Good Decks with Bad Artwork

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 28 Oct 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Rusty Neon	28 Oct 2003
Here are my nominations: - Lon Milo Duquette's CM tarot deck - Parrott Tarot deck

DreamDancer	29 Oct 2003
How about Rachel Pollack's Shining Tribe tarot?

wavebreaker	29 Oct 2003
The Robin Wood. I like Robin Wood's ideas, but I just couldn't get over the horrible artwork, so I traded it away...

Sulis	29 Oct 2003
Another volte for Robin Wood. I really wanted a pagan deck with a Rider Waite feel when I first started reading tarot and I saw some on-line scans and loved the Devil card but oh dear when it came, that Wheel of Fortune with all those grinning barbies, yuk. I don't think it's just a matter of not to my taste, I think that the artwork sucks as well. Love and light Sulis xx

Crowley	30 Oct 2003
Tarot of Prague & Glastonbury Tarot I hate them both Tarot of Prague The idea is good BUT the use of photoshop etc. is very very poor :( I would of thought of using a bit of blending to get rid of that cut out, resize and stick on look. I've seen better collage decks in my time. There is no consistancy, something that you can see in the Paris deck and Golden tarot. It looks cheap and I'm sure it's not. Also I don't know why this deck is shown when voting for your fav deck?? This is hyped up. For sure this is the vote for the worst Tarot deck in 2003! Glastonbury Tarot Also the Glastonbury deck is just pants! Good martketing plan but I think this deck was just an anticlimax to say the least.

Khatruman	30 Oct 2003
Quote: Originally posted by DreamDancer How about Rachel Pollack's Shining Tribe tarot? Ahhh, exactly, which keeps me from buying this deck. Though I see her vast knowledge of primitive and archetypal imagery, I simply can't get by the seemingly childish artwork. I know that I couldn't do a better job, and I cringe when a deck comes with a blank card that I can draw myself. I am completely drawing illiterate. However, I do have an expectation that an artist drawing a deck has some artistic savvy.

Mystic Zyl	30 Oct 2003
Lovers Tarot by Jane Lyle, horrible cut and paste job. The book that accompanies it is great, too bad the cards are not.

Rusty Neon	30 Oct 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Khatruman I know that I couldn't do a better job, and I cringe when a deck comes with a blank card that I can draw myself. I am completely drawing illiterate. However, I do have an expectation that an artist drawing a deck has some artistic savvy. Precisely, Khatruman. That's perhaps why each of A.E. Waite, A. Crowley and Gareth Knight found artists to collaborate with on their respective decks. But choose the artist wisely .... Some of the decks that employ the services of family member artists are awful, e.g., Parrott Tarot deck, Tarot of the Spirit Deck. I'd like to add some more decks to my list of good or potentially good decks with bad artwork: - decks by Robert Wang (GD and Jungian tarot decks) - Glastonbury and Shining Tribe (I agree with postsabove) - Tarot of the Spirit

Emily	30 Oct 2003
I quite like the Tarot of the Spirit, although on here you'll find a posting with my name attached saying that the artwork is like the product of someone's nightmare :D , and the faces/features of the figures are terrible, still this deck has a hold on me and if not love there is a certain appreciation of a deck that does indeed touch the spirit. I'm not overkeen on the Enchanted (the large Zerner Farber) but I know that there are many on here that like it, the cards seem to be a mish-mash of images and doesn't do anything for me at all.

Macavity	30 Oct 2003
Yes indeeed, Rusty - agreed on both the LMD and the Wang. You'd think (hope) the premier designators of symbolism and magick etc. could come up with something at least vaguely attractive ;) Still thinking... one day the Hermetic and perhaps (now) the VIA too :D Macavity

Kiama	30 Oct 2003
The Motherpeace Round... Nice concepts in the cards, but I'm not too fond of the artwork. Dail Tarot. Nice deck, but it looks like Dali has just taken some normal pictures and smeared some golden paint on them. I think it all depends on one's taste in artwork. Whilst I love Robin Wood's art, others (as you can see!) do not. I also personally love the Glastonbury artwork and Tarot of Prague artwork. Oh, and I feel the Rider Waite's artwork isn't as good as it should be, but that's all personal opinion. Kiama

