Who takes ownership?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 02 Apr 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Khatruman	02 Apr 2003
Ok, here is a discussion that seems to me to be important, or at least something that I have been noticing lately. Let me first tell you the background of the fomulation of this issue in my experience. It starts with my interest in the Minchiate tarots, the 97-card deck which adds 4 element cards, 12 zodiac cards, and three virtue cards to the major arcana, and also leaves out the High Priestess. I was intrigued by its possibilities in readings, and research I found said that it was considered simply a card game deck, overlooked by the occultists, such as the Golden Dawn, when tarot began becoming a mystical device. I saw possibilities in the deck, as an intuitive device, and for coming to my own understandings. I began thinking, "Well, research has been showing that the original tarot started as a card game also, and it was de Geblein (forgive the spelling) and societies such as the Golden Dawn which prescribed esoteric meaning to the cards. Added to this thinking was my own discussion of Joseph Martin's Quest tarot, and my reservations that it was perhaps marketed and superficial, throwing in every New Agey appeal in an attempt to sell the psychic. Yet, having bought the deck, I have found the imagery of the cards to be quite evocative, though I am not sure how much is my own intuitive feel. The accompanying book, when I used it at first, seemed to not have the archetypal, philosophic depth I was looking for, but seemed tailored more towards people who thought of tarot more simply as "fortune telling". So, if JM's deck was created in a spirit of beginner's fortune telling, and not esoteric knowledge (and, please, I am not saying that IS true, this is theoretical thinking), could I GET a deeper esoteric feel out of it? Now, add to that a recent comment centered around our current "master" controversy. Ravenswing, whose comments and questions about the Quest deck (which were brilliant), used the Osho Zen deck as an example of setting a person up as Master, with its extra Major Arcana card. My take on his comments was that this extra card ruined the deck for him. Which, of course, brought up the question, "Well, why can't you just take it out?" The unsaid conclusion I inferred from Ravenswing's example was that, if the deck had been created with the intention of putting Osho into the tarot, then that spoiled the intention of all the other cards. So, simply taking out the card didn't make the underlying intention of Padma which infuses the whole deck. This says to me that the author's intention has to be a big part in the effectiveness of the deck. Ok, I hope I didn't lose my thread here, so I will stop giving background to this and come out and propose this, perhaps in a percentage setting. What do you believe is the percentage ratio between author's intent and reader's intuit? I hope I phrased that effectively (though it is late at night now and I am not sure... :D). That is: if you think the percentage ratio leans more towards author's intent, then you seem to feel that a deck has an independent meaning that the reader must seek to understand, and if it does not meet with your own worldview, it is useless to you. So you may feel that a deck like the Minchiate is useless in tarot reading since it was intended as a card game. On the reverse, if you feel the ratio weighs more towards reader's intuit, then you feel that the reader brings more to the table in a reading, despite the deck, it just have to be able to connect with the reader's own mind. So here you may feel that it could be toothpicks (winks at Umbrae) and it could still be deep and effective, because it is the reader's own intuition that creates meaning. Finally, a 50/50 split would mean that the cards create a true dialogue between reader and deck. Ok, I am either done, or have confused everyone, so tell me what you think.. :D

DeLani	02 Apr 2003
Hmm...I think I get what you are asking. So, I guess my answer would be that I think it is 100% the reader's intuition. Of course, the reader's intuition would be *influenced* by the artist's images (not necessarily their intentions, mind you), to a greater or lesser degree. Taking the Osho Zen example. This is a deck that I absolutely love. I simply took the Master card and "reassigned" it to #5, as the traditional Hierophant, which makes sense to *me*. The other #5, the blank card, I kept, but didn't assign any number to it. It functions just like the Wyrd rune (which was also a newer addition to the runes). So, the artist's intentions might not be being "respected" at all, but I don't owe them anything. I paid my money, it's my deck now. Sometimes what the artist is trying to get across is completely lost on me, but I will divine my own meaning regardless. Other times, the artist's intention is as clear as a bell, and I might or might not like it. Doesn't matter. The artist's job or input is done when they set their pens/brush/whatever down at the end of the last card. After that, the cards are like a new baby, set out into the world for good or ill. Hope that makes sense.

