Scenic or non. What should we call it?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 19 Apr 2005, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Eco74	19 Apr 2005
From what I've learned, there are three main styles a tarot-deck can have. 1) Marseille(s) 2) Rider-Waite-Coleman-Smith 3) Thoth Not having studied the Thoth I don't really know how it is different from the RWCS but I do trust there are differences. The main point to this thread is the difference between scenic and non-scenic pips, RWCS vs. Marseilles. Personally I wound not call any deck "un-illustrated" or even "non-scenic" because there is so much symbology in even the most simple and stylised image. However, I would referr to decks which depict the suit-symbol in the relevant number as "marseilles-style" decks. Like the Spanish tarot, the Crystal tarot, the Old English tarot etc. My question since there are some major discussions on this occationally is; - If we can not call the decks with "non-scenic" (using this word because I belive most of us know it is intended to mean "other than RWCS") pips "marseilles-style" - what should we call them? Are there more varieties than the original historical three? New names we could choose? If so, where do the names come from? How do we determine them? Either way, it's all Tarot for me so whatever conclusion we get to all I'll change is my vocabulary to be sure that the person I speak to understands what I'm talking about. After all, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" and all that... ;)

Kissa	19 Apr 2005
i think no-scenic is quite good. not the ultimate best of, but satisfying indeed. not illustrated is completely wrong, unless you are watching at a blank TdM that is... lol we have this saying in french "il n'y a de pire aveugle que celui qui ne veut voir" which means "only if you don't want to see you shall not see anything". kissa btw, great thread Eco, where did u get the idea from???? lol...

jmd	19 Apr 2005
Perhaps I do not understand what the problem is, but why not call pips depicted non-scenically as 'non-scenic pips'? Or, more appropriately, simply refer to them according to the deck from which they originate: Marseille (if Marseille), or Marseille-like if similar (such as a Schaffhouse deck). It partly will also depend on who one talks to. If to someone who is well-versed with various decks, to talk of Italianate or Spanish pips will instantly say something of its Cup and Sword depictions differing to Marseille ones (as an example), but these will seem simply variations on a theme to those who use scenically depicted decks.

Alta	19 Apr 2005
I am with jmd. Non-scenic seems fine. Even I have observed there are some vast differences between decks with non-scenic pips. Some decks just have the appropriate numbers of symbols and nothing else. Some have flowers and sprials etc such as the Marseille, and jmd's comment that an experienced person could even tell the difference between different traditiions there. And some, like the Old English do have tiny scenes embadded. What would that be? "partly-scenic'?

Fudugazi	19 Apr 2005
I call them non-figurative - like non-figurative art. No less artistic than the figurative art: unless you are of the type that thinks only people are real and can be used symbolically: I would actually argue the opposite - human cannot be used symbolically, only their attributes - the Emperor's Shield, the Charioteers' Horses and Chariot, the Star's urns; or their positions (facing right, left, sitting, running, etc.). The Thoth has non-figurative minor arcana too, but Crowley attributed each one to planets or signs and to positions in the Tree of Life, so if you follow his system it is pretty rigid. It has the benefit of being very systematic and assured. There are other systems. El Gran Tarot Esoterico is based on the Gra Sepher Yetzirah, so the Tree of Life and the Hebrew Letter attrrubtions are vital - yet not particualrly intrusive. I've not found a book about them - so am using Aryeh Kaplan's translation of the Sepher Yetzirah, which, of course, has no mention of Tarot. El Gran Tarot Esoterico (actually a small deck, great for little hands ;)) has lovely non-figurative pip cards, different elemental attributions (e.g. Cups are air); the decks that followed in its footsteps - the Crystal Tarot and the Tarot Balbi (there might be others, I don't know) are delightful and mind-enhancing too. I am learning to read with all these at the moment and enjoying myself hugely. Cerulean wrote a post about the minors following Eudes Picard's meanings (though you can perfectly do without them, I find them interesting to study and sometimes work into a reading if they occur to me and seem relevant). http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=36250&page=3&pp=10&highlight=Eudes+Picard Scroll down to Cerulean. There is also an essay on Spanish decks and their system, here: http://www.tarot.com/about-tarot/library/essays/spanish To me the Marseille and the decks following that system are the most likely to encourage intuition and imagination because they are "stand-alone" - that is, there is no creator behind them them who designed the III of Bâtons to go with Aries or to show the 7 of Swords as a man stealing some swords, or to take a certain place on the Tree of Life. You can make such attributions if you wish - but if so you follow an initiatory path that carries with it the gift of imagination - a personal path. You can use the number-suit system, but then apply your imagination (as you do so well, Eco) to build into the reading the shapes of flowers or the dynamic of a thrusting sword. Now I know some people that don't read the deck creator's books and go on intuition and imagination with RWS-type decks: I have seen some remarkable readings done that way - and of course I also use some decks that have figurative minors and enjoy them. I also love to build in any mythical or historical element that might exist in a figurative scene - I do find it expands my understanding of a card or a group of cards. But to me, the fact that the image shows someone doing something - and only that- with the implements (e.g. a man stealing swords) limits the range of interpretation unless I forget the image and go with number-suit attribution - something I have noticed other people doing - or do some visualisation exercise to make the people on the card do something else. But that is no longer interpretation :)