CompassRose	30 Oct 2003
Robin Wood. Igh. I kept it though, because the one exception is the Court cards. Which I like a lot, and which are in fact the whole reason I bought the deck. Legend Arthurian. This one REALLY puzzles me, because everything in the deck is beautifully rendered -- except the human figures. They are disproportionate, strangely coloured, and hideously like the walking dead dressed in romantic medievalwear. Gave it away to a very young friend of mine who loves fantasy and King Arthur and once timidly said he found Tarot "really interesting." Rachel Pollack. Ick. Those who cannot draw, should collaborate with those who can. The purity of her ideas, methinks, need not have been compromised if she had worked with a "real artist", and as it is, it's a shame. She's brilliant, and her deck's a travesty. Motherpeace. I love the ideas and the philosophy of this deck, hate hate hate the clunky, immature, nasty art. And don't talk to me about "primitive style" either (one of my favourite hobby-horses!). Real "primitive" style is NOT amateurish or badly rendered; it simply is DIFFERENT from what most Western eyes are "looking for", with our long tradition of realism, subsequent deliberate shattering of representational art, and photography's water-muddying. Tribal and First Nations artforms and traditions have their own long histories, their own visual and representational languages, their own systems of gaining artistic proficiency (often more demanding than ours!) To let bad or careless art pass as "primitive" is offensive and patronizing.

Khatruman	30 Oct 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Rusty Neon - decks by Robert Wang (GD and Jungian tarot decks) Yes, I had almost forgotten that Golden Dawn Tarot that I had given away because the purile Wang artwork just got on my nerves. He has NO IDEA how to draw an accurate human figure. This is one of the few decks I have traded away, and indeed the only one I traded solely on the horrible artwork. I have read Holly Hunt's review of this deck here, where she says Quote: "The visual arts style of this deck is intentionally mild and understated in spirit, unlike many more flashy decks on the market. Wang purposefully regulated his palette to traditional coloration, with no op-art brilliance, no fluorescent screaming-loud poster technique. The images float, akin to blended watercolor, and this actually makes the psychic event of skreeing an easier event for the individual who chooses to meditate upon a single card until the breakthrough occurs. Because there are no harsh, black outlines around the images as one might encounter with more dramatic designs, the actual barriers within each card allow for a more gentle transcendental traveling through the landscape of the cards, the major arcana in particular." I still do a double take of this review, matching it to the images link to assure me that she is not referring to a different deck. I don't see that intention at all in the artwork. Simply someone with little art sophistication. And I certainly didn't see some great coverup in power to protect the initiate. (Ms. Hunt, forgive my criticism should you be reading this). PS. I am not too fond of Brian Williams' artwork on the Minchiate deck. I bought it for his wonderfully comprehensive analysis of Minchiate decks and use his book with the Ancient Minchiate deck that I have.

baba-prague	30 Oct 2003
er, okay, this is partly just to be provocative (don't all shout at me please) but can I say "The Rider Waite Smith"? with lots of provisos - I think the symbolism and the whole idea of doing illustrations for every card are both great aspects (of course) but, but, but - I honestly can't say that Pamela was the greatest at drawing - particularly figures, which let's face it, sometimes have very odd proportions on the RWS. Well - okay, just had to throw that in :-) ____ oh - and am I going to defend our deck as a response to Crowley? No! I accept that not everyone will like every deck - and it's good to get criticism. Besides, I know how good the artwork is - I can say that as it's mostly down to Alex - and he's one of the best I've worked with. But I don't want to fight about it :-)

Dark_angel	30 Oct 2003
I actually like the artwork for Tarot of the Spirit. It's almost abstract, yet relates to my interpretations of the cards. My vote for bad artwork will probably offend quite a few people her... Marseilles Tarot - style artwork. It's just too straight-forward (red here, yellow here) and the cards I've seen feel like they're just that - cards. I like deeper images, not necessarily with lots of symbolism, just ones that I can step into, and more blending of colours. xxx

lark	30 Oct 2003
Quote: Originally posted by CompassRose Rachel Pollack. Ick. Those who cannot draw, should collaborate with those who can. The purity of her ideas, methinks, need not have been compromised if she had worked with a "real artist", and as it is, it's a shame. She's brilliant, and her deck's a travesty Can you imagine Rachel Pollack's deck in the hands of Ironwing? Now that would have been spectacular!

bunnyhop	30 Oct 2003
wow, i thought i was the only one who thought the RW artwork wasn't so hot. maybe it's the way the people are drawn?