DollChica	02 Apr 2003
In my own personal experience, an excessive amount of the creators intent interferes with my ability to intuit what the cards are really trying to tell me. That's why I absolutely cannot read with my Faerie Wicca deck.

Marie	03 Apr 2003
As a creator, I feel that my biggest goal is to make a deck which makes it easier for a person to connect to their own intuition about a card. I want them to connect with their own meanings, I want them to be able to set aside their conscious minds and communicate with that deeper part. I think that is what tarot symbolism allows to occur, all the colors and numbers and familiar scenes from our lives, dreams and imaginations, faces of the people around us. Sometimes I might fail and get too obscure, but that is always my goal. I am sure every deck creator has their own goal and motivations in making a deck. To me personally there is no symbol or experience more powerful or empowering than a persons own inner voice. To limit them only to what I perceive would be a disservice, in my opinion. I would think that the percentage of what the reader intuits as opposed to what the artist intended would be a completely individual dance between every partnership of deck and unique person. :) Marie

magpie9	03 Apr 2003
I vote for intuit over artists intent. Ever notice how many modern artists really don't talk about what thier paintings 'mean'? A very great deal of the time, they mean what the observer thinks they mean. I believe that to be true of Tarot--the reader is the final authority, in the alchemy between deck and reader. If this were not so, we could not throw away the LWB and still read the deck. No disrespect to Joseph Martin and his deck--I love that deck, it reads clear as spring water--It has a ton of features that I will likely never use, and have little to no interest in. And so what? They don't eat, nor do they whine, quarrel, badmouth each other or take up space I need for something else. The deck is mine, and I don't have to agree with every living thing on it in order to work with it happily. Same goes for Zen Osho. DeLani has it right on the money there. :D I can't really explain what draws me to and keeps me with a particular deck..I do know that my realationship with each deck is individual and changing, just as my relationship with each of my children is individual and changing. I've never read toothpicks, but I've read the wind; I think all of us do. Reading is internal, cards are a tool. A delightful and highly addictive tool! LOL

Athara	03 Apr 2003
This question seems easy to answer. It's the readers intuit that counts. Not every reader can connect with all decks, not even the 'popular' ones, no matter how 'good' the intent was. But then, there are readers who can take out a regular deck of playing cards and give a perfect reading with it! You either connect, or don't, even if the intuit was good. Of course, the more research a Tarot artist has done and the more feeling he/she has put in it, the greater the chance that it's easily 'readable'. But the readers intuit is the greatest factor in this all. In my humble opinion, of course. :) Love, Athara

fairyhedgehog	03 Apr 2003
I'm with the reader's intuition here. It's funny, I was just thinking about this when I was getting up today. I think that knowing traditional meanings (and knowing the author's intent) adds richness to the meanings that I have available to me. But in the final analysis it is down to me. So when I see the Connolly four of swords depicting a man looking over a fence at a treasure chest I can choose it to mean being cut off from worldy goods, or a time of rest and peace (traditional meaning) or intellectual celebration (idiosyncratic meaning) or anything else I like and it is entirely up to me :) So why do we need the cards? I think for me they are a trigger to my imagination. And of course I like looking at them :)

DollChica	03 Apr 2003
Or the hierophant in a reading that I did for someone last week. In his case, it meant that he was: a. Trapped by convention. He was doing what was expected of him instead of what he really wanted to do b. Trying to find something good from the situation so that he wouldn't feel like he failed in some way.