jmd	19 Apr 2005
Perhaps my understanding of the term 'non-figurative' has been coloured too much by 20th century art, but thought that the term referred precisely to depictions quite abstracted from figure. With such a deck as the Marseille, of course, we have the figure of Batons, of Cups, of Deniers, and of Swords - in addition to the floral depictions.

Fudugazi	19 Apr 2005
jmd wrote: Perhaps my understanding of the term 'non-figurative' has been coloured too much by 20th century art, but thought that the term referred precisely to depictions quite abstracted from figure . I might be wrong - I thought it referred to what was not human figures. You are right, of course there are figures of batons, cups, etc. Stylised but recognisable. Since these pips descend from the Naibis, it may be an idea to find out what islamic artists call such art. I'll ask my Jordanian friend - an arts major - whom I am seeing tomorrow, how such stylised objects are called in Arabic (and ask for a translation!).

Rosanne	19 Apr 2005
I call the Marseilles pips 'Suits' I call RWS and clones pips 'Minors' I call Thoth pips 'Suits'. So if they have scenes and people I call them minors If they don't I call them Suits. I have difficulty with the lushness of Thoth. 'Suits' seems wrong and 'Minors' definitely wrong. I am new to Marseilles and don't use Thoth much. ~Rosanne

Eco74	19 Apr 2005
Well, this is growing into an interesting debate. 'Non-scenic' works for me since there are no actual scenes depicted on the marseilles-style decks (and there I go again using that nono-phrase ;) ). As does Roseannes way of putting it with "minors" and "suits" though in practice the suits are also minors.. I'm very curious to hear what the arabic term for the illustrative style is. I love how we have such diverse sources here on aeclectic. There's always someone who just happends to know someone who knows about something.. :) A little bit like my father and our "former farmhouse" that is now used for storing all manner of things. He "just happens" to have just about anything you'd ever need somewhere, and if he doesn't he could probably make it from the things he does have. It may still be difficult to use the specific terms, especially when telling people new to tarot about the differences. Having "scenic" versus "non-scenic" is simple and direct but then, there are still the "inbetweeners" that have sort-of-scenes drawn in, like the Old English, or the ones with illustrious drawings on the minors/pips though they are not actually scenes per se...

similia	19 Apr 2005
What about cartomancy decks? Could they be un-illustrated? And I think that Thoth like decks need a different term that Marseille-like. :)

Imagemaker	19 Apr 2005
Can I go out on a tangent and say, peopled or non-peopled? Though an RWS 3-swords wouldn't strictly qualify then. So there's a tangent of situational (depicting a particular emotional situation) or non-situational--4 batons in the Marseilles would have meaning, but not depict a "situation." (fumbling in the syntactical dark)

jmd	19 Apr 2005
This probably depends on your concept of 'illustration'. I suppose one could make an analogy with music, in which some have mistakenly called certain cacophonous noise 'music'. Perhaps, similarly, there are certain decks which some use for cartomancy that simply do not have 'illustrations', but rather markings :D

Imagemaker	19 Apr 2005
Quote: 4 batons in the Marseilles would have meaning, but not depict a "situation." Though I realize that some would say a blooming flower or a bud depict situations . . . we've been through these debates before and never come up with something that satisfies all.