Mystic Zyl	30 Oct 2003
First I do not like or purchase decks where the minor arcana is not illustrated. I vote for: Lovers Tarot by Jane Lyle, poor cut and paste Haindl the mother of cups is disgusting as is the mother of wands, I also do not like the mixture of cultures (Egyptian, Native American, Celtic and Indian); have a theme and stick with it. Dali If you smeer gold on it people will buy it, Not! Visconti Cary-Yale Talk about esoteric! The court cards and the minors are so muted that you need a magnifying glass to decern cup, swords, rods and disks from the background. Templar The faces are somber, looks like group suicide. All the cards appear ominous, my customers do not respond well to these cards.

ihcoyc	30 Oct 2003
Ugliest deck I've seen was the Gareth Knight deck. I looked at it, mostly because I enjoy his Tarot books, but the deck itself was something I would never use. Anyone remember the Tavaglione Stairs of Gold Deck? Nice, complicated, heavy symbolism, but loud!

lawguy51	30 Oct 2003
Aquarian. Not crazy about Morgan Greer either. Tarot of Prague, maybe Baba-Prague won't defend her deck but I will. Visually stunning. You can sense the painstaking attention to detail. I could go on, but hey, if there wasn't someone out there who didn't like the deck, I would not be able to validate my unabashed admiration for it. Opinions, I find them so interesting, even if they are so off the mark! OK, that's an opinion too.

Aoife	30 Oct 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Mystic Zyl Haindl the mother of cups is disgusting as is the mother of wands What specifically do you find "disgusting"?

Crowley	31 Oct 2003
[quote]Originally posted by Kiama [b]The Motherpeace Round... Nice concepts in the cards, but I'm not too fond of the artwork. Dail Tarot. Nice deck, but it looks like Dali has just taken some normal pictures and smeared some golden paint on them. I think it all depends on one's taste in artwork. Whilst I love Robin Wood's art, others (as you can see!) do not. I also personally love the Glastonbury artwork and Tarot of Prague artwork. Oh, and I feel the Rider Waite's artwork isn't as good as it should be, but that's all personal opinion. ------------- Bad artwork is totally different to one's taste in artwork!! The Dail tarot is an ART deck, smeared golden paint is personal taste, which has nothing to do with weather the artwork is good or bad. Lovers Tarot by Jane Lyle, that's bad artwork Kiama, I really feel no need to get defensive/fight/gang up about Tarot of Prague/Glastonbury artwork I'm sure it will speak for it's self when it comes to the selling. This is not a dig at the artists either as I totally agree with what baba-prague about my comments and how she sees the deck. Peace:*

baba-prague	31 Oct 2003
Oh well, maybe I do have to say something. But I think if we want to carry on this conversation we should maybe do it in "Creation" where it will be fun and useful - and won't derail this interesting thread. So, with respect, I think maybe you are confusing two different uses of artworking with Photoshop here. There is using it for "effects" - which personally we don't much do. This doesn't mean I don't necessarily like it - there are many decks (like Cosmic Tribe and Paris) in which this way of using Photoshop (or other means of computer manipulation) is done very well indeed. But it isn't what we do - it's not our style. What we use Photoshop for is to make things look more natural not less (though maybe that's not the best way to describe it). We aim for magic realism - with the emphasis on realism. In other words we take the original elements and then do a lot (and I mean - a LOT - ) of work to redraw - this is just like traditional drawing, it isn't intended to add effects. It can involve putting in shadows (not auto-Photoshop shadows, drawn ones), changing perspectives, altering faces and expressions, merging images - whatever is needed to make the image work (which is more than just making it pretty). The idea that we "cut out, resize and stick on" is not right. If you look at the images you can see that - but of course it isn't obvious at first glance. In effect, what we do is deliberately to make the computer manipulation "vanish". We don't want any Photoshop effects to be apparent as our style is much more about drawing and traditional collage. I hope that helps in some way. Hard to describe without showing what I mean. One day, we will maybe get around to putting a few pages on the site about how we constructed the images. A few people have asked for this - but so far we've had no time. Meantime, I'll try to upload a couple of pictures here. However, as I say, I don't want to get into some sort of battle. If you don't like the deck, that is fine - honestly, we don't expect everyone to like it and a critical perspective is genuinely interesting - and of value. But I just think I should explain that saying it has bad artwork is, objectively, not right. The artwork is actually very skillful. I've been external examiner at several London art schools - it used to be my job to make these sort of judgements - and I know how good Alex's work is. By the way, if you're into design, there is probably soon going to be an article in "Eye" magazine about our work - and one of the things they want to talk about is the high standard of our artwork - ironic :-) But of course you are still entitled to "hate" the deck! That isn't a problem to us at all. Vive la difference of opinion! Oh - here hopefully is the head of the Queen. If you have a minute to compare it with the final card, it gives you some idea what I'm talking about. These images are small, so if you want to look at the Queen on our site it will be better. Sorry!

