Got my Bruegel Deck today

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 08 Jan 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

allibee	08 Jan 2004
but I must say i'm a little disappointed in the illustrative overkill on the courts and most of the pips :( I really like the art on the majors but then as I went through the deck there are lots of little annoying 'add ons' in each picture that really bug me ... like the heart on little legs running away in the three swords, I think Is it necessary? Surely a good illustrator can relay the concept without adding on unnecessary ephemera? Totally spoiled the deck for me. Back in its box at the back of the cupboard to gather dust now ... ho hum allibee

yve	08 Jan 2004
it's too bad there wasn't a site that illustrated many, if not all, of the cards, than you could have made a more educated decision to buy....

allibee	08 Jan 2004
Yup ... I had seen the majors and fell in love with them and assumed that the pips and courts would follow in the same vein. They do of course, in the general sense, thematically ... but I suppose we can't always get it right. I felt similar disappointment in my Russian Kluev deck which is overall very beautiful, but some of the collages have been done quite badly and ruined the whole deck for me .... its like they ran out of ideas or time and that's not good coming across in a deck of 78 (think I might start a campaign for good art standards in tarot decks, LOL)

firemaiden	08 Jan 2004
Gosh, I think the majors and minors are completely consistant, and find them altogether charming. I found the artwork to be consistant with what I expected from it, given the nature of Bruegel's work. Here are some previous threads: Bruegel Tarot - the thread I started when I got the deck, Reading with the Bruegel Tarot - (shows scans), Bruegel and Tarot of the III Millenium - and another Bruegel thread started by Scorpion.

baba-prague	08 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by allibee I felt similar disappointment in my Russian Kluev deck which is overall very beautiful, but some of the collages have been done quite badly and ruined the whole deck for me .... its like they ran out of ideas or time and that's not good coming across in a deck of 78 Hi - I'm interested you say that. I have been sort of vaguely trying to get hold of a Kluev for ages - I think we've talked about this before (finally a friend in Moscow has said she will buy and send decks for us - so we may get some supply going) but I had the same sort of impression from looking at scans. They have intially a really interesting look, but with some "iffy" artwork. Sad to hear that they really are like this in person. You have to remember that I work with an obsessional compulsive perfectionist (big grin - I'm joking but only just. One graphic designer friend recently told me she is afraid to work with Alex as he is so fussy about all the artwork). Sometimes I wonder if it's really necessary. Al can sit for a couple of hours adjusting a line that will be too small to see on a card without a magnifying glass. I am less like that, more pragmatic by far and my own visuals are less perfect. But then I hear what you have to say about some decks and I am just glad that Alex is like this. In the end, some of the adjustments he makes may be tiny - but it all adds up to something that we know - for better or worse - is as good as we can make it. Anyway, having said that, back to the new deck :-) - which of course is taking twice the time we ever imagined! _____ Oh - there is a thread I started on this subject in the Creation forum, it might be of interest. Some varied and interesting opinions: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18683 _________ edited to add. Sorry if I've gone off tangentially on the Kluev. For now I don't really have much to say on the Bruegel except I'd agree with what's said below about the detail in Bruegel's work. But if I've understood correctly, the artwork on these two decks is being considered in different ways? i.e. it's only the Kluev that is being criticised as having some rushed artwork. Certainly the Bruegel looks like it's well done as a piece of artwork.

spoonbender	08 Jan 2004
Quote: I had seen the majors and fell in love with them and assumed that the pips and courts would follow in the same vein. [...] I must say i'm a little disappointed in the illustrative overkill on the courts and most of the pips. I have the Bruegel Tarot (finally!) and I think the art is very consistent throughout the deck. But I agree that if you don't like little details, this is not the deck for you. I, for one, like all those details and look forward to studying them more, although I'm pretty sure I'll never know the meaning of all those symbols. If the deck wouldn't contain a lot of symbols, it wouldn't be a Bruegel deck. Have you ever seen one of Bruegel's works? It's extremely symbolic and detailed. Quote: Totally spoiled the deck for me. Back in its box at the back of the cupboard to gather dust now ... I don't think the Bruegel is a deck you can look once at and then let them "gather dust". The Bruegel is definitely a deck which you have to spend a lot of time with, examining the cards and getting to know them better. If that's not what you except from a deck, it was indeed the wrong choice for you.