The Dreamer	19 Apr 2005
I see the Thoth as somewhere between having scenic and non scenic minors. I could go through and describe each one, and how evocative it is. No human figures, but there are skies and oceans of varying colors; dripping goo, flowing fountains, rays of light; folded leaves, a tree; a castle, a snake; and in the ones which are only swords or wands- the beauty of geometric figures behind. Does the image have to have perspective (a horizon line) to be a scene? Must it have human figures? Must it have recognizable objects? Obviously, no card is "unillustrated" or there would be no picture. Obviously, the wands and swords and cups and disks will be in the picture, or they would not be minors or suits. I think what we're talking about here is abstraction. How much of a picture do we need for something to be recognizable? And what is the "something" which is recognized? The meaning of the card? If the seven of swords' meaning has to do with a person carrying swords away, then what does a seven of swords without a person mean? Are we free to make that up? To me, the meaning of the most nonscenic of Thoth minors is determined by the astrological attributions, combined with the psychological/emotional effect created by the arrangement and the colors, as well as the more esoteric aspects of the symbols and the geometric arrangement. I am not familiar with the Marseilles type decks enough to comment extensively upon them, but from what I have seen, the minors' illustration consists mostly of vines and flowers, sometimes with other small pictures involved- but they seem to be in the same style and color scheme across the board, so that makes them different from the effect which is created by the variation in the Thoth minors. I don't see how they "depict" anything other than more vines and flowers. It could be said that even a simple point or line is a figure. It depends upon the meaning which we attribute to it. Is there such a thing as "intrinsic meaning"? Maybe meaning comes down to: 1, tradition; 2, recognizability; 3, regularity (rhythm or harmony in music, realism or geometry in drawing); and, above all, what effect is evoked in the observer. The term for Thoth minors? "Psychologically evocative partially representative colorful projective geometric";) For RWS- "Peopled" For Marseilles- "Non representational illustrative":)

Sulis	19 Apr 2005
I remember someone on Aeclectic years ago coining the phrase 'moody minors' for partly illustrated pips like Thoth or Gill. I think it could have been jmd or Major Tom but I could be wrong. Love Sulis xx

Fudugazi	19 Apr 2005
The Dreamer wrote: I am not familiar with the Marsailles type decks enough to comment extensively upon them, but from what I have seen, the minors' illustration consists mostly of vines and flowers, sometimes with other small pictures involved- but they seem to be in the same style and color scheme across the board, so that makes them different from the effect which is created by the variation in the thoth minors. I don't see how they "depict" anything other than more vines and flowers. But they are all so different! What you are saying is like going into someone's garden and not seeing the difference between roses, tulips, palms and honeysuckle vines. Think of the Aces, too, or that amazing sinuous II de Deniers. The different colours - red swords, or blue - the fish on the II de Coupes or the beehive bud on the V de Coupes. The vesica pisces of the swords. Geometrically they are also fascinating - perfect, in fact. Read one of Eco's or firemaiden's readings with the Marseille if you think the suits are not representational. I do agree about the beauty of the Thoth suits; the astrological attributions I find interesting but debatable.

The Dreamer	19 Apr 2005
Ah. As I said, I'm not familiar enough with the Marseilles to comment much on them. If there are variations in color, that would add meaning. The fish, etc. would add meaning. And, I wonder quite a bit about whether geometry and mathematics might be the one thing that really has "meaning" outside of a human perspective- but we are still looking through a human perspective. Of course the astrological attributions are debatable. So is the attribution of any meaning to anything at all. I choose to use them, and not debate them (the astrological attributions.) The ambiguity which surrounds the interpretation of the peopled scenes of the RWS is very debatable as well. And as to the interpretation of the Marseilles minors- I suppose it's mostly about the number and the tradition, unless I'm missing something.