baba-prague	31 Oct 2003
As I say - hard to see at this size, but it gives some idea. But maybe now it is better to talk more in "Creation"? I think this thread is good and this may all be a bit too detailed for it.

Diana	31 Oct 2003
To me, this thread is an odd one. People's tastes in art are so varied. What is art to one person is garbage to another. Van Gogh was unrecognised in his lifetime. What is Bad Artwork? Even art critics who have studied art pull each other's hair out because they cannot agree. It's so subjective. A poster (I can't remember who now, and anyway I'm not trying to point fingers, just using the post as an example) said something like "I suppose I'll offend some people here 'cos I find the Marseilles deck artwork so ugly.". Why would anyone be offended because someone has different tastes in art? I'm a Marseilles fan through and through, but even if I had designed the deck, you could hate it without my being offended. It's a free world. (Anyway, people don't read with the Marseilles for its art - it has a different function.) It's like with cooking. There is some food which people find a taste of heaven, which makes me feel physically ill. Like dates. I have tried and tried and tried, but they make me nauseous and I think they taste like a rotten something-or-other. My husband will walk a mile for a fresh date. I probably only appreciate the artwork on about 5% of the existing decks. But I'm just a difficult person - you know, one of those pains in the neck who will walk through an art museum and say "pfff.... there were only about three pictures in there that I liked."

baba-prague	31 Oct 2003
Diana, I agree that there is some confusion in what's meant. To me "artwork" is a technical term - i.e. you could be a painter with great ideas but if your technique is bad then your "artwork" will be too poor to communicate your ideas. But I'm a designer and used to using this term "artwork" as a technical term (by the way an "artworker" is a whole separate profession in a design studio from a "designer" - weird when you think about it). I forget that others may be using the term in a more general way. Thanks for pointing out the potential confusion. Where art style is concerned - yes, I totally agree, it's a very objective thing. You speak with the voice of reason Diana :-) ________ edited to add - and I can't resist saying, technically the "artwork" of the early woodblock decks is often very good - whether or not you like the style. We forget how difficult it is to cut a woodblock - we can't judge the result by the standards of modern computer work.

Diana	31 Oct 2003
baba: I understand about the technique, and that it is very important. Thank you for stressing that point. To get back to Bad or Good Artwork, you know, when I see the uproar each year when, for instance, the Turner Prize shortlist comes out, I am constantly amazed at the very different concepts of what art is and what it isn't. Some of the exhibits, I stare at in absolute amazement and have to rub my eyes twice in case I am hallucinating. But somehow, they got onto the shortlist, so there must be someone out there who considers them Good Art.