galadrial	03 Apr 2003
I think that toothpicks, numbered sugar packets ;-), etc., work because they have no symbolism whatever- you are creating the symbology in your own mind and the experience is necessarily completely intuitive. However, as soon as you pick up a deck you are receiving, as fairyhedgehog so nicely phrased it, triggers to the imagination. I think that how well those triggers work depends on your ability to connect with the symbology in an intuitive (non-intellectual) manner. I wasn't able to connect with the Celtic symbology that is the basis of the Celtic Wisdom deck. It wasn't impossible to do a reading because I think there are certain "universal" triggers- what position are the figures in, what does that animal represent, what mood do these colors evoke, etc.. But I get much deeper, subtler readings from decks whose symbols trigger multitudes of associations in my mind, whose meanings I don't have to logically interpret but both fire up and give direction to my intuition. This is a function of the symbols themselves. Once they are on paper, it doesn't matter what the author's intent for the symbol was, what matters is what it triggers in you. Thus I come down on the side of intuition over intent, but since intent drives what symbols the author chooses some decks are going to "work" better than others.

Silverlotus	03 Apr 2003
In my experience, I think the ratio between intent and intuit varies based on the deck and on the person. I know I've read many times in this forum that someone can't read with a deck because they don't like/understand the artist's chosen symbolism. And in the case of some decks, like the AC's Thoth for example, people have mentioned getting bad vibes and not being able to even touch the deck. I have decks that I can use easily because I understand what the artist was trying to do. (Or at least I think I do!) Those include the Robin Wood, Thoth, Hanson-Roberts and Aquarian. With them I feel there is a connection between the deck and me. The author has used symbolism in a way I would use it myself, so I am able to read intuitively with the deck. In the case of Osho Zen, I took out the Master Card because it did not belong in the deck, in my not so humble opinion. Reading the interview with Ma Deva Padma confirmed this feeling. I'm not able to read entirely intuitively with this deck yet, as I have forgotten many of the main ideas of Zen. If it wasn't for the class on Japanese religion I took in university, I probably would have had a lot more trouble. So, I guess with this deck, I am trying to follow the artists intent, while blending a little bit of my intuition, unti I am more comfortable with the deck. Then there are decks like the Goddess Tarot and Witches Tarot where I feel like I am fighting against the author's symbolism, or lack of symbolism. With Ms. Cannon Reed's deck, I felt like I was fighting against her symbolism. Not much intuition there. I think perhaps, as much as you like the images on a deck, it would be best to find a deck where you can blend your intuition with the intent of the artists to get the whole experience to flow smoothly.

skytwig	03 Apr 2003
as a 'newbie', may i interject that a comment about playing cards? I find it interesting that as a child, I couldn't put the darn things down! I wanted them in my hands; I played with them almost obsessively, knowing there was something 'more' I could do with them. I would just 'lay them out', look at them, shuffle them...... When I was 'gifted' my first official Tarot deck (Tarot of the Old Path), some 30+ years later, I had already been 'reading' them for possible aeons!!! I wrote in another thread that it is very possible (I believe it!) that many of us have lived many, many lives here on this planet where Tarot has been active. I wrote in reference to the 'olde' historical decks as opposed to the newer decks and how relevant either is. The are both relevant. Archetypes, as Jung so clearly understood, are the 'stories' we hand down and build upon through the ages. If we are one who has lived many lives here, the olde decks are going to ring so true when we first hold them 'again' that our souls will literally sing!!! Yet, the newer decks will also reflect those archetypes, stories, adventures, possibly reflecting the newer 'versions' or the new awarenesses (awarenessi?) of today. and today is really all we have, isn't it? I think our joy of playing with many different decks is a hoot! I still marvel that we can so freely buy them. Even today, I still shudder when I enter a 'witch' store, expecting someone to grab me up and hang me! These are truly Grand times when our intuitive 'play' has brilliant, sparkling freedom! - an olde witch, skytwig.....

