New Classics

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 17 Jan 2005, and now archived in the Forum Library.

RedMaple	17 Jan 2005
What do you think makes a deck a classic? And what new decks do you think have that potential? In an earlier thread on the top ten, it was suggested that decks that have good staying power have:A sense of history, An occult tradition, Depth of imagery and symbolism.

Scion	18 Jan 2005
Thank you RedMaple! SO glad you started this separate thread. Here are a few more characteristics observable in "modern classics". :) All of them have bold, resonant art that is immediately identifiable, and distinct from other decks. All are esoteric, and in some sense a rejection of the patriarchy. And interestingly, most are illustrated/designed by women. If not always scenic minors, all of them contain at least what we could call "evocative" pips. All of them are supported by substantive texts, either companion books or connected literature. And all of them come from a historic/symbolic tradition that is ideoplastic enough to allow their use outside the tradition. I'm fascinated by this. I'm gonna keep mulling. Scion

tarotbear	18 Jan 2005
There were hundreds of movies released in the year 1939, but two always jump out at you : Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz. What happened to the rest? 'Staying Power' is what helps define a classic. Yes, many things, including Tarot decks, make big splashes or are hyped to the Nth degree. Sometimes things are innovative, but they lack the power to capture more than just the initial public's reaction. The immense splendor of GWTW was real - not computer-generated like most movies are today. Something trashy like 'Van Helsing' would be ten minutes long if you removed all the special effects. Four years from now when GWTW is 70 years old, people will line up to buy the DVD version of it, and someone like like my mother will wear it out. Van Helsing will end up in the cheap clearance bins. In another thread I stated that I thought a lot of decks were just junk. You can still buy unopened decks of a certain Jamacian tarot reader on ebay for $3 apiece -- or less. She will long be remembered for the damages she caused to Tarot accountibility, but her deck is the perfect size to put under a couch when one of the legs breaks off. Good for propping a window open, too!

Fudugazi	18 Jan 2005
I don't have many decks, and for the past couple of months I've spent a fair amount of time with Marseille decks. These are a different kettle of fish as the aim of even the moderns is to keep as close as possible to tradition. I like its direct symbolism, its colours (not always agreed upon, btw), the in-your face quality of its Majors, allied with the more elusive, allusive pips. But I love the Tarot of Prague, which I take out to look at, to study some of the cards, and to read with. It works especially well with people who have a strong sense of beauty and history, I find. I also love the Mythic tarot, for completely different reasons - its link to myth, the naïve quality of its imagery. The Robin Wood I wouldn't say I love, but I respect and I read with from time to time, and some cards in it I do love. I recently got the original Tarocchi di Vetro (the Crystal Tarot majors) - I still don't know it well, but those geometric shapes, those gazes, the subtle use of symbol and the rich art nouveau colours - they do draw me. I love stained glass windows. All these are popular. I think the Tarot de Prague will become a classic, like the Mythic and the Crystal Tarot. Why? Well, most of you have said it already - strong symbolism that has inner coherence and a thread, but also good individual cards, so that you can both journey with these decks along a path that moves up from symbol to symbol, and dip into them; in the case of the Prague and the Tarocchi di Vetro, superior art-work and a very distinct visual character. I'm interested in the correlation between symbol and beauty. On a platonic spiritual path, beauty is important - so those who use Tarot in that way need beauty. Keats said it better - beauty is truth, and truth beauty. I am more ambiguous about it. One the one hand I find myself drawn to beautiful decks; on the other, I wonder if beauty matters less than force of symbol or myth. I don't think the Mythic deck is beautiful, even if it does has some beautiful cards in it. And what draws people to the Marseille Tarot outside the regions (like my own) where it is the mainstream deck? It cannot be beauty - it is famously naive, some say even crude - it must be only symbol. Yet something happens to many who do study the Marseille: after a while with those strange, plain woodcuts, those swirling vines around cups and coins, you come to see it as a deck of extraordinary beauty. I have not answer to that. It's part of Tarot's ever-intruiging quality to me. Beauty? Symbol? Colour? Or something else, that brings all these things together, something quite distinct to Tarot?