Crowley	31 Oct 2003
[quote]Originally posted by Diana [b]baba: I understand about the technique, and that it is very important. Thank you for stressing that point. To get back to Bad or Good Artwork, you know, when I see the uproar each year when, for instance, the Turner Prize shortlist comes out, I am constantly amazed at the very different concepts of what art is and what it isn't. Some of the exhibits, I stare at in absolute amazement and have to rub my eyes twice in case I am hallucinating. But somehow, they got onto the shortlist, so there must be someone out there who considers them Good Art. --------------------------------------- No that is just art which can be elephant poo on a table to painting on canvas Confused? Artwork= Image/technique of layout not design or art Artworker =A person who has the technique of layout Designer/artist=creator You can be a good designer and cr@p at artwork 99% of Design Co's will have Designers and Artworkers to finish off the work of the Designer

Crowley	31 Oct 2003
crowley shuts up

baba-prague	31 Oct 2003
"You might of passed me in the corridor In my 25 years, I've never knew London art schools had external examiners, that's if your talking about the top ones" __________ (by the way, alternative thread on "artwork" started in "Creation" as I think we're ruining the flow of this thread - sorry.) Of course they have external examiners. All university degrees have to be okayed by externals in the UK - don't know how it is in the USA and the rest of Europe, but much the same I guess. But for goodness sake, if you're saying I'm lying about this just do a google and work it out for yourself. I normally don't do a "here is my CV" thing - it seems a bit silly. Actually, all this seems to be getting a bit silly. But I also don't tell lies :-) _________ Here's an article going back to 1995 on "The Role of the External Examiner in Modular Art and Design Courses" - hope it's helpful or at least interesting (not the best article maybe, but the first that came up when I searched, there are tons more if you want to take a look.) http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/Subjects/art_design/lewis_res.html ___________ p.s. - I feel a bit sorry for Jane Lyle, who isn't here to defend herself. I have the Lover's Tarot and it isn't great, but it isn't all that bad either. I think it may have been done when there was much less computer-manipulation available, so it would have been much harder for her to do the level of "finishing" that we take for granted now?

ihcoyc	31 Oct 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana "I suppose I'll offend some people here 'cos I find the Marseilles deck artwork so ugly.". Why would anyone be offended because someone has different tastes in art? I'm a Marseilles fan through and through, but even if I had designed the deck, you could hate it without my being offended. It's a free world. (Anyway, people don't read with the Marseilles for its art - it has a different function.) I am not particularly fond of the art in most Marseilles decks myself. It's something you use for the tradition, not because you find it pretty. This is one reason why I am fond of Italian engraved decks. They cover most of the Marseilles territory while being somewhat more sophisticated in presentation. Even they aren't going to be everyone's cup of tea, though. Same way with the RWS. Now, I like a lot of the art on the deck, but this is mostly because I like Pre-Raphaelite and Art Nouveau, and I like cartoons. Your mileage again may vary. But even those who dislike this art may want to have one, not because it's pretty, but because it is an important piece of tradition.

Lee	31 Oct 2003
You know, I'm wondering if the use of computer-enhanced artwork is spoiling us a little bit. My father was an artist and did collage the old-fashioned way, cut and paste -- with real scissors! :) I wish he were alive today, we would surely have collaborated on a tarot deck. Unfortunately I didn't inherit his artistic talent. I don't mind seeing sharp edges on a collage image. To me, that's like saying one doesn't like oil painting because you can see the brush strokes. If everything on the image is smoothed out, then it reminds me of the entirely computer-created characters in movies (i.e., Jar Jar Binks), which are so smooth and perfect-looking that your eye passes right over them and they make no impact. -- Lee

Mystic Zyl	31 Oct 2003
Aoife.............I do not like the mother of cups and mother of wands, because they naked, fat and presented in unflattering manner.

Moongold	31 Oct 2003
Quote: Good decks with bad artwork I think the title of the thread is one with the potential for misunderstanding and it's good that there has been some qualification. I agree with Diana and others who seem to say that art is always subjective. I am a lay person who has little drawing and design skill and can't discuss these really important qualities in a technical sense. What has meaning for people is important for me and the decks I've chosen have been chosen on the basis of meaning. Sometimes it is the art that appeals, sometimes it isn't. I didn't respond to Shining Tribe initially because of the images but one night in the TS Bookshop it called out to me, and now I really love the colours and the images. I see the art as making it very distinctive now, and it has a lot of meaning when you study the cards. I didn't like the Marseilles images at first but now I love the faces on the characters and feel as though I'm holding history in my hands, particularly with the Conver. I disliked the Rider Waite at first but now I know a lot more about Pamela Colman Smith, I use the RWS mainly because I respect her so much. I agree with baba prague about Pamela's sense of artistic perspective though! One could go on forever, but for me, art is just one of a complex array of ideas and factors that give meaning to a deck. Thanks for the thread. It has evoked some interesting discussion.