Khatruman	03 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by galadrial ...as soon as you pick up a deck you are receiving, as fairyhedgehog so nicely phrased it, triggers to the imagination. I think that how well those triggers work depends on your ability to connect with the symbology in an intuitive (non-intellectual) manner. Ahhh, symbology!!! Now there is an important concept that I wanted to get into with this thread. One of the first things I teach in my high school classes when we are learning about symbolism is the differences between sign and symbol. Both generally mean something, an object, shape, etc. used to represent something else. With a sign, it is a clear representation of one thing for another. A red octagonal shape along the side of a road, regardless of the words, is a sign to STOP. The message is straightforward, non debatable. Put an image of a cigarette inside a red circle with a red line through it and you represent the message: Don't Smoke Here. In symbolism, the something (be it physical object, shape, color, etc.) obviously represents something else, but there is a range of interpretation that can be discussed as to what it "means". The flag of the United States. To a proud American it symbolizes all the ideal aspects of freedom, equality, pursuit of happiness. Recently, in the roll through Iraq, American soldiers were asked to not display the American flag as they "liberated" areas from Iraqui control. The point was that this might symbolize and imperial act, that we wished to take control. The U.S. intentions there might be misconstrued through the displaying of a certain symbol. Symbols therefore may hold different meanings for different people. So for an author to use one necessarily invites the reader to different interpretations. However, sometimes the creator of a tarot deck may use symbology that requires a certain base of knowledge. Take, for instance, the deck I just received: The Tarot of the Imagination (kudos to Ravenswing). The deck uses symbolism with the intention to bring about "sensations through the images and communicating them through a universally recognisable alphabet." (quoted from the LWB). I am not quite sure how universal it is. Randomly looking at cards, I see the 4 of swords (see the third image down on this page. Here I see a German soldier in front of figures that I see as Jewish prisoners lined up, and more than likely will be shot. Associations with the holocaust come to mind. But suppose that I do not have that WWII knowledge base? Can I still get the levels of meaning involved in Nazi genocide? Or take the 4 of Coins (sorry, can't find an image) Which shows a white suited man in a hat and a nurse like figure in white seemingly in the desert. In the background above are some figures doing digging or construction work. I think a background into British imperialism in the mid-East might be necessary to get deeper levels in this card. Or take the King of Wands. I do not know who that is. He is obviously a decorated military leader, I am figuring him to be European, distinguished and with a serious dignified expression, but I have a feeling that if I knew historically who the figure was, I would get a great depth of meaning that is now alien to me. (Incidentally, I am wondering if a book has been written to explain the references used in this deck, because the LWB only gives me tarot key phrases, not image references) So is a knowledge or philosophic base similar to the creator's important in one's ability to get great depth out of the deck, in which case the ratio leans more towards the artist's intent?

skytwig	03 Apr 2003
Quote: To me personally there is no symbol or experience more powerful or empowering than a persons own inner voice. - Marie The Inner Voice, that Wellspring of the unknown and all things Mysterious, is the author and the interpretor, no? symbolism (Webster's 9th Collegiate) Quote: the art of practice of using symbols esp. by investing things with a symbolic meaning or by expressing the invisible or sensuous representations: as a) artistic imitation or invention that is a method of revealing or suggesting immaterial, ideal , ot otherwise intangible truth or states b) the use or conventional or traditional signs in the representation of divine beings and spirits I like the phrase intangible truth . Hmmmm..... isn't that what we are all after? The gold? The brightly colored egg in the grass? Intangible - just beyond our reach. something we want to hold, but can't..... I also note the phrase by investing things with symbolic meaning . Again, Marie pointed out the perspective of the artist who tools the deck and her intention, her personal, artistic involvement with the images, the choice of medium, the actual investment of self and her time in the project. Not only does the 'creator' invest meaning and self into the project, but we, as the viewer, the reader, the participant in that act of creation, become part of that project when we read it. We fall into that intangible Mystery (of Tarot Itself!!) that always eludes us and sings like the escaped bird, that what-IS-this of life ITSELF. It is the indefinable, the exquisite Presence of we don't know what, really!!!, that beckons us to either create the delicious pictures, the symbols, the things, or to pick them up, hold them in our hands or spread them before us on a table and say: This is something.... what does it mean? Meaning is the root we pursue. Definition. But in Tarot, we find that is all perfume and hints and suggestions and dust in the eye of the soul.... We are dancers of spirit finding our feet..... and all that symbolism, no matter from whence it arises or finds itself in our hands, is our music!

