playing cards that has their interpretation of that imagery that is unrecognizable to me.

My interpretive ability may not work in the same way or I will need to start over. I may not want that because why change something that isn't broken? Does that make sense?

For me, it is more about my own interpretive ability based on the practice I have developed not the deck makers reinterpretation of the imagery or assigned meanings. I have the power to assign my own meanings, which are ever-changing. In some cases these can work together with the tools that are produced for my use, but in other cases not so much.

 

[Maveriker]

Fair enough, but I think we are talking about different things here: distilling vs changing.

To me, "minimalism" involves taking something established and reducing it to its elements — NOT CHANGING IT INTO SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY; that is something else. Minimalism is not just slapping one simple thing in an image — especially something that narrows or changes the possibilities. Minimalism is reducing a concept to its essence and communicating it in as simple and sophisticated a way as possible. Sometimes a single line can do that, or a circle placed in a certain way, other times it requires more. This is the challenge that the minimalist artist faces.

I agree that certain artistic representations of cards may limit the reader, especially when that image changes at least the surface meaning of the card, which is EXACTLY why I chose to NOT use representational art, but rather minimal, abstract, and symbolic art for my particular "minimal" deck.

Again, I can't speak to all minimalist decks, and in my research before, during, and after creating the Orbifold, I have come across minimalist decks that I am really not fond of, that I don't "get" for whatever reasons, or that I don't feel represent the tarot's system well, or as well as they could. However, that doesn't necessarily make them no longer tarot.

To use your analogy, it's more like playing tennis against one opponent who likes to volley a lot, to play the court and explore the nuance of every hit, every shot, every bounce -or- playing against a player who is much more efficient in their strokes, going for points with minimal effort, minimal play. BOTH are still tennis, it's just that the style of play is very different. Now, if one person is playing squash, and the other tennis, THAT is more like comparing playing cards to tarot (which are still both very similar, since playing cards are essentially tarot without trumps). But then of course, if you go from racquet sports to, say, baseball, OK now you're talking entirely different systems — runes compared to cartomancy or something of the like.

This idea that tarot's meanings are fixed is extremely limiting (and rather modern), and if you talk to certain people who read Marseilles, the downfall of modern tarot (I don't necessarily agree, I like my illustrative decks that resemble to greater or lesser degrees the WST), but they are incredibly restrictive.

Take 3S for example: the tired old pierced heart is only ONE of many possible meanings that the "three" and "swords" can mean. Of course, that image is rich with many meanings that extend well beyond simply "sorrow" or "heartbreak" so even the limited image is still quite extensive in its possibility — and could be one reason why it has endured since Pamela drew it 100 years ago. HOWEVER, if you go back to pip decks, the possibilities for meanings are much wider, and depend on context. That doesn't mean that the card no longer means ANYTHING because it suddenly means EVERYTHING, no, it still has parameters — "three-ness" and "sword-ness". This is incredibly liberating.

My analogy with at least my deck and similar ones is that the deck does not impose its meanings on you. Instead, they draw meanings out of you. But this is a scary proposition, as so many of us approach the tarot expecting it to tell us what to do, rather than having it reflect back what is within us, revealing what we already know, but just can't see. Reading in this way requires stepping out of the box rather than fitting into it — of using the system as a tool for liberation.

One of the reasons I even designed a "minimal" deck to begin with was because I found when I was reading, I was constantly REDUCING the cards to their essence: their numbers and their elements. Even one of my favorite exercises for learning a new deck is to lay out each suit in its entirety to get a feel for that artist's view of the suit and element, then lay out all the ranks (all 3's or all 8's) to see how 3-ness or 8-ness is expressed.

A WELL DESIGNED TAROT, in my opinion, IS CONSISTENT IN THIS STRUCTURE from suit to suit and number to number. ALL 5's should have something in common that expresses "5-ness" and if you look at Thoth, WST, and the other more enduring decks, this is the case.

At any rate, no matter which deck I was using, I found that my reading method involved this reduction of cards to suit/element + number, and then layering the imagery on top of that. Fine enough, but man, it was a lot of work! So the Orbifold was initially for me to not have to do all that pre-work and start off the bat with those essences of the tarot structure. From there, ANY meaning of, say "3-ness" and "air/swords-ness" is available and untainted by the limitation of "sorrow" or "heartbreak" (yet could certainly still include those associations, depending on the context).

This is absolutely still tarot. It's nothing new, it's nothing groundbreaking, it's rather the foundation on which all of what we've come to know about tarot is built.

Structure, scaffolding, 78 cards, context, tarot.

 

[alchemiholic]

I've been following this thread, and have to say that I agree with Maveriker's points, from a reader perspective. The minimalist decks I find most thrilling are not less complicated for me to read than the decks with loads of heavy imagery. Nor are they "it could mean anything" images. They are just what Maveriker said - a distillation of the essence of the card.