bangbang	31 Oct 2003
For me #1)Wang's-Golden Dawn(Dull, boring,tasteless) 2)Crystal Tarot-The Minors and Courts are much better than the Majors 3)Giotto--An angry deck, I gave it away as soon as I received it 4)Eclectic--Very inconsistent deck Death and The Moon cards are beautiful and The Chariot and most of the minors pretty dull. 5) Enchanted--The book is hardcover with great pictures and the cards donīt come in a storage box, and itīs printed in a very cheap ,lifeless and hard to shuffle board, itīs a shame that such work was published that way.

lawguy51	31 Oct 2003
Moongold has nailed it for me. I too, find Shining Tribe to be a beautiful deck, but then again, I could be accused of being a Rachel Pollack groupie! Which is the point, I guess. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and being that this is not a forum full of art experts (although there are obviously a couple in this thread :)), I think it somewhat disconcerting to read negative opinions in the absolute, when they are just that, opinions. That said, I think people who disagree with me in this thread are just plain wrong ;).

baba-prague	01 Nov 2003
Yes, I agree that "artwork" is a term that different people will interpret different ways. What I was trying to say about RWS is that the content of the images is in many ways brilliant - but some of them could have been drawn better (I often wonder whether that was partly because PC had to do the project quickly - some of her other work seems to show finer drawing - anyway, that's just speculation). Whether or not that matters is probably a very individual thing. Some of the recent "RWS clones" probably are better drawn (you could argue that of the Lo Scarabeo one) but are they preferable? I think people's opinion on that will vary widely. By the way, anyone who wants to talk more about the technical side of artwork, I've started a thead on "Creation". I think it really belongs more there. For stuff on the more technical side of older printing techniques, there seems to be some very interesting discussion going on in the "History" section (I for one don't know much about old print techniques, so hope to learn more about how/why the Marseilles-type decks were done as they were).

Rusty Neon	01 Nov 2003
Quote: Originally posted by baba-prague To me "artwork" is a technical term - i.e. you could be a painter with great ideas but if your technique is bad then your "artwork" will be too poor to communicate your ideas. .... Where art style is concerned - yes, I totally agree, it's a very objective thing. ---- edited to add - and I can't resist saying, technically the "artwork" of the early woodblock decks is often very good - whether or not you like the style. We forget how difficult it is to cut a woodblock - we can't judge the result by the standards of modern computer work. (1) "Artwork" in the name of this thread that I started was meant to refer to art technique, rather than art style. Luckily, most people who have replied to this thread understood that. A piece of art in a given style, even if properly executed, will appeal to some people and not to others; appreciation of art is subjective and varies from person to person. However, lack of technique or care in the execution of the art can shift attention away from the message and cause one's eyes to look at the technical faux pas. For example, if one is in a place of worship for a worship service and, in terms of technique, the choir badly sings the right notes, the message and mood of the music being presented is overshadowed by the bad singing. (2) The art of the early woodblock decks doesn't show lack of technique; what you may like or not like about it is because of you don't appreciate that particular art style. When you compare the tarot woodblock images with their non-tarot woodlock counterparts of the same period, you see that the technique is similar and that it's an art style. By the way, an interesting conception for a deck would be to use the Tarot de Marseille major arcana, court cards and aces and employ non-tarot woodblocks from that same period in time to illustrate the pip cards.

Le_Corsair	01 Nov 2003
Quote: Originally posted by bangbang 5) Enchanted--The book is hardcover with great pictures and the cards donīt come in a storage box, and itīs printed in a very cheap ,lifeless and hard to shuffle board, itīs a shame that such work was published that way. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It may be so, but those are technical, business-oriented decisions between the artist and the publishing house. I know for a fact that the Tarot of Paris, while a superior artistic achievement, was marred by poor execution on the part of the publisher, to the embarassment of the artist. As a wannabe writer, I like to think I'd make darned sure that the finished product met my artistic vision, or I'd never sign a contract in the first place. But never having negotiated a contract for an original work, I'd probably get hosed by the coroporate entities, myself. :( Bob :THERM

bangbang	01 Nov 2003
Yes Bob. No surprise that both were published by St. Martin's Press, maybe printed in China, fortunetely the Osho Zen was printed in Switzerland also by them.

