picture vs meaning

[nisaba]

when you use decks other than the raider and there seems to be differences ... do you stick to the most accepted meaning (raider) or go by the picture in this card, even though it's completely different?

Well, the whole point of having more than one deck is to have different reading-experiences with all of them, and there really are no firmly-set meanings in Tarot. A card may come up in any combination for any personality in any situation, it may have to express thousands of different things. In a single deck, each card will thus represent an energy or a feel rather than a hard, verbal meaning, and it's up to the reader to interpret how that feeling fits into the spread and the client's life. And that's exactly where the skill lies!

And yes, the creators of different decks have different ideas about the energy or feel of cards, which is why the images may be very different. You've chosen to use a given deck for an individual reaing: go with what's in front of you.

 

[Nemia]

My pet peeve is calling RWS meanings "traditional". They're not that old, and it's just one popular option. Why should I work with a deck A and use the interpretations of deck B? Why not use deck B if I want to use its interpretation of the tarot language?

It's obviously useful to know the astrological and kabbalistic underpinnings of modern esoteric decks, and to understand the mythological, Christian, Jewish, psychological and esoteric associations. These are the "core meanings". Deck creators can have different views of how Saturn in Leo in Gvurah expresses itself, and if a deck attracts me, I try to understand the logic behind the deck. If it uses different elemental or astrological associations, I want to understand and learn them.

And then, when I read, I read the picture that came up and how it works with the question, the other cards and the spread (if I use one).

So if I relate back to anything at all, it's not the RWS but the astrological, elemental and kabbalistic "backbone" the deck creator used.

 

[Barleywine]

My pet peeve is calling RWS meanings "traditional". They're not that old, and it's just one popular option. Why should I work with a deck A and use the interpretations of deck B? Why not use deck B if I want to use its interpretation of the tarot language?

It's obviously useful to know the astrological and kabbalistic underpinnings of modern esoteric decks, and to understand the mythological, Christian, Jewish, psychological and esoteric associations. These are the "core meanings". Deck creators can have different views of how Saturn in Leo in Gvurah expresses itself, and if a deck attracts me, I try to understand the logic behind the deck. If it uses different elemental or astrological associations, I want to understand and learn them.

And then, when I read, I read the picture that came up and how it works with the question, the other cards and the spread (if I use one).

So if I relate back to anything at all, it's not the RWS but the astrological, elemental and kabbalistic "backbone" the deck creator used.

It's really a fine point of definition. Since there is no Tarot de Marseille interpretive "tradition" to speak of, we're kind of stuck with the Golden Dawn roots of the RWS and Thoth (and perhaps their predecessor, Etteilla) as the groundwork for much of what passes for meaning today. Creating a significantly different perspective (which James Wanless did to his credit with the Voyager Tarot) is an invitation for the result to be labeled an "oracle deck." I've always said that there are certain conventions that make tarot what it is, and they should be flouted with caution if a deck is to be taken seriously as "tarot."

ETA: Although I have many years of qabalistic exploration behind me, and the Tree of Life, together with elemental and numerical symbolism, is my main source of inspiration, Elizabeth Hazel's book "The Tarot Decoded" has given me some fresh insights into the use of correspondences (even if I don't agree with all of her "non-traditional" innovations). Well worth a look if you haven't read it.

 

[Thoughtful]

Once you have learned the general meanings of the tarot, l believe that you can happily feel free to acknowledge what you personally see in the picture.

One of my decks (Roots of Asia) follows the Rider Waite but has much more of a poignant approach. For instance in the Rider Waite the 5 of Swords shows a person looking quite smug at defeating two other people. In the Roots of Asia it shows a large bird harbouring 2 small fledglings under its wing as it looks at the possible oncoming threat from other birds. For me this opens up the 5 swords much better and gives a more subtle and quite different nuance. It sees threat coming in and the need to protect. Rather than someone already defeated.

 

[gregory]

If you are simply going to go by the "accepted"/"traditional"/"book"/"generic" meanings - you don't need pictures, so why not just write the name of each card on a piece of paper and go from there ?

Doesn't work - we NEED the images - which tells you everything you need to know.