Fulgour	18 Jan 2005
tarotbear wrote: There were hundreds of movies released in the year 1939, but two always jump out at you : Gone With The Wind and King Kong . What happened to the rest? King Kong was 1933, but it clicked that you probably meant The Wizard of Oz, now available as a delightful Tarot deck :)

Fudugazi	18 Jan 2005
Fulgour wrote: King Kong was 1933, but it clicked that you probably meant The Wizard of Oz, now available as a delightful Tarot deck :) And a Gone with the Wind deck, with Scarlett O'Hara as Empress and Rhett Butler as the Magician? (Melanie as the High Priestess, of course - can't really place Ashley Wilkes: too weak to be a good Pope/Hierophant! Knight of Cups?). Mammy is Emperor.

closrapexa	18 Jan 2005
In the consumer oriented society in which we live in, this mentality has crossed over into the realm of Tarot as well. There are so many new decks that are being published every year, and not all of them become classics. In my opinion it is because people have grown tired of the "nesxt big thing" and would rather see decks that truly show content, scope and depth. tarotbear mentioned "Gone with the Wind". Another example would be "the Ten Commandments". these movies have no real special effects, at least not in the way that we would call them special effects nowadays, but on the other hand, when you see the thousands of extras in those movies, you know that they are real people, and not computer generated images. In addition, all those extras serve only to make the movie bigger, not better. Unlike, sadly, many movies today, that use spectacle as a substitute for real quality. So it is with Tarot decks. Ultimately, the ones that stand the test of time are those that have really been worked on. For example, the Thoth, which was five years in the making, or other decks. Of course, it is doubtful whether we can say, or predict whether a deck will become a classic, since posterity will be the deciding factor. Edited to add: Incidentaly, "The Ten Commandments" is my favourite movie, if only for the fact that hearing my name for four and a half hours straight does a soul good:)

bodhran	18 Jan 2005
Just wondered if the medium type (painting, block printing, drawing vs. collage, photo or digital) makes a difference in the "staying power" of a deck. For me personally, it is the symbology I can instantly connect to that draws me to a deck. Thanks, Bodhran

tarotbear	18 Jan 2005
A lot of tarot decks start out with a bang of a great idea, but halfway through the deck the artist or creator got bored, and it shows. For example, the Wonderland Tarot (not the Alice in Wonderland tarot - a different deck) sounds great -- use the funky characters created by the artist for 'Alice' to create a deck ... yeah, yeah, yeah ... sounds like a hot seller. First - lets change the suits to fit Wands/pepper grinders, Cups/mad hatter hats, Pents/oysters, Swords/flamingoes ???? There aren't enough interesting characters in 'Alice' to populate the entire deck. The Jabberwock/devil is great and the catterpillar/Hierophant is cool ... but it runs out of steam quickly. Unless you are a diehard 'Alice' fan, the deck's shortcomings scream at you. Not what I would consider a future classic. Unless the deck can resonate with more than a few hundred people, I doubt it can ever be called a classic. In my (hopefully) upcoming book, I joke about 'bad theme decks.' How about 'The Junk Food Tarot' - we can used the four major food groups for each of the suits! Use entrees for the Majors! Make the Court cards into desserts! Yada-yada-yada -- it sounds fun and silly and terriffic ... for the first 6 or 8 cards. Then you have to find suitable images, so you turn the Pentacles into something they were never intended to be - like cafeteria trays or something ... never gonna be a classic deck! A good parody like the Housewive's Tarot, however, is worth it's weight in gold, but many of these hot, upcoming theme decks such as the Stickfigure tarot are meant to be taken seriously. Could you really read with the 'Doggie Doo Divination Deck' or the 'Scratch-and-Sniff Tarot'? (WOW! The Hermit hasn't taken a bath in years!)

