Devil's Advocate
As someone who has had the good fortune to have access to a larger body of Mr. Jensen's work (through his well-regarded former publication,
Manteia, as well as some of his other works such as
The Prophetic Cards, etc.), I'd like to offer a different perspective of his
Tarot Passages review. I cannot speak on Mr. Jensen's behalf, of course, so the observations made herein should be clearly understood to be my personal interpretation of his comments.
While the review is clearly critical of some aspects of Kat's deck, I don't think it is necessarily fair to characterize his intent as motivated by "animosity" or any sort of "vendetta." Without a statement from either Kat or Mr. Jensen to the contrary, I would find it difficult to believe in any pre-existing "conflicts" between the two of them that would provide Mr. Jensen with any incentive to turn a review into an intentional personal attack. In reading many of his other reviews, it is clear that Mr. Jensen is nothing if not forthright. He studies, he ponders -- and he makes his assessment. If he finds a tarot to be "wanting" in some fashion, he says so, and does not mince words. There are many decks which have fared far worse, and drawn much harsher criticism in his reviews, than the "shortcomings" he has seen fit to point out in his assessment of
The Golden Tarot.
Therefore, I would suggest that there is simply a fundamental point of disagreement between those who may ascribe to Mr. Jensen's view, and those here on Aeclectic who appreciate the merits of Kat's work. That point lies in how one would answer the question "what can -- and should -- tarot be?" Although it is admittedly a bit of an oversimplification, for purposes of the present discussion, I think the manner in which students of tarot might answer that question can be divided into two (very) broad categories:
- View #1: Tarot is a valid body of tradition, and its usefulness is easily compromised or devalued through reworkings/reinterpretations that add nothing of real substance to the discipline.
- View #2: Tarot is reflection of the human psyche, and can and should naturally evolve in order to capture a broadening world view as well as changing approaches to understanding universal truths.
In fact, many of us might probably fall on a spectrum somewhere between these two viewpoints. But the argument I am trying to make is this: the closer one is on the spectrum to view #1, the more likely one is to agree with Mr. Jensen. The more one ascribes to view #2, the more likely one is to disagree with him.
It should be reiterated here that Mr. Jensen clearly agrees with those of us here who find the deck attractive. And he obviously finds value in it at some level, as he makes the following statement regarding the
Golden Tarot's selling price: "Twice as much would still be reasonable." The
primary thrust of his critique really seems to lie in one brief sentence: "It is not useful."
Many, of course, would strongly disagree with this statement, and for good reason. Speaking from the perspective as someone whose job gives me the occasional opportunity to address the problem of finding the right deck "match" for a given reader or student, it is clear that the RWS deck -- no matter how laudably venerable it is -- is not for everyone. There are those who find the early 20th century illustration style (and period limitations of the printing process that constrained it) to be too "quaint" to connect with. Some customers have even told me flat-out that they find the RWS to be "ugly." Can we say, then, that the RWS deck is useful to these people? Is it wrong to "redress" these images, so long as the tradition and substance of the original symbolism remains? Or does an emphasis on "beauty" too often overshadow substance and meaningful tradition?
I pose the above questions rhetorically; I do not propose to make a judgement one way or the other. But I must admit that I can see some level of merit in both views. Tradition for tradition's sake alone serves no good purpose. But capricious tinkering, or "redressing," of a valid tradition introduces the risk of injecting invalid elements into a solid, time-tested system. As always, the key to assessing whether a work such as Kat's is successful probably lies in whether a proper balance can be struck between the traditional and contemporary elements.
As for the deck's artistic merits: once again, I don't actually think Mr. Jensen has made any strong criticisms of
The Golden Tarot in this regard. His statement in regards to "...tarot deck creators or illustrators (I won’t call them "artists")..." is made a sweeping generalization, and not necessarily leveled against Kat's deck in particular. In this regard, I have to concede that Mr. Jensen may have a point: Sturgeon's Law pretty much applies to tarot decks as much as anything else. One can certainly posit that an artistic critique of
The Golden Tarot was implied in this general statement. And yet in the same paragraph, Mr. Jensen continues to on specifically state that "The Golden Tarot is very well done, it takes a great deal of computer experience and training to manipulate with as many as 20 layers in an image, which Ms. Black states there are in the cards." So I do not think it is necessarily fair to conclude with certainty that Mr. Jensen has no appreciation for the training, effort, skill, and ability required to produce a deck such as
The Golden Tarot.
As for judging Mr. Jensen's comments to be hypocritical, with the further assertion that he lacks knowledge of the creative processes: I would have to disagree with such statements. The review is -- as most reviews naturally are -- subjective, to be sure. And the conclusions drawn are at odds with the subjective conclusions of many here on Aeclectic. But that does not make them hypocritical. And my own personal correspondences with Mr. Jensen strongly indicate that he is quite well-informed and knowledgable in the area of the artistic process. To suggest otherwise, I think, misses the real point of his comments, and draws attention away from more valid areas of debate regarding his review. I think it
is fair to characterize Mr. Jensen as somewhat of a "purist," and therein lies the valid crux of the discussion: is creativity for creativity's sake any more or less worthy of a goal than tradition for tradition's sake? The more interesting questions which arise from his article, in my opinion, are those which explore the nature of the elements which allow a "new" approach to tarot imagery to be "useful" approach as well.
-- Jeannette
The Tarot Garden