Modern Tarot - Modern shame

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 19 Aug 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

matfav	19 Aug 2003
I was at a psychic fair where I came across some modern tarot cards. They seemed anything but Tarot. A lot of the archetypes were not adhered to, the sacred meanings ignored. The deep metaphysical meanings and teachings lost. What a tragedy !!! Just because they are cards does not make them Tarot. Even if they are marked tarot. IS this the legacy of modernisation ? IS Tarot lost forever with the ignorance of a society that never learns from the past?

Kiama	19 Aug 2003
Just out of curiosity, what deck did you see? I do know of a few decks out tehre which are actually oracle decks, but call themselves Tarot, though the definition of what consitutes a Tarot deck changes from person to person. My idea of what Tarot is would probably include alot more decks that some people, since I am fairly borad when it comes to such things... To me, even the Deva Tarot is a Tarot deck, despite having 5 Minor Arcana suits (The fifth suit can be taken out, so it's still a Tarot deck in my opinion.) This could be an interesting topic of discussion... How far do we go in reinterpreting Tarot before we geing to lose some of 'what Tarot is?' How far do we go before the deck begins to lose the meaning of Tarot and the meanings of the cards? Kiama

Umbrae	19 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by matfav A lot of the archetypes were not adhered to, the sacred meanings ignored. The deep metaphysical meanings and teachings lost. What a tragedy !!! I agree! I think the same thing every time I see a Rider – Waite – Colman Smith, or a Thoth. Like what’s with the switching of Strength and Justice!?!

catlin	19 Aug 2003
Well I apply rather strict rules to what is a tarot deck: 22 majors, 56 Minors, 4 suits (ok, I still accept the Deva Tarot as tarot same reason as Kiama) or at least 22 Majors), everything ranging from 23 to xx cards is no tarot (at least for me) but divination cards. It drives me mad when ppl refer to Lenormand or gypsy cards as tarot.

Diana	19 Aug 2003
matfav: Commercialism and quick-gain is behind most of the Tarot publishers today. They need to get out a a few dozen new Tarot decks every year, they have to compete with other publishers. They have to make quick money. Any new fad will be good enough. If people like Barbie dolls, well along will come a Barbie Doll Tarot. If people are into Witchcraft, then along comes a Witchcraft Tarot. If people are into the Matrix, well they'll bring out a Matrix Tarot. I think some publishers just hand over their "ideas" to artists who do not necessarily know much about Tarot. They sort of hand them over a book or two, and tell them to Clone one of the more successful decks into the theme of the day. But you know what? The sacred Tarot will never die. Because it is a gift from the "gods". The looters can try all they can. But they will not win. Did Hollywood kill the seventh art? No... but they do try. But real cinema lives on. Now it is up to the people.... What do we want? MacDonalds Hamburgers? Or real Hamburgers? Real home-made pizza? Or frozen micro-waved pizza? Most people today choose MacDonalds and micro-waved pizza (beurk!!!). No-one is forcing them. The choice is theirs. Don't be too sad. Okay? And please get yourself a Tarot of Marseilles.

matfav	20 Aug 2003
The deck was a modernisation of tarot images except all feminine. Even so, they were badly done. Death and the Devil were interchanged and the look of the images kinda looked like women swimming in vomit. I can't recall the name of the deck but it definitely did not appeal. Also, there was no metaphysical depth to it. Just someone making a fast dollar I suppose.

MystiqueMoonlight	20 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae I agree! I think the same thing every time I see a Rider – Waite – Colman Smith, or a Thoth. Like what’s with the switching of Strength and Justice!?! Odd, I think the same thing whenever I see a Marseilles type deck (or RW/Thoth clone), what's with the numerical switch and where are the rest of the cards??? :smoker:

Diana	20 Aug 2003
Mystique Moonlight: It's not so odd after all. Now, I'm not talking about you here, because I've read your posts and I know you're knowledgeable about Tarot. But there are people who are under the impression (not their fault, I'm not throwing stones) who think that Mr. Waite invented Tarot.

MystiqueMoonlight	20 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana Mystique Moonlight: It's not so odd after all. Now, I'm not talking about you here, because I've read your posts and I know you're knowledgeable about Tarot. But there are people who are under the impression (not their fault, I'm not throwing stones) who think that Mr. Waite invented Tarot. :) i think I structured my sentence incorrectly. What I mean to say is I think the same thing as Umbrae whenever I see a Marseilles, RW or Thoth type Tarot deck. :)

Minderwiz	20 Aug 2003
Kiama's point about using a stripped down Deva deck as a true Tarot deck led to one of those idle leaps of imagination. If you stripped out the Major Arcana and the Pages (or Princesses or Whatevers) you could play Bridge with a Tarot deck - a Grand Slam in Swords has a real ring to it - though saying Wands are trumps or such like does'nt quite fit in when you've taken all the MA out. :) I agree with much of the above - 22 Majors more or less following the 'traditional' cards and order, and 56 Minors in 4 suits, reflecting the four elements. Two other criteria - if you are going to use it for divination then it should be inspirational (which I agree is highly subjective) and whether it is for divination or not, the artwork should be aesthetically pleasing (again subjective). Oh I nearly forgot - you should also be able to play Trappola, Tarocchi or Tarock with it. :)

Moongold	20 Aug 2003
I’m far from expert on the history of Tarot but am certainly getting more interested. I do have a sense though that Tarot has changed many times since it was first known. There is a discussion going on in another thread not far from here, I suspect, about the replacement of High Priestess and Hierophant with Juno and Jupiter a few centuries ago. And then the Papesse became the High Priestess at some stage. I think it is quite important for tarot to be culturally relevant, The Marseilles decks are beautiful but they are white European and catholic/Christian. How does that make them relevant to a Vietnamese born Australian or to an Afghan born American? Or even to someone like me? What makes tarot Tarot? Is it having 78 cards in a certain configuration, symbolizing certain archetypes? This is very simplistic, I know. But if it is that, what does it matter if the symbols are different, even (god forgive us) in Barbie images? We might consider it poor taste and not buy it but it still could be Tarot. I feel just as bad when I hear Dvorak played in television ads. The real point is, as Kiama suggested, what makes tarot Tarot? Now, I’m just going out to get my Simpsons version of tarot from K Mart’s all nighter. They are selling it with freeze dried McDonald's cheese burgers on special :D.

The Modern Tarot - Modern shame thread was originally posted on 19 Aug 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.