RedMaple	18 Jan 2005
ROFL. I agree -- most theme decks will not become classics. But then there's the Fey. I wonder about it because it so clearly has taken close looks at the meanings of all the cards, and expanded them, and expressed them in a way that is unexpected. I never would have thought such a deck might become a classic, that will bear the test of time, but this one might. Also, the World Spirit has possibilities, I think. The wonderful colors, the black background, and the new images on many cards. Very distinctive artwork, anti-patriarchal, designed by a woman. No substantial literature yet. I guess I wonder about people "borrowing" images from some of the new decks, the way they've been "borrowed" from RWS, Thoth, and Marseilles. For example, if we start seeing a lot of women dancing on the roof for Fool cards, a la World Spirit, would that make it a new classic? I have found the Golden an amazing deck, though I usually don't go much for collage decks. Still, I think this deck has the beauty, complexity, and symbolism that can make it a new classic. I've been writing poems inspired by this deck -- maybe I'll add to the literature. :)

bodhran	18 Jan 2005
RedMaple. I have to second your opinion about the Fey Tarot. I intentionally did not buy it when it came out (thought it would be too "cute" for me). But, when I got talked into purchasing it, I was blown away by the beauty of the cards and their symbolism. The book that came with the cards was wonderful, and gave me see a new slant on many of the cards. Bodhran

Frank Hall	18 Jan 2005
Just to add a thought about what makes decks classic : the symbolic art must evoke a response of seeking to deepen understanding of its beauty-truth, which must have unity and coherence of style and systematic depth. Such a Tarot is not a superficial flirt, but a profoundly ,unendingly meaningful soul-mate. And yet accessible, not alienating! Golden Tarot and the Nigel Jackson Tarot certainly are classics in this way, along with the old/new Visconti, Marseilles, Waite-Smith, and Thoth. Timelessly inspiring.There are others... "What glitters is the moment's, born to be Soon lost; true gold lives for posterity." Goethe, Faust,"Prelude on the Stage"

Cerulean	18 Jan 2005
That is an excellent question! For beauty of originality and paintings that feels similar to classical romantic Pre-Raphelites, I do like how the Lovers Path's use of lovers in myths and courtly love. The painting technique draws me in and keeps me using it, more than other decks. That much of the explanations are printed in English and it's website updating me of cards has helped me see the richness of the deck. I must admit for sheer beauty alone, the paintings of the Crystals Tarot from Lo Scarabeo pulls one in...but it seems to have a patterning after the El Gran Esoterico, which Christine Payne Tower said was commissioned in 1977, during the six-hundreth anniversary of the appearance of playing cards in Europe. Fournier was the publisher and CPT calls it the "Spanish Marseilles". The book the minors are supposed to be based on is authored by Eudes Picard in 1908. The book was Manuel Synthique et Pratique du Tarot with illustrations is not translated in English. If it could, I bet the deck's incredible beauty and promise of an interesting and different system might appeal to others... Thanks for the question. Cerulean

Moongold	18 Jan 2005
Quote: Just to add a thought about what makes decks classic : the symbolic art must evoke a response of seeking to deepen understanding of its beauty-truth, which must have unity and coherence of style and systematic depth. Such a Tarot is not a superficial flirt, but a profoundly ,unendingly meaningful soul-mate. And yet accessible, not alienating! Golden Tarot and the Nigel Jackson Tarot certainly are classics in this way, along with the old/new Visconti, Marseilles, Waite-Smith, and Thoth. Timelessly inspiring.There are others... "What glitters is the moment's, born to be Soon lost; true gold lives for posterity." Goethe, Faust,"Prelude on the Stage" Frank Hall ~ you write so well and with substance – Just wanted to say that. But to the question, what makes a classic? In some ways Frank Hall and others have answered that but there perhaps is more to it. What about significant historical meaning or timing? Rider Waite Smith was the first major divergence from the Marseille (am I right?) and the first to gain wide acceptance in the non-European market. Thoth and RWS might be classics also because they are striking exponents of different conceptions of Tarot. I think the Ancient Egyptian by Barrett may well become a classic because the art work is beautiful, the symbolism rich, and the theme ancient and profound – the story of Isis and Osiris. This deck would be more pleasing if it did not have borders. The Mythic deck will also always be a classic for the same reasons. The art work on the Mythic is fairly ordinary, I think, but it suits the narrative. What is “classic” and what is “cultish”? This is another question which occurs to me in this discussion. I don’t know the answers!