Sometimes they offer hints of something more, or different, or deeper than the symbolism-heavy decks. The really good ones expose the nerve of the card, touch something profound, unencumbered by the weights and rules of more traditional cards. After reading with a minimalist deck that you have a strong connection with, reading using more standard RWS decks can feel like reading with a cheat sheet. But the cards in a good minimalist deck still hold very decisive and very rich meaning, in my experience.

The best way I can express it is the feeling of playing an instrument in a classical quartet vs a jazz quartet. Both are valid, both require an intense connection to the music and its context. Both vary wildly in complexity, beauty, and genius. I would not talk crap about either genre. But they are profoundly different experiences.

 

[G6]

Fair enough, but I think we are talking about different things here: distilling vs changing.

To me, "minimalism" involves taking something established and reducing it to its elements — NOT CHANGING IT INTO SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY; that is something else. Minimalism is not just slapping one simple thing in an image — especially something that narrows or changes the possibilities. Minimalism is reducing a concept to its essence and communicating it in as simple and sophisticated a way as possible. Sometimes a single line can do that, or a circle placed in a certain way, other times it requires more. This is the challenge that the minimalist artist faces.

I agree that certain artistic representations of cards may limit the reader, especially when that image changes at least the surface meaning of the card, which is EXACTLY why I chose to NOT use representational art, but rather minimal, abstract, and symbolic art for my particular "minimal" deck.

Again, I can't speak to all minimalist decks, and in my research before, during, and after creating the Orbifold, I have come across minimalist decks that I am really not fond of, that I don't "get" for whatever reasons, or that I don't feel represent the tarot's system well, or as well as they could. However, that doesn't necessarily make them no longer tarot.

To use your analogy, it's more like playing tennis against one opponent who likes to volley a lot, to play the court and explore the nuance of every hit, every shot, every bounce -or- playing against a player who is much more efficient in their strokes, going for points with minimal effort, minimal play. BOTH are still tennis, it's just that the style of play is very different. Now, if one person is playing squash, and the other tennis, THAT is more like comparing playing cards to tarot (which are still both very similar, since playing cards are essentially tarot without trumps). But then of course, if you go from racquet sports to, say, baseball, OK now you're talking entirely different systems — runes compared to cartomancy or something of the like.

This idea that tarot's meanings are fixed is extremely limiting (and rather modern), and if you talk to certain people who read Marseilles, the downfall of modern tarot (I don't necessarily agree, I like my illustrative decks that resemble to greater or lesser degrees the WST), but they are incredibly restrictive.

Take 3S for example: the tired old pierced heart is only ONE of many possible meanings that the "three" and "swords" can mean. Of course, that image is rich with many meanings that extend well beyond simply "sorrow" or "heartbreak" so even the limited image is still quite extensive in its possibility — and could be one reason why it has endured since Pamela drew it 100 years ago. HOWEVER, if you go back to pip decks, the possibilities for meanings are much wider, and depend on context. That doesn't mean that the card no longer means ANYTHING because it suddenly means EVERYTHING, no, it still has parameters — "three-ness" and "sword-ness". This is incredibly liberating.

My analogy with at least my deck and similar ones is that the deck does not impose its meanings on you. Instead, they draw meanings out of you. But this is a scary proposition, as so many of us approach the tarot expecting it to tell us what to do, rather than having it reflect back what is within us, revealing what we already know, but just can't see. Reading in this way requires stepping out of the box rather than fitting into it — of using the system as a tool for liberation.

One of the reasons I even designed a "minimal" deck to begin with was because I found when I was reading, I was constantly REDUCING the cards to their essence: their numbers and their elements. Even one of my favorite exercises for learning a new deck is to lay out each suit in its entirety to get a feel for that artist's view of the suit and element, then lay out all the ranks (all 3's or all 8's) to see how 3-ness or 8-ness is expressed.

A WELL DESIGNED TAROT, in my opinion, IS CONSISTENT IN THIS STRUCTURE from suit to suit and number to number. ALL 5's should have something in common that expresses "5-ness" and if you look at Thoth, WST, and the other more enduring decks, this is the case.

At any rate, no matter which deck I was using, I found that my reading method involved this reduction of cards to suit/element + number, and then layering the imagery on top of that. Fine enough, but man, it was a lot of work! So the Orbifold was initially for me to not have to do all that pre-work and start off the bat with those essences of the tarot structure. From there, ANY meaning of, say "3-ness" and "air/swords-ness" is available and untainted by the limitation of "sorrow" or "heartbreak" (yet could certainly still include those associations, depending on the context).

This is absolutely still tarot. It's nothing new, it's nothing groundbreaking, it's rather the foundation on which all of what we've come to know about tarot is built.

Structure, scaffolding, 78 cards, context, tarot.

I pulled out some of your post (see below) because I still don't know how to use the multi quote function.

BOTH are still tennis, it's just that the style of play is very different.