Fudugazi	19 Apr 2005
Well, as I said, have a look at some readings done with the Marseille. Number and Suit do come into it, geometry as well (wonderful stuff, geometry - I think you appreciate it in the Thoth as well) - but much more. Very few people use the traditional cartomancy meanings except for fun - "you will meet a young woman who will fleece you" (come to think of it, it might not be bad advice sometimes!!!) Eco and firemaiden have very imaginative - as well as insightful - ways of interpreting the Suits.

Eco74	19 Apr 2005
I just keep thinking about this... How about "pips" versus "scenic minors". Pips is a neutral enough term isn't it? I like "moody minors" aswell but that's hardly a soothing way of introducing them to pip-beginners. ;)

Fudugazi	19 Apr 2005
To quote Diana - "pips are found in apples, not in Tarot". I occasionally use the word as a shorthand but think it inappropriate. I prefer Rosanne's more dignified Suits. For those less dignified cards, one could say "Birthday Suit" :D

Eco74	19 Apr 2005
So; RWCS - Scenic minors Thoth - Moody minors TdeM - Suited minors :D

Lee	19 Apr 2005
Sulis wrote: I remember someone on Aeclectic years ago coining the phrase 'moody minors' for partly illustrated pips like Thoth or Gill. I think it could have been jmd or Major Tom but I could be wrong. It was me. :) -- Lee

Sulis	19 Apr 2005
Of course it was you Lee - very sorry :) At least I got the sex right ;) Love Sulis xx

Moonbow*	19 Apr 2005
off topic.... apologies. (nice to see you Lee) :) The Marseilles pips are illustrated, of course, so I personally don't like them to be called un-illustrated (although I may even have said that myself in my early stages of learning about the Marseilles deck). I much prefer to call them non-scenic because they do not depict a scene. Decks such as Crystal, do depict a scene, all be it abstract. Decks with stacked suit implements, I prefer to call just pips. Much of this is down to personal preference, but I think once some knowledge of the Marseilles deck is gained it is difficult to see decks such as the Crystal as Marseilles-type.

Little Baron	19 Apr 2005
Some interesting ideas already. The problem encountered and discussed in the thread that provoked this one, in my opinion, is that the 'Marseille' does fit into the group of 'un-scenic minors' ... however, decks like the 'Adrian' and 'Cachet', even though they do not have scenic-minors, do not fit into the 'Marseille' tradition. The Marseille, aside from it's unscenic minors, have many other attributes that make it a Marseille - these appear in the Majors, as well as the minor cards. Maybe the term 'Marseille minors' is good enough to describe ones that use the floral arrangements following the same pattern ... and 'Thoth minors' is a term that would suit decks that closely resemble the images there. For other decks that show little other than an amount of cups and swords, for example, could be called simply 'un-scenic minors', with no refrence to a said tradition. LB

IDN	19 Apr 2005
How about the Haindl minors??? Regards, Ian

stella01904	19 Apr 2005
similia wrote: What about cartomancy decks? Could they be un-illustrated? :) MM ~ Yes - it's called "Playing Cards". Sorry, couldn't resist! :D BB, Stella

Little Baron	19 Apr 2005
Hi IDN I know little about the Haindl so I should really keep my mouth shut, lol, but I suppose they could go under the 'moody minors' tag. Maybe you can help me out - are the cards 'Thoth' inspired? From my brief knowledge of the deck, I thought they were a deck that didn't fit into either the RWS or Thoth tradition. I suppose scenic or semi-scenic minors could be a label for the Haindl. I remember there being scenes on some of the cards; or landscapes, at least. I would say that to be Thoth-minors, Marseille-minors or RWS-minors, they would have to follow the tradition very closely. For example, the 'Fournier' has Marseille minors and the 'Morgan Greer' has RWS minors. The Phantasmagoric Theatre has 'scenic minors' as they are illustrated with a scene, but follow neither of the above traditions. The 'Adrian', as I mentioned earlier, has non-scenic minors, but not ones that follow the Marseille pattern. Even though the 'Rohrig' closely follows the Thoth, I would say that it has minors that are scenic illustrations, whereas the Thoth's minors are a little more abstract. Therefore, even though the 'Rohrig' is often labeled as a Thoth-clone, due to it's titling and keywords, I would say that it doesn't follow the tradition visually through its suits. Does all of this make sense, lol. LB