Rose	03 Apr 2003
Khatruman, Your second post seems to pose a different question than your first one. In answer to your first post. There is no way an artist can dictate how an individual sees his work. You’ve already stated that Tarot as a tool for divination started because someone ascribed new meanings that differed from the original intent of the cards. Any given tarot card is a combination of the myth/archetype/concept + the artist’s vision + the perception of the viewer. If the viewer’s interpretation differs greatly from the artist’s I see nothing wrong with that. I think ONE reason a work becomes a long-lasting classic, be it visual art, literature, or a deck of tarot cards, is that it lends itself to many different interpretations and means many different things to different people. I personally like to read what the artist has to say, because I think it adds depth to my understanding. But the more I use a deck the more the meanings become my own. I do think that if someone is teaching a class, and using a particular deck, they have a duty to at least inform the class that their interpretation of the deck is personal and differs from the “book” meanings of the artist. In your second post you seem to be talking about decks that use images that are not universal (or even close to universal) in scope. So without knowing some background it is impossible to discern what the card means. You have to study the artist’s intent. For me these are the most difficult decks to use, because the learning curve is the greatest. There is no way for me to understand them without first becoming a student of history, a particular mythology, animal behavior, H. P. Lovecraft, Voodoo, etc. I love a lot of these decks. The decks may spur me to delve into these things, but the decks based on concepts of which I have no in depth knowledge will probably not become a reading deck for me. Just a study deck. Of course it’s possible that if you master the background material, your own intuition can take precedence. Rose

Khatruman	03 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Rose Khatruman, Your second post seems to pose a different question than your first one. In answer to your first post. There is no way an artist can dictate how an individual sees his work. You’ve already stated that Tarot as a tool for divination started because someone ascribed new meanings that differed from the original intent of the cards. Any given tarot card is a combination of the myth/archetype/concept + the artist’s vision + the perception of the viewer. If the viewer’s interpretation differs greatly from the artist’s I see nothing wrong with that. Hi Rose, I just want to clarify my intention in posing this is to stimulate a discussion, not to propose a viewpoint. If I felt an author can dictate a point of view, I would have made it a yes or no question. There is some dialogue going on between reader and creator, and I agree with you absolutely on the myth/artist/viewer mix that you put so wonderfully. I am a teacher, and as a teacher of English my goal is often to stimulate others to think. Here I am asking people to think about their assumptions on the mix of these elements. In regards to my second question... yes, it is a new question, and it works out of the evolution of this thread. I think threads should grow and change direction. That it is indeed important for them to do so. Therefore, I sought to change direction, and stimulate more conversation, more discussion. I am sorry if you think I was proposing an absolute point of view; I merely wanted to hear yours and others in an area that I find to be very grey, open to interpretation. Thank you for adding to this. I love how you so clearly stated your ideas.

galadrial	03 Apr 2003
That's a good question, and if I only had my Arthurian decks (Hallowquest and Legend) I would say that it was my longtime interest in an knowledge of the Arthurian cycles that allowed for the consistently deep, clear readings I get with them. However, I get just as clear, and if anything even deeper insights from my Templar deck. I'm barely familiar with and not at all interested in the Templar "secrets", and the LWB doesn't shed much light on or even put much emphasis on that aspect anyway. Frankly, I haven't a clue what the artist's perspective or intentions are. Yet the symbols, colors, facial expressions, etc. just resonate in me like a perfect piece of music- impossible to describe, impossible to not respond to. I wonder if the artist himself entirely knew from whence the inspiration for his images came. Perhaps we are both responding to something greater than either of us.

The Who takes ownership? thread was originally posted on 02 Apr 2003 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.