I don't agree. If for example, a deck is labeled a "minimalist" deck like the Wild Unknown and the image of the Hermit is a turtle with a candle on it's back that representation fits in with traditional RWS imagery/meaning for that card. However, if like in the Mary-El, a black wolf is the 7 of Cups that has no relationship to the traditional imagery for that card and as a reader I have to learn what that image means in relationship to the deck makers reinterpretation of the card. In my view, I am now in the terrain of learning a new system. This is the distinction I am making. By all means folks should continue to create new systems, but understand some people may take the time to learn them and some people won't. I pick and choose what I am drawn to explore.

I think you might have been talking about abstract vs. representational art though with your comment above and that wasn't part of what I was talking about.


This idea that tarot's meanings are fixed is extremely limiting (and rather modern), and if you talk to certain people who read Marseilles, the downfall of modern tarot (I don't necessarily agree, I like my illustrative decks that resemble to greater or lesser degrees the WST), but they are incredibly restrictive.


I don't think anyone is arguing tarot meaning is fixed. I think tarot meaning is limitless and for me that has less to do with the object of divination than the readers ability to interpret and derive meaning. The tools we choose work for us in this regard or they don't. That's part of the reason why people will pay hundreds of dollars for an OOP Greenwood deck because it's a tool that works for them. It's also why some decks won't even sell out a first run. Some people here love the Wild Unknown and some don't. It's subjective based on the individual.

I may or may not use a "minimal" deck. I have and use the Tarot Nova quite a bit. I'm not drawn to the Wild Unknown. I likely wouldn't buy the one everyone is talking about where the High Priestess looks like Scarlett Johansen. I was traded the Oracle of Visions recently and having worked with it for a week the images are starting to read intuitively for me. I might explore a few more oracle decks. I use runes. I use pendulums. I have a Magic 8 Ball. I'm learning other forms of divination on this site and through my own study.

I don't buy tarot decks where they change the names of suits or present a different system to learn because I don't have time for that at the moment. I traded away Tarot of the Silicon Dawn for this reason. I have New Orleans Voodoo Tarot, which also might not be a tarot deck. Ill learn it when I have time because I like the imagery. Every deck is not only an investment of money, but more importantly time, my time.

 

[Maveriker]

Part of the problem here is that our definitions of "minimal" differ.

I do not consider The Wild Unknown to be minimal — not in the slightest. It is MODERN, yes. Minimal? No, not really. Same with the Mary-El. I would not at all consider the Mary-El to be minimal.

And no, I'm not talking about abstract, though there are decks that I would consider "minimal" that are *also* abstract, or use abstraction as a way of attaining minimalism. To a degree, that is exactly what I have done with the Orbifold: it is minimal, modern, and some could legitimately argue *also* abstract, too.

As for "new systems" I'd encourage you to find what is common among representations rather than what is different. Remember, too, that between the 20th century's main systems, there are definite discrepancies. Is the Thoth wrong if your point of reference is WST? Is Waite-Smith "wrong" when your reference is Thoth? No on both counts. They may not differ as much as some more modern decks might, but they are significantly different. Many modern decks have attempted to consolidate the two — The Wild Unknown to some extent being one of them; the Night Sun being another — and they have often managed to be successful because they have found some underpinning that is consistent between the two streams.

Since you keep coming back to the Mary-El, I'll stay with that example: yes, the image is totally different, but how different is the meaning really, and does it stray further away from the essence or move us closer to it? Breaking it down, Cups are about the subconscious, illusion and delusion, reflection, the interior world — not just "emotions" but the sensual inner state of feeling. Sevens are about individuality; about splitting apart from the pack, about separating from the community either as a leader or an outcast. In a WST-style 7C, this is depicted as choice and indecision, someone having to choose among a multitude of options: will he choose what is best for him, or for his community? Will he follow his delusions, or will he reflect on the various choices in front of him until revelation occurs? In the Mary-El's depiction, it is a lone wolf. Wolves are pack animals, they have a community — yet this is an individual. He has been separated from his pack, though we are not sure if he is a leader or an outcaste. His head is bowed, and there is a moon (reflection, intuition, the subconscious, illumination) in the background — all adding to the idea that he is in contemplation, he is thinking about the options before him. I get the feeling he has not yet left the pack completely, that he is on the verge of that emotional decision, and weighing the choices. Do you see how they are not really so dissimilar? And this similarity is arrived at through deconstruction — "minimalizing" — to suit and number.

You don't need to learn a whole new set of meanings when you understand the scaffolding. Then again, you don't need meanings at all if the images are clear — you can read the story the images provide and glean an incredible amount of value from that without ever learning a single meaning. Knowing the root, the minimal, the structure, does however help

Minimalist decks (whether modern or as old as the Marseilles and earlier) are pointing you to that root, rather than the superfluous crutch of representation.

I have both. I use both. I value both. I love seeing how different artists draw different shades of each card froward... but for me at least, I like to see thee thread that connects them all — and when you see that thread, no deck is really that different from another, provided is follows the tarot's structure.

_/|\_