allibee	08 Jan 2004
Hi baba ... yes, we did indeed talk about the Kluev and after much expense and time I tracked mine down in Estonia. Glad you agree and its not just me, lol (LOL, you edited your post ... I was refering to the rushing/lack of care of the Kluev) As to the Bruegel, I agree that it is thematically consistant, think I even said that before, but to my professional illustrators eye .. it really is non consistant ... maybe it will be too difficult to explain, lol, nevermind. As I have said I don't take the pictures into account when I read tarot ... if anything they get in the way, so its not on a reading level I dislike these Bruegel 'bits' ... it is from the viewpoint of good illustration. Fine Art being a world of difference to Illustration, and this is what I am getting at. Paintings for the sake of 'art' we can stand back and admire, understand what was in the artists mind at the time - or try to, lol - and react to that art, and in a gallery we go on to the next artist and stand back and admire and assimilate their work too etc. HOWEVER, if one is using images to convey a message or concept or even archetype... which is what a deck does... then the word for this is illustration, not art .... then all there should be is enough to tell the story, pass the message on ...WITHOUT the overkill. I am speaking from the point of view of good illustrative practice, not down my nose art critic But I am being a heathen again :)

firemaiden	08 Jan 2004
The review on the tarotpassages website was similarly critical. The reviewer didn't like the use of so many commoners. Geez! Its about Bruegel! That's what he painted! Are we to say we don't like Rembrandt because its "too dark?" or Renoir because it was "too fuzzy?"

allibee	08 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by firemaiden Are we to say we don't like Rembrandt because its "too dark?" or Renoir because it was "too fuzzy?" Depends whether some bright spark tries to make a tarot deck out of their work really, doesn't it? LOL I also find it interesting you should state 'it's about Bruegel' ... because I thought it was about Tarot ... and the appropriate use of his art to make a tarot deck allibee (heathen at large)

baba-prague	08 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by allibee As to the Bruegel, I agree that it is thematically consistant, think I even said that before, but to my professional illustrators eye .. it really is non consistant ... maybe it will be too difficult to explain, lol, nevermind. Well, I'm at a disadvantage as I have only seen the few cards here on AT. I THINK I understand what you're describing - sort of too many "bits" all over the place? I do think that there is an inherent problem with these "in the style of" [a famous artist] decks because it's terribly hard to do anything remotely as well as the original of course (I would HATE to be the person who did the Leonardo deck for instance, what a task!) Anyway, you've made me much more interested in at least seeing more of the Bruegel. Have to say that Alex and I tend towards the "busy" in our own illustrative work. I just love the layered detail of films like Lord of the Rings or the Harry Potters. The sense that the film-makers bothered to put in masses of detail even if it might only be seen for a few seconds impresses me. I'm still very sad that I didn't manage to get on to the set of "Grimm's Tales" here in Prague. That was supposed to be amazing. In many ways that kind of realist detail (complete with the dust of years and numerous tiny obsessional minutiae) what I want to get close to - though of course print and film are so different graphically/visually. Much as I love some aspects of modernism I really am tired of working in that style (had to do it for years, and it does feel very formulaic after a bit). I am just loving putting in all the decorative detail now - but I agree, it is really hard to do that without ending up with a mess. Anyway - maybe this is getting into the kind of discussion that is best in the "creation" forum? Oh - any chance of seeing your work? I looked on your site (nice site!) but didn't see any of your illustrations. I'd love to take a look if possible. Sorry if I've missed it and you've had it here on AT for ages (she said in sudden anxiety). But do tell me please.

firemaiden	08 Jan 2004
I think the Bruegel cards work wonderfully for divination, however, the way I use them is specifically to not try to know what any thing means, and simply let whatever detail jump out at me that wants too. Its a bit more like "image therapy" that someone posted about than tarot reading. The less I know the cards, the more meaningful are the details that happen to leap out at me when they do. The richer they are, the more detailed and wacky the pictures, the better it works. Conversely, in reaction the idea, that it ought to be about Tarot, rather than about Bruegel, I actually think, it's about Bruegel, and making use of Bruegel for Tarot. God knows, the world does not need one more tarot deck. Nor does a tarot deck, as you yourself have said, (somewhere) really need any illustrations at all. All I need to know is that it is "the empress" or "the Ace of Wands" and that's enough information to do a reading. Given that a blank card with a title is on some level just as efficient as an illustrated card, why should I care whether the illustrations are crowded or empty? It doesn't affect the titles of the cards... the only thing different is, in addition to the title there is also a interesting soup of images from which the subconscious mind can fish details to reveal to the consious mind...

allibee	08 Jan 2004
Baba... I'll send you some URLs to my commercial work later ... in the meantime you can see the majors I've done for the SACT (emperor not my favourite, but the HP and Love are) ... I'll pm you tonight ... have to make the ravenous hordes their dinner now :) Back to minutea ... which I don't have a problem with ... only unnecessary and gratuitous minutea which *some* of the minors and courts clearly have, to my eye ... which is what grates on my nerves like nails across a blackboard .... And I will reiterate to all those who would have me flayed alive, that I DO love the majors :) A.