The Dreamer	19 Apr 2005
Yes, they're difficult to categorize. Though they all have a background painting which is different, some of them have backgrounds with very little going on. Some have backgrounds which reflect variations in the season. Two have faces in the backgrounds. Some have water, a tear, bubbles, or blood in the background. In some the swords are broken. Some show meaningful rock formations (the one that is like a brain, and the one which is like a church.) Some have animals (unicorn, elephant, peacock, bat/bird) as symbols. Probably closer to the Thoth than anything else, in that it has keywords and is mostly without human figures and evokes feelings or psychological states or symbols more than situations; but the color scheme is so uniform that it does not evoke in the same way that the Thoth does, and does not have the geometrically arranged beauty going on. I don't really feel the need to categorize it.

Eco74	19 Apr 2005
Moonbow* wrote: Much of this is down to personal preference, but I think once some knowledge of the Marseilles deck is gained it is difficult to see decks such as the Crystal as Marseilles-type. Which is what made me think about it. Well, that and that other thread where the terminology was starting to get battered about.. *s* What of those who are not well versed with the Marseille-style, or (like me) have never really taken a close look at a Toth-type deck knowing its a Toth-type deck. I've never felt very drawn to the Toth artwork, except when I saw images of the snipped ones (but that's a different thread altogether) and so I've never gotten familiar with it. After all it would be difficult for someone to understand the phrase "toth-ish" if they are not familiar with the toth.. I do see a good pattern there, but also feel that those who are just beginners should not have to feel overwhelmed with the sheer amount of styles of decks. The amount of various decks is intimidating enough as is..

Little Baron	19 Apr 2005
When writing my last reply, the Thoth was the hardest one to pin down, I admit Eco. The scenes in the RWS are so specific that if characters within a deck (such as the Universal Tarot's, the Morgan Greer) are doing those same things shown pictorally, you can describe them as a clone and say they have RWS minors - the Buckland Romani is another one, stated in the accompanying book, that follows Waite's tradition. The Thoth has so many different kind of images, so in a lot of decks, only a few comparisons can be made - 'I see the Thoth 'Fool' in the same card from the 'Light and Shadow' but there are also many cards in there that follow the RWS minors - the '8 of Cups', '10 of Swords' and '9 of Swords' spring to mind. Contrastingly, the courts folow the titling of the Thoth - Prince, Princess, Queen and Knight (I have got that right, havn't I). So this deck is a little like a mixture. The deck that follows the Thoth quite tightly (even though it has its own twists throughout) and that I would say has 'Thoth-minors' would be the 'Cosmic Tribe'. LB (Gonna have to think some more - a real can of worms has been opened up here ... an interesting one though)

Clau	19 Apr 2005
Eco74 wrote: So; RWCS - Scenic minors Thoth - Moody minors TdeM - Suited minors :D To me, or IMHO (LOL) this is the best way to summarize the discussion. Plus, I do hate it when minor arcana are called Pips. Love, Clau

Fudugazi	19 Apr 2005
Is there any need to call them anything at all? I just call all Tarot minors Minor Arcana or Suits or sometimes - thought I don't like the term - pips. Why make a distinction to the point of calling something that is perfect in its way a "non" something? Everyone is coming up with poetic and well-loved descriptions for their favourite types of Minor Arcana. It seems categorisation is a betrayal, in this instance. Let it be. A good deck will have perfect Minor Arcana. :)

Little Baron	19 Apr 2005
You are right Helvetica ... the reason this thread popped up (or one of them) was when people were trying to clarify what the minors of a certain deck were like. One member said that they were Marseille-styled, whereas others said they did not resemble the Marseille minors. The discussion continued regarding ways of describing different minor arcana, in relation to the traditions of RWS, Thoth and Marseille. If a decks minors did not adhere to those patterns, we were wondering what would they be called. LB