RedMaple	19 Jan 2005
Cerulean wrote: That is an excellent question! I must admit for sheer beauty alone, the paintings of the Crystals Tarot from Lo Scarabeo pulls one in...but it seems to have a patterning after the El Gran Esoterico, which Christine Payne Tower said was commissioned in 1977, during the six-hundreth anniversary of the appearance of playing cards in Europe. Fournier was the publisher and CPT calls it the "Spanish Marseilles". The book the minors are supposed to be based on is authored by Eudes Picard in 1908. The book was Manuel Synthique et Pratique du Tarot with illustrations is not translated in English. If it could, I bet the deck's incredible beauty and promise of an interesting and different system might appeal to others... Thanks for the question. Cerulean I like the Crystal deck a lot, but I'm frustrated by the small size of the cards. It is a deck I want to get back to at some time. I haven't studied the Marseille yet, and I will have to find the Manuel Synthique et Pratique du Tarot. It will be a good exercise for my rusty French.

RedMaple	19 Jan 2005
Moongold wrote: What about significant historical meaning or timing? Rider Waite Smith was the first major divergence from the Marseille (am I right?) and the first to gain wide acceptance in the non-European market. Thoth and RWS might be classics also because they are striking exponents of different conceptions of Tarot. Yes, that's why I thought of the Fey, as it offers an entirely different take on the cards. Quote: What is “classic” and what is “cultish”? This is another question which occurs to me in this discussion. I don’t know the answers! What an interesting question! As in a "cult classic?" LOL I think of the Vampire decks or "underground faves" when I think of "cultish" - is that what you meant?

Moongold	19 Jan 2005
RedMaple wrote: Yes, that's why I thought of the Fey, as it offers an entirely different take on the cards. The Fey is most interesting. I have it but have not used it much. It is different but has not been around long enough to pass the test of time. It is difficult in this day and age to think that time means anything. For some reason I keep thinking of Toffler's "Future Shock" from the 1960's. What do we mean by time? The Morgan Greer was designed in the 1970's and is still very popular and sought after. In modern terms does that make it a classic? The Camoin Marseille and the Hadar Marseille are quite recent variations on the Marseille. Do we call these classic by virtue of their "Marseille'dom"? Or could they be seen as "cultish" versions of the Marseille? Quote: What an interesting question! As in a "cult classic?" LOL I think of the Vampire decks or "underground faves" when I think of "cultish" - is that what you meant? By cult I mean a particular form, often eccentric or extraordinary in some way. So you can have "cult classics". There is enough that is extraordinary in the "form" to make it last a little while also. In film, Peter Weir's "Last Wave" is one such. It rode the golden wave of Australian films in the late70's and 80's but it was very different because it had the Peter Weir touch of "magic" about it - even a little of the occult. It was not a huge success at the time but now has a particular following. It was different in that it dealt with aboriginal "magic", universal themes of race, crime and punishment on personal and larger levels. Ironically it deals with a threatened tsunami in Sydney. In terms of Australian film history it is a cult classic. The Fey could become a cult classic, and I think the Iconic could as well.. Does what I have said make sense? Blessings ~