Rusty Neon	01 Nov 2003
And St. Martin's also did a 'job' to the cards and book of the North American edition of the Elemental Tarot.

DreamDancer	01 Nov 2003
[quote]Originally posted by Rusty Neon A piece of art in a given style, even if properly executed, will appeal to some people and not to others; appreciation of art is subjective and varies from person to person. However, lack of technique or care in the execution of the art can shift attention away from the message and cause one's eyes to look at the technical faux pas. For example, if one is in a place of worship for a worship service and, in terms of technique, the choir badly sings the right notes, the message and mood of the music being presented is overshadowed by the bad singing. Exactly what I meant about the Shining Tribe! It is a good deck with important things to say, however, many people do not give it a chance to speak to them because the artwork is poorly executited. Rachel Pollack is a expert on tarot and an excellent writer, but not an artist. I understand why she chose to do the artwork herself and I think she did a good job for someone who is not an artist, however the deck's message is lost to those who are put off by the artwork's flaws. This is not because of a lack of care on Ms. Pollack's part, but rather a lack of training or aquired skill. I like the Shining Tribe deck. I like the honesty & sincerity of the artwork, but the technique is not skillful.

Shade	06 Nov 2003
Hmmm, I'm reminded of a conversation I had the other day about the fact that people who aren't "beautiful" don't make it in music (popular music at least) which really shouldn't factor into whether or not a person is a good singer. Mama Cass doesn't qualify as the common standard of a gorgeous Diva but she was an amazing singer and I wonder whether or not she would have gone over with today's market. So while initially I wasn't sure about the Shining Tribe I'm glad Rachel Pollack did the art herself because I know nothing is lost in the translation. I feel that here it is more important that a deck be brilliant than pretty. However that is a good point about a deck not getting out there to a lot of readers because the art doesn't appeal to them. Sad but true.

CompassRose	07 Nov 2003
Johnny, don't think that analogy is quite correct. Works the other way... with all the tons of useless clone decks selling because they have pretty drawings, but not this, not for me at least. It's more like bitching about how people with great stories to tell aren't being published because they can't spell/write grammatically correct sentences. IMHO, if a person can't draw, it's like trying to write without fully knowing the language -- no matter what their basic knowledge, they are not communicating properly. Sure, one can fumble through the static and noise to figure out the message... but that process is, for me, as painful and irritating as attempting to read an article that is badly written or missed the proofreader's eye.

BlueLotus	23 Dec 2003
So, is there anyone who has anything good to say about The Shining Tribe Tarot? I can't wait for the deck to arrive, hopefully soon, and I don't see anything wrong or ugly with the artwork on these cards, by viewing the online scans and reviews In fact I think it is a 'down to earth', symbolic and full of meanings' deck mainly because its creator has poured her heart into the 'whole' package , i.e. deck, meanings, history, images, insights.......etc, you name them, in a much needed simple way which most decks lack , for the purpose of allowing the reader of these cards to 'see' through the meanings, and not look in awe , and amazement at the art, and almost forget why they ventured into tarot in the first place.

WolfSpirit	23 Dec 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Feebie So, is there anyone who has anything good to say about The Shining Tribe Tarot? Well yes but you won't find them in this thread ;) You could check here for example: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16228&highlight=shining+tribe Just about every deck I like got trashed in this thread. I get something else from them than good artwork. Difficult to say why I like some decks and others leave me cold - artwork comes into it, but also the intention and spirit of the creator.