Fudugazi	19 Apr 2005
LittleBuddha wrote: If a decks minors did not adhere to those patterns, we were wondering what would they be called. Well, this thread seems to have thrown up some pretty eloquent descriptions - far better than unrepresentative keywords! :)

jumptothemoonyea	19 Apr 2005
If you look at art through the history, you may notice the 4 main categories of art styles: abstract realistic ornamental - symmetry, repeating pattern non-ornamental - asymmetry, irregular structure anything art is intersection of the above four - as a reflection of time, place, culture - combination of some degree of each of them Art of tarot images is part of this system, each deck representing it's time, place, culture - most of the time a mixture of the four above As Tarot is more than just art or images, our aspiration + inspiration works with any combination of the above does it matter what to call them - the real essence of the idea does not have a wording description

jmd	20 Apr 2005
In so many ways, what we call them is so much less important than what the images actually depict. Yet the name itself leads to sometimes having inaccurate consequences. For example, if anyone claims that a deck that has as its principal depiction the number of implements on its pips as therefore being 'Marseille-style' - without in any manner its Atouts (Major Arcana), its courts, or indeed the manner in which the pips themselves are depicted being in the Marseille style, then it means no more than putting together disparate decks (some of which may even not be proper Tarot, never mind Marseille) into a misfit category. I suppose, by analogy, all swimming animals are fish (whether the be otters, sharks, seahorses, whales, octopus or penguins). What we understand by 'fish' is therefore also important in determining what is and what is not a fish. Of course anyone may use the term in any manner they wish, and include any of the above in their usage - it just won't be, however, an accurate representation of the term. Why do I mention this in this context? I have only just read the thread that supposedly gave rise to this one, and just fail to see how a deck that has deviated so much in so many ways from a Marseille can even be remotely called 'Marseille-style'. In some way, the WCS is as 'Marseille-style' as also any and all decks that claim the appellation (with or without sufficient reason) of 'tarot'. I also agree with the view that one need not use a negative ('non-scenic') in its description. This is, however, more a reflection that many still mainly use decks with scenic illustrations added to the pips. On the Continent of Europe, it may easily be mentioned of Tarot as simply Tarot - and those using scenically depicted pips would be the ones needing to specific this. Perhaps, then, we have: [indent]Marseille-style decks (such as the Dodal, the Conver, the Hadar, etc.); other styled decks with more standard-type pips; and scenically depicted pips, of which some are taken after teh WCS.[/indent]

Eco74	20 Apr 2005
jumptothemoonyea wrote: does it matter what to call them - the real essence of the idea does not have a wording description Well, yes. I argue that it does matter what we call them. This is a forum for discussions regarding tarot, and the written word is our only way of communicating with eachother. (Unless friendships are moved beyond this and into real life.) In discussing certain topics, it helps if the participants agree on certain basic terms and on the meaning of certain words since the discussion will otherwise deviate into "what does that mean" and "what do you mean by that" taking away the attention from the topic the discussion started with. As was taking place in the thread that partly originated this thread. When more time is spent discussing what the question really means than actually looking at the topic, taking anything away from the discussion gets difficult and answers may never be found. While if a choice of words is used that is understood by most to have a certain meaning, the question will be the focus of the discussion and things will be learned. And all the while I still feel that it's all Tarot to me, "a rose by any other name" and all.. For my own sake I'm quite happy to just call them minors, but since there are such different styles, and since there are ever so many decks out there and I don't have them all it helps sometimes to have a phrase by which a certain style of minors is recognisable so that one can understand and help others understand what style a deck has by a written description about it rather than finding scans, buying the deck or breaking in to a collectors home to get a first hand look. ;) Not that I don't look for scans anyway when the text makes me interested in a deck.. :D