Frank Hall	19 Jan 2005
Moongold wrote: But to the question, what makes a classic? In some ways Frank Hall and others have answered that but there perhaps is more to it... I think the Ancient Egyptian by Barrett may well become a classic because the art work is beautiful, the symbolism rich, and the theme ancient and profound – the story of Isis and Osiris. What is “classic” and what is “cultish”? This is another question which occurs to me in this discussion. I don’t know the answers! There is certainly more to this question. What about the combination of guidebook and deck? This is certainly significant. I agree about the Ancient Egyptian by Barrett. It brings together beautifully quality art and a unifying symbolic system (Golden Dawn meets Egyptology). The cards would gain by being larger. Or less margin. The guidebook is excellent.

RedMaple	19 Jan 2005
Frank Hall wrote: ...the symbolic art must evoke a response of seeking to deepen understanding of its beauty-truth, which must have unity and coherence of style and systematic depth. Such a Tarot is not a superficial flirt, but a profoundly ,unendingly meaningful soul-mate. And yet accessible, not alienating! Golden Tarot and the Nigel Jackson Tarot certainly are classics in this way, along with the old/new Visconti, Marseilles, Waite-Smith, and Thoth. Timelessly inspiring.There are others... Frank, beautifully said. Hard to meet these criteria, as it should be for a classic. I'd be interested in what others you feel might meet this. The Jackson is a deck that I love/hate. Because of the change of suit correspondences, and a certain sameness to the court cards, it is not a deck I reach for often. Yet some of the cards are incredibly beautiful and evocative. Maybe I just have to use it more. Is there a book that goes with it, other than the LWB? I don't understand enough about his system to fully appreciate what he's done, I think. Yes, The Golden. I can't say enough good about it. It has stolen its way into my heart. I find it profound, beautiful, and very coherent. It expands on the meanings of the cards in ways that are surprising, yet obvious, the kind of thing that makes me feel like, "of course, that's it exactly." That is the best kind of art/poetry/storytelling/teaching, as far as I'm concerned. Moongold wrote: The Fey is most interesting. I have it but have not used it much. It is different but has not been around long enough to pass the test of time. It is difficult in this day and age to think that time means anything. For some reason I keep thinking of Toffler's "Future Shock" from the 1960's. What do we mean by time? The Morgan Greer was designed in the 1970's and is still very popular and sought after. In modern terms does that make it a classic? The Camoin Marseille and the Hadar Marseille are quite recent variations on the Marseille. Do we call these classic by virtue of their "Marseille'dom"? Or could they be seen as "cultish" versions of the Marseille? By cult I mean a particular form, often eccentric or extraordinary in some way. So you can have "cult classics". There is enough that is extraordinary in the "form" to make it last a little while also. In film, Peter Weir's "Last Wave" is one such. It rode the golden wave of Australian films in the late70's and 80's but it was very different because it had the Peter Weir touch of "magic" about it - even a little of the occult. It was not a huge success at the time but now has a particular following. It was different in that it dealt with aboriginal "magic", universal themes of race, crime and punishment on personal and larger levels. Ironically it deals with a threatened tsunami in Sydney. In terms of Australian film history it is a cult classic. I know the film, and like it. I see what you mean about it being a bit eccentric in form, though it deals with universal themes. I think of it also, as something that has a larger audience over time, rather than being popular just for the year or so it was made. So, again, what makes it "cult" and not just "classic?" We're back to the same question. Is it the size of the audience? Casablanca wasn't thought of as anything special when it was made, it was just another grade B movie, among dozens at least being made at the time. Yet, it had something that gave it staying power, and it's considered a classic. Quote: The Fey could become a cult classic, and I think the Iconic could as well.. Does what I have said make sense? Yes, definitely. Perhaps because of their quirkiness, they would never be considered "mainstream" decks, or "classically beautiful". Yet they have something special and unique that could give them real staying power. Yes, you are making sense. It's the question that's difficult. :) Blessings

The New Classics thread was originally posted on 17 Jan 2005 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.