jmd
The thread Stripping to the Bone.... has certainly, for myself, been one of those I personally consider of the more engaging variety, and the various contributions therein a delight... thank you especially (in terms of the ways it has weighed on my own contributions) Rosanne and Teheuti (there's always an element of not paying sufficient tribute to all those who have influenced, so limit it).
But it has also set me thinking as to what I have at other times mentioned as both a valuing and a criticism of the Waite/Colman Smith (henceforth WCS), and why I tend to opt towards the Marseille.
Firstly, part of the wonderful qualities of the WCS is that Pamela Colman Smith, under partial instruction from Waite, has managed to syncretise quite disparate elements into a harmonious whole.
At the time, not only were decks with various provenances considered (amongst them of course the Marseille), but also such as more northernly decks with standard depictions of the Sun card with a horse-rider, but also the Mantegna, the Sola Busca, and various other decks of earlier times.
In addition, other elements deemed important, though basically extraneous to the deck, were integrated within the images. These include the views promulgated by the Golden Dawn, such as their preferred Hebrew letter correlations, the positioning of the cards upon their prefered version (the Kircher version) of the Kabalistic Tree of Life, elemental attributions to the suits, and, partly as a consequence of the first of these mentioned, astrological correlations.
Quite an undertaking, and quite a task to bring together, in a way that is really quite harmonious, all these things into a deck that welds each image seemlessly.
...and yet, this welding is also precisely my criticism.
With Tarot, I want not a blending of various decks (some of which not Tarot) brought together, nor do I want additional elements brought in that effectively alters and changes Tarot. To give an analogy, it is a little like genetically altering a plant with fish-genes in order to achieve a particular desired outcome, or of altering a fish with other genes to make them glow!
Sure it can be done, and certainly there is already a market for such (see the sad, to my eyes, result of the latter here).
If I look at decks around, again and again what strikes me is that the central determinant as to whether a deck is Tarot is its proximity to the Marseille. One could argue that this is because I prefer the Marseille above others, yet, for myself, it is the other way around: I prefer the Marseille above others because of this centrality.
It does not take away from my appreciation of other decks, and my own cards for the three Aeclectic projects [so when's the fourth starting!?! ] certainly deviate also from the Marseille (as did a deck I designed as a study, and never even tried to get published - I doubt any one would have published it in any case - some 20 years ago).
In another thread (Why do people use the Tarot of Marseilles?) some time back, I wrote that:
In addition, and related, are other related discussions - amongst these:And so I now step back from what I had intended on being a much more succinct post...
But it has also set me thinking as to what I have at other times mentioned as both a valuing and a criticism of the Waite/Colman Smith (henceforth WCS), and why I tend to opt towards the Marseille.
Firstly, part of the wonderful qualities of the WCS is that Pamela Colman Smith, under partial instruction from Waite, has managed to syncretise quite disparate elements into a harmonious whole.
At the time, not only were decks with various provenances considered (amongst them of course the Marseille), but also such as more northernly decks with standard depictions of the Sun card with a horse-rider, but also the Mantegna, the Sola Busca, and various other decks of earlier times.
In addition, other elements deemed important, though basically extraneous to the deck, were integrated within the images. These include the views promulgated by the Golden Dawn, such as their preferred Hebrew letter correlations, the positioning of the cards upon their prefered version (the Kircher version) of the Kabalistic Tree of Life, elemental attributions to the suits, and, partly as a consequence of the first of these mentioned, astrological correlations.
Quite an undertaking, and quite a task to bring together, in a way that is really quite harmonious, all these things into a deck that welds each image seemlessly.
...and yet, this welding is also precisely my criticism.
With Tarot, I want not a blending of various decks (some of which not Tarot) brought together, nor do I want additional elements brought in that effectively alters and changes Tarot. To give an analogy, it is a little like genetically altering a plant with fish-genes in order to achieve a particular desired outcome, or of altering a fish with other genes to make them glow!
Sure it can be done, and certainly there is already a market for such (see the sad, to my eyes, result of the latter here).
If I look at decks around, again and again what strikes me is that the central determinant as to whether a deck is Tarot is its proximity to the Marseille. One could argue that this is because I prefer the Marseille above others, yet, for myself, it is the other way around: I prefer the Marseille above others because of this centrality.
It does not take away from my appreciation of other decks, and my own cards for the three Aeclectic projects [so when's the fourth starting!?! ] certainly deviate also from the Marseille (as did a deck I designed as a study, and never even tried to get published - I doubt any one would have published it in any case - some 20 years ago).
In another thread (Why do people use the Tarot of Marseilles?) some time back, I wrote that:
I see the family tree of Tarot as having each of its branches connected to the Marseilles as the trunk. It too continues to grow (witness the Félicité, the Hadar, the Camoin - each under ten years old, as shoots straight up extending the Tree). At its roots are myriad woodcuts, beautifully illustrated and individually painted cards, Mamluk non-Tarot cards, Cathedral carved stone images, and myriad texts and traditions.
Its major branches include the Rider/Waite/Colman-Smith, the Crowley/Harris Thoth, the Etteilla Thoth, and the Falconnier Egyptian. A number of other limbs also either branch off from these, or again from the main trunk.
Thing is, if it's going to be Tarot, and not some other wonderful deck which may be from another tree (such as the LeNormand, amongst numerous other, deck), it is going to be, in some important, even if removed way, connected to the Marseille trunk...
Also, if the word annoys, forget the title 'Marseille'... it is a late appellation
In addition, and related, are other related discussions - amongst these:And so I now step back from what I had intended on being a much more succinct post...