when is a sword not...

I've looked over the scans of the Dark Grimoire--great dark artwork. But there's one thing that bothers me. None of the minors are marked. There's no wands, cups, swords or pentacles to be seen. (This may be true of other decks, but I don't recall seeing any). Instead, the card depicts the (more or less) 'accepted' interpretation of the card.

Granted, this allows much in the way of artistic freedom--having to stick 7 wands in the 7 of wands is limiting. But I find it hard to call a card the eight of swords if there isn't a sword to be seen (by the way, when I saw the Grimoire's eight of swords my immediate reaction was 'Strength reversed') The only designation on these cards is the border. And for the many of us (**raising my hand high***) who remove them, there will be none.

Do you feel that a deck that calls itself tarot needs to have minors that show definite concrete elemental designations? Or is it sufficient to illustrate their meanings?

Rather than a two of cups do you find a twoishness of cups 'acceptable'?

I'm wondering if we're seeing an 'evolution' of tarot...



raven

I like to see the suit emblems in the image -- somewhere. I don't mind if they're incorporated into the scene, as long as they're fairly obvious as to what they are, and can be made out at a glance -- such as when I'm reordering my cards in a hurry. I don't trim, so that's not really an issue - but some decks have small type in the border print, so I have to pause to focus on them, while suit markers in the images are usually easier to spot in a hurry. That said, I don't like them to obscure whatever scene might be there -- which I have a bit of a problem with in the Haindl. It uses these beautiful bits of paintings, but sometimes the stones or whatever get in the way of seeing the scene. I have seen pictures of the Lenormand oracle where the little suit emblems are in a box offset from the scene, like a playing card superimposed over part of the card. I wouldn't mind that in a tarot deck if the scenes couldn't be made to incorporate the suit markers. But I do like the images in addition to textual markers in the border.

Nevada

The Victorian Romantic has no suit emblems in the minors either. I personally like this style as it makes the whole deck seem like majors lol. Really archetypal.

ETA~ I find, because the VR is closely RWS inspired, that just a glance at the picture tells me exactly what card it is.
I really like the fact that the image shows the feeling of the number and suit correspondence, rather than needing "8 cups" to show its the eight of cups.
I guess its just a matter of getting to know the deck really well, especially if the images are not RWS inspired.

Michelle

Nevada said:

I have seen pictures of the Lenormand oracle where the little suit emblems are in a box offset from the scene, like a playing card superimposed over part of the card. I wouldn't mind that in a tarot deck if the scenes couldn't be made to incorporate the suit markers. But I do like the images in addition to textual markers in the border.

Nevada

Click to expand...

Im not fussed either way. Some of my favourite decks don´t include the suits. It´s the spirit of the cards which Ive incorporated in readings, but I know that wouldn´t help a beginner. I mean, that spectacular 8 of Wands in the VR has made me see that you really don´t need to be shackled by 8 Wands to get the essence of the card.

I like the Tarot of the III Millennium, with the corresponding card from a TdM (LoS Ancient Tarot of Bologna) in the corner. And the deck needs it because the Minor images are a bit, well, odd.

I hope it is an evolution; would mean so much more creative scope...

I prefer decks that display suit emblems in some fashion, although I'm willing to overlook the omission of suit emblems in decks that I find otherwise appealing. The Victorian Romantic and Bohemian Gothic are decks that I enjoy, despite lacking the suit emblems. Also, I'm very fond of the Fey Tarot. The minors in that deck do indicate the suit in each card, but not the suit number of the card.

For decks where the artist chooses not to incorporate the suit emblems into the illustration, I wish more would follow the example of the Legend: Arthurian and the Nigel Jackson decks, where the pips are included as a separate inset within the card image.

Alan

I have to admit I like to see the suits clearly. Especially when you're getting used to a new deck, it's a pain in the ass if you have to study a card for ages to see what it is.

I certainly wouldn't mind just a scene, if there's large enough print in the border to help me SEE it. I love unusual and evocative artwork. So if there's something I can easily see to identify the card, I'm all for creative license!

Nevada

Ravenswing said:

I'm wondering if we're seeing an 'evolution' of tarot...

Click to expand...

Or perhaps a deck that just plain sucks

Depends on the deck.

I don't mind either way as long as I can make the connection. There are plenty of decks that 'suck' with the suit emblems incorporated into/ imposed upon the artwork.

Aerin

I don't really like the deck personally...at least the cards I have seen.

On the 8 of Swords....interestingly...the figure shows 8 fingers...five on one hand, three on the other, with sharp, pointy nails...Are those our swords???

t