 

[Barleywine]

It's a question of correspondences, not rote meanings. Certain images "excite" certain correspondences in the imagination. Internalizing those correspondences adds depth and color to interpretation. In the Thoth Emperor, all that red practically shrieks "Mars" and "Aries." Crowley and Harris were very assiduous with the colors.

 

[peacewing]

Sometimes it depends on the intent of the author and illustrator of the deck.

Personally, I believe that there is no wrong way to read and that it is all up to personal preference. Also, some decks lend themselves better to one or the other. I personally like to pull the cards and wait until I see them and then go with what I feel what style I am drawn to.

 

[gregory]

It's a question of correspondences, not rote meanings. Certain images "excite" certain correspondences in the imagination. Internalizing those correspondences adds depth and color to interpretation. In the Thoth Emperor, all that red practically shrieks "Mars" and "Aries." Crowley and Harris were very assiduous with the colors.

The fact remains that it's the IMAGE that stimulates all that, however the symbols may hit us at any given time. Red MIGHT scream sex, one day, and war the next. You can internalise all you like, but even so, one symbol may leap out in one reading and be very subservient in another. And the way that happens is down to the images being in front of you. I well recall mentioning - in passing - a mirror in one card (a card where a mirror is not any part of the "accepted correspondences") - and that was something that was for some reason critical to my sitter.

 

[Barleywine]

It's just a different way of reading the image; one is "free association" and the other is "guided association." I'm about 40% - 60% on that spectrum, and the "guided" part facilitates the story-telling aspect. Although I usually ask off-the-street clients whether they know anything about it before I make it a centerpiece of a reading. I would say that the metaphysical meanings of numbers, colors, planets and signs (especially when taken mythologically) are as much archetypes as pictures, although less visceral.

 

[RavenOfSummer]

I'm still quite new to tarot, but I'll share my experience. I consider myself a student of tarot and feel I am constantly opening myself to a deeper understanding of the cards. I feel like it's not so much that the cards have "different" meanings, although that can be the case, but that different decks and different interpretations add layers of meaning to the card. The cards are very deep in my experience. I think it can be a matter of finding which layer or layers the card needs to be read on in a particular context.

There are different schools of decks, but I'll speak to the RWS school since that is my experience and all my decks are at least loosely based on that school. Even if a card's picture deviates significantly from the RWS, I have found that the creator has generally expressed a particular layer of meaning that very much resonates with the RWS meaning. It is just a different perspective on that meaning. In that way, I feel working with different decks has served to expand my understanding of the cards. It's not that each deck proposes a new and different meaning (although of course some do!), but that they are seeing the meaning of the card in a different way, or expressing it in a different way, which allows you as a reader to expand your own perspective as you work with that particular deck.

I have especially found this to be the case with the Prisma Visions which I am currently working with. I'm fascinated by how many of the cards portray meanings that are very much aligned with RWS, yet from a completely different perspective, angle, or layer. I love it because I feel my own understanding expanding as I work with the deck!

It's similar in a way to experiences I've had in my yoga practice. You can do the same pose hundreds of times working with different teachers. And then one day you're in a class and a teacher gives a cue for that pose that is just slightly different from any cue you've heard before. And something about it clicks for you and you're able to deepen into the pose in a way you never have before. It's a very cool thing when that happens! And it's just through opening yourself up to different perspectives. It's still the same pose but your understanding shifts and deepens. I hope that comparison makes sense

I'm in the 'deck has specific meanings' camp, but that the meaning of the original should be borne in mind. That said, I'm not seeing 'cozy home' in this card *at all*.

Zombie lady is cuddled up with her lover (or is it her unknowing victim?) but is gazing off into space, thinking about whatever is going on elsewhere or perhaps not thinking at all. 13 describes the usual 4 cups as the 'grass is greener' card and I can see that very much in this image ... she's not even looking at the Mr TV Handsome that fate has literally placed in her lap.

So I'm in agreement with what euripides is saying. I'm not familiar with the Zombie Tarot, but it sounds to me like the creator is expressing a different perspective on a familiar picture and idea. They are adding to the world of tarot by adding their own perspective. It's not necessarily a different meaning but a different perspective that can allow you to open up your own perspective. That's how my experience with different decks has been (again, I'm talking from the same school). So maybe this perspective speaks to you in a different way than another perspective, which is part of the beauty of working with different decks.