Little Baron	20 Apr 2005
Yes, Eco, I agree. I think the point of this discussion is not about being 'picky' in our describing and giving different minors names - it is about giving a correct description for the use and understanding of others - this would be important to newer readers, who may get mislead by information that is not completely correct. If someone new to the tarot said to me, 'My friend is offering me the Tarot Art Nouveau and I am only used to the RWS usage of 'illustrated' minors ... does it follow that?' and I replied 'Yes ... all the minors are illustrated', then I would be misleading them with information that wasn't entirely 'correct', since all of the cards have characters and pictures, but do not follow the RWS images. Similarly, when I began my journey with the Marseille and knew nothing about the differences between it, it's brothers and sisters and all the other decks out there that have non-scenic pips, if someone had said to me, 'Tavaglione's Stairs of Gold' or 'Pagan 2000' is Marseille-styled, then I could have picked up a deck that would have been little use had I wanted to join study groups here. I think it is more to do with how we communicate about a deck so that others on the forum and elswhere know exactly, in a few simple words, what we are getting at. Best, LB

Fudugazi	20 Apr 2005
If finding a single expression for something as complex as varieties of Minor Arcana is important to some, then I would suggest this: Rather than calling the perfect Minor Arcana of the Marseille, the Thoth, the Crystal, the Haindl, etc. "non" something (whatever), as though there was something missing from them, then we should go back to the base of all Minor Arcana, which are the implements they represent (and, increasingly, the elements). Anything over and above the number and suit is an add-on (whether it be a simple heart that is pierced by the three swords of the RWS 3 of Swords, or a whole elaborate scene involving an otter chasing a fish and a mourning figure of the DruidCraft 5 of Cups). Therefore, instead of dividing them into scenic/non-scenic - an artificial concept, as we have seen there are many variations in between - the correct terms, if one needs to be so reductive, which I maintain we do not, would be: Minor Arcana, and Minor Arcana with scenic add-on.

Little Baron	20 Apr 2005
I like this Helvetica ... didn't really consider that before. It does seem as though we are saying a certain kind of arcana is limited in some way, due to what has been added in other decks.There is nothing lacking in the Marseille minors, as an example. Without being too suggestive, I can't help thinking of certain decks wearing 'strap on's' now, lol. LB

Fudugazi	20 Apr 2005
LittleBuddha wrote: Without being too suggestive, I can't help thinking of certain decks wearing 'strap on's' now, lol. :D Or this: Marseille is the everyman deck, in working clothes - RWS with its scenic add-ons is all dressed up for a ball, with fancy limmos;) For myself, my mood will dictate if I want to go to a ball. But everyman is always a fall-back.

jumptothemoonyea	20 Apr 2005
Eco74 wrote: jumptothemoonyea wrote: does it matter what to call them - the real essence of the idea does not have a wording description Well, yes. I argue that it does matter what we call them. you are of course right Eco74, I am taking back my rush statement. they'll stop matter when telepathy will become common language :D for now we can call them: geometrically realistic geometrically abstract realistically geometric abstractly geometric :)

Fudugazi	20 Apr 2005
jumptothemoonyea wrote: for now we can call them: geometrically realistic geometrically abstract realistically geometric abstractly geometric I'll never remember all that :( What about those that are curvaceously unrealistic (but look like teddy bears)?

Eco74	20 Apr 2005
I still like the "moody minors". (Thankyou for thatone Lee. :) ) Here's another list of suggestions. Marseille - Suited Minors - Because the suit is depicted as the main theme in the image, however further illustrated it is with flowers et all. RWCS - Scenic Minors - Scenes are used to give an example of what the card means. The scenes are more or less staged and sometimes are more abstract, but still seem propped and staged enough to be depicting a specific scene or event. Thoth (and other inbetweeners) - Moody Minors - Along with the suit, a mood is indicated by the choice of colors in the background or by the choice of partial scenery that is included. Ofcourse this is still exactly how I summarised it earlier, just not with the motivations. Been thinking about it see... :D

jumptothemoonyea	20 Apr 2005
Helvetica wrote: jumptothemoonyea wrote: for now we can call them: geometrically realistic geometrically abstract realistically geometric abstractly geometric I'll never remember all that What about those that are curvaceously unrealistic (but look like teddy bears)? ahhh, you right, forgot those, updating the list: geometrically realistic geometrically abstract realistically geometric abstractly geometric curvaceously unrealistic curvaceously realistic realistically teddy bearish .... .... as there are 256 combinations of the above, please compile the list at your leisure :D

The Scenic or non. What should we call it? thread was originally posted on 19 Apr 2005 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.