cirom	23 Dec 2003
Oh my, have some emotions been raised with this topic. So for what its worth here's my opinion. Especially regarding the "cut out" look of some decks. In many cases this digital equivilant of cut and paste i.e. decks that have photographs of people dressed as wizards or whatever pasted onto forest backgrounds. There's nothing wrong with that, just as in the pre computer era of paper montages. But in many cases its poorly done, colours, depth of field, focus, and artificially crips edges are not addressed, so the illusion looks false and I'm sorry, but hiding behind a safety net of art being subjective, is a cop out. Sometimes it may not be the artists personal style, sometimes the emperor does not have clothes on, its simply not very good. The earlier posting that compared art to cooking, taste being subjective etc, etc, is not a complete analogy. Of course recipes are subjective, but if its overcooked, or way too much salt etc, then lets call it what it is, badly cooked, unless the artists intention was to deliberatly make it inedible ???? Having said that I personally do not put the Tarot of Prague in that category. Yes its plainly obvious the cut and paste technique, if the intention of baba-prague was to convince us that the images were'nt that, then they failed, but I believe this is deliberate style, and one that works, in my opinion I think its one of the best decks produced in this medium. I would like to add that in my case, the Gilded Tarot, as well my other work is also produced using Photoshop. However I use the software in a different way, I treat it simply as a digital brush, and paint away with a tablet and pen, as I did in my pre-computer days. I deliberatly do not incorporate scanned images, but that is also a personal subjective choice of style. I add that because computer produced art is misleading to many. computer "generated" would be rendered images and style such as Toy story, Jurassic Park etc etc. Or computer manimulated i.e. cut, paste, change in some way. In other cases the process and look can be considerably more traditional, the computer merely being the tool of choice.

Asher	23 Dec 2003
This is a very interesting thread. As many have said, artwork is a very subjective thing...what one person admires leaves another cold. But I'd like to focus on the 1st part of the thread's title. What makes a good deck? And can we separate out the "good deck" from the "bad" artwork? If we have visceral reactions to the artwork, how can we see beyond that and recognize the deck's "good-ness"? I have no answers to these questions, and I am not sure I can separate the artwork from the quality of the deck. For example, I cannot stand the Quest deck. The "people" pictured look like entities from someone's nightmare. The hair color/eye color/stones/alphabet/astrology/I Ching, etc. make the deck an absolute _mess_, IMHO. Enough rambling. Can we, indeed, separate good decks from bad artwork?? Asher

Khatruman	23 Dec 2003
Quote: Originally posted by CompassRose It's more like bitching about how people with great stories to tell aren't being published because they can't spell/write grammatically correct sentences. IMHO, if a person can't draw, it's like trying to write without fully knowing the language -- no matter what their basic knowledge, they are not communicating properly. I think that nails it for me also. Being a writer, I know I become a better writer by having a deep understanding of how language works. The more I know of technique and depth in language, the better my ideas flow to the page. I would not say that a good book needs to be written by an English professor. As a matter of fact, the English professor most often writes the most stilted, boring compositions. I do, however, feel that some deep knowledge of the technique of the medium is important. Dragging out the Shining Tribe once more. It is my humble opinion that Pollack is not an artist. She uses a "primitive" style, which, to me, seems to not get the depths of those primitive artists. To illustrate that, I will bring in again the Mother of Cups from the Haindl. This card hearkens back to primitive sculpture, the fertility statues which represent some of the earliest found artwork. Haindl recreates the primitive fertility image beautifully as it was conceived (not to make a pun). I don't see Ms. Pollack accomplishing that at all. I am also reminded of the issues brought out in both Waite and Crowley using artists to recreate their conceptions. I think that is a fine way to go about it, and I think Pollack would have done well to have hired an experienced artist to draw her concepts. I draw a parallel between this and the director who creates a film. Most every good director recognizes the importance of others to bring the concept to finished film. A director attempts to control the aspects, but a good director realizes that trusting actors to reconceive and bring to life the characters is important. Otherwise, he would get in front of the camera and act it himself. I am stopping myself before going off on tangents galore.... I think what bothers me in tarot artwork many times is when lack of good technique disturbs my ability to enter into a symbiosis with the deck. Perhaps I may one day work with the Shining Tribe and become connected with it. Perhaps I didn't give Wang's Golden Dawn tarot a good chance. For me, however, despite the value of the concept, it didn't work.

BlueLotus	12 Jan 2004
I have a hard time really liking the Hanson Roberts deck . Although many people rave at it, I find it not even cute. The drawings are not proportional, in the sense that the heads of people are rather big. Many of them look like they are wearing wigs , and they take up a lot of space. Given the choice I would go for the Connolly deck any time over this one. Just my Humble opinion

The Good Decks with Bad Artwork thread was originally posted on 28 Oct 2003 in the Tarot Decks board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Tarot Decks, or read more archived threads.