spoonbender	08 Jan 2004
Well, I of course didn't know you were a professional illustrator, that changes everything... Like baba, I'd like to see some of your work. But please, feel free to enlighten us about the non-consistant art work your "illustrators eye" sees. Quote: As I have said I don't take the pictures into account when I read tarot ... if anything they get in the way Do I understand you correctly? You don't take the pictures into account? And at the same time you're a "professional illustrator"? Quote: HOWEVER, if one is using images to convey a message or concept or even archetype... which is what a deck does... then the word for this is illustration, not art If one does a good job in illustrating, I'd see that as art. Don't you? edited: I saw your cards for the Aeclectic Tarot project, and I'd call that art Spoonbender

allibee	08 Jan 2004
No ... mere illustration ... NOT art, lol ........But please, feel free to enlighten us about the non-consistant art work your "illustrators eye" sees...... I think if you read through my posts closer, you'll see exactly my reasons as stated Spoonbender. It is unfortunate that you have taken a perfectly reasoned discussion amongst interested people and turned it into a vindictive crusade ... and i don't notice you adding *anything* to the debate apart from an attitude consistant with your age ....Do I understand you correctly? You don't take the pictures into account? And at the same time you're a "professional illustrator"?.... Yes, you heard right. Please feel free to check out my other posts recently. Try one called *call me a heathen*

firemaiden	08 Jan 2004
The participants of this thread are urgently reminded to re-read and adhere to the Forum Rules

spoonbender	08 Jan 2004
Allibee, I was interested in this thread too (still am), that’s the reason I was asking you questions. I’m sorry you think that it was a “vindictive crusade”, as that was not my intention. I was being a tad sarcastic, because I felt that what you said was elitist, that’s all – guess it must be my age... I’m shocked to find out, though, that I didn’t add *anything* to the discussion. Quote: only unnecessary and gratuitous minutea which *some* of the minors and courts clearly have, to my eye ... I think this is what you’re referring to? I see the same “minutiae” on the Majors. Or did I miss something else that, to your eye, was inconsistent? I still feel that good illustrations on tarots can be art, like the High Priestess you designed. Once again, I’m sorry you took my post that bad. A discussion is all I thought it was. Regards, Spoonbender PS: Thanks, Firemaiden, for reminding us!

allibee	08 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by spoonbender I was being a tad sarcastic Indeed But there is nothing elitest in stating why *I* see something in the way I do ... in fact it helps to explain why I make the observations I do. I apologise if stating that I look and comment from a professionally interested standpoint, rather than an 'interested' standpoint comes across as elitist And HP is NOT fine art ... perish the thought ;)

firemaiden	09 Jan 2004
What I find a bit jarring is to apply today's professional standards of illustration to Bruegel. There is an incongruity. They are two separate value systems. By analogy, if I were to judge Chinese Opera by the aesthetic criteria of Western Opera, I would be appalled and shocked... the use of the voice is so... squeezed, and strident... and I would miss the opportunity to understand it own its own merits. In another analogy, what if I said... from the standpoint of a professional ballet dancer, these African tribal dancers are terrible, they have no turn-out, and they don't point their toes...

allibee	09 Jan 2004
I would agree with you IF it was a deck released in the whatever century he lived and he had done the art himself FOR the tarot ... but someone else has taken his ART and lashed it onto a tarot deck for todays readers ... therefore it can ONLY be judged by todays illustrative standards... as in how well and appropriately it has been used Maybe I am confusing you ... maybe I should say that I am critiquing the tarot in the art, not the art in the tarot Nice word that ... analogy ;)

Demonesse	10 Jan 2004
I think you're both right - rather good points in the last two posts made as to the issue of merit judgement, and by what standards. I'll have to reflect on this awhile.

RiccardoLS	12 Jan 2004
I will not place myself inside this searing dscussion, but I need to add that while the Bruegel is not my favourite deck (nor in style, nor in art, nor in content), the "cluttering" of the cards has been done on purpose. Every single scene or object in everycard has a precise symbolic significance. In detail, each scene is a reference or an explanation on a common saying, a proverb, related to the meaning of the card. For instance on the Fool card, the sinking boat is a symbol of "A boat without wheel will soon sink" (in Italian: barca senza timone non può che affondare), etc... I do not enter the point if it was a good choice or it was not, but the Bruegel Tarot has been built in that way, and should express his best when read through this key. If one wants to cope with the Bruegel just as a "traditional" deck, will probably find - at best - a pretty unuseful thing. As I stated before, I do not particularly like the Bruegel, and I had nothing to do with its creation, but I feel it as important to point out what a deck - any deck - could give... could propose, could innovate. From the Publisher point of view, I see already too many decks built with the "I don't care about the image as long it looks the part" style. I see so many themed decks without innovation, depth, coerence... and I - frankly - judge them useless or pointless. I may not like the Bruegel Tarot but still it has a "something different" to make me happy it exist, nevertheless. :) Best, Riccardo

The Got my Bruegel Deck today thread was originally posted on 08 Jan 2004 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.