nisaba
Sir Isaac Newton looks askance at us, in a negatively-exposed line-drawing as he wasn't known to be photogenic, the long, slender fingers of his left hand casually playing with the orbit of Saturn the Teacher. Bottom-right of the image: two transparent keys crossed, looking heraldic, the keys to the structure of the world. Bottom-left: the sun is boiling away, sunspots and flares clearly visible. That being the case, Newton is illuminated such that his light (or his enlightenment) doesn't come from the blistered sun but from somewhere to the top-right of the card, out of view.
The authoratitive nature of the Hierophant is reflected in how "The three laws of Newton" (actually, not his only work) have dominated science for centuries, until very recently. Even now, "Newtonian physics" is functional for most purposes. The Hierophant is resistant to change: he has his sacred books and his inherited tradition and his directly passed down initiatory lineage to preserve and pass on down the line to the next Hierophant. And Newtonian physics is really difficult to deny, also, and almost equally rigid: after all, what on earth would we do if the Law of Gravity were repealed? Float gently to the ceiling and bob along there? (OMG, I'm channelling HG Wells!)
I'm interested in Newton not being portrayed in black and white (that just calls up, in colour-TV-indoctrinated people, a sense of the ancient, a sense of being dated. No, what interests me is that the creators of the deck chose to reverse the colouring of the image, black becoming white and white becoming black. Does this make him dream-like? Does it make him "negative" and in the wrong somehow? Does it simply remove him from the everyday as his laws cannot be removed, and make him more godlike? All I know is that an expression that was obviously posed to make him seem intelligent and serious, comes from trying to freeze his face like that for the artist, and actually gives him a worried and perhaps slightly suspicious look.
Ten years or so ago I stayed up until ridiculous-o'clock at night with my then partner to watch an episode of Startrek, that featured Stephen Hawking, complete with all his hardware. And it *was* Hawking! Apparently it was a great adventure for him - on-set but off-camera, he indicated the warp-drive, and said: "I'm working on that!". His cameo was about the four greatest scientists of all time playing poker together: Einstein, Galileo, Hawking and Newton. From memory, it wasn't Newton that lost his money. I would hate to play cards against any four such intellects - I'd be gone. They're all much better at maths and probabilities than I am. On the other hand, I'd probably rip through a cryptic crossword a lot faster ...
The authoratitive nature of the Hierophant is reflected in how "The three laws of Newton" (actually, not his only work) have dominated science for centuries, until very recently. Even now, "Newtonian physics" is functional for most purposes. The Hierophant is resistant to change: he has his sacred books and his inherited tradition and his directly passed down initiatory lineage to preserve and pass on down the line to the next Hierophant. And Newtonian physics is really difficult to deny, also, and almost equally rigid: after all, what on earth would we do if the Law of Gravity were repealed? Float gently to the ceiling and bob along there? (OMG, I'm channelling HG Wells!)
I'm interested in Newton not being portrayed in black and white (that just calls up, in colour-TV-indoctrinated people, a sense of the ancient, a sense of being dated. No, what interests me is that the creators of the deck chose to reverse the colouring of the image, black becoming white and white becoming black. Does this make him dream-like? Does it make him "negative" and in the wrong somehow? Does it simply remove him from the everyday as his laws cannot be removed, and make him more godlike? All I know is that an expression that was obviously posed to make him seem intelligent and serious, comes from trying to freeze his face like that for the artist, and actually gives him a worried and perhaps slightly suspicious look.
Ten years or so ago I stayed up until ridiculous-o'clock at night with my then partner to watch an episode of Startrek, that featured Stephen Hawking, complete with all his hardware. And it *was* Hawking! Apparently it was a great adventure for him - on-set but off-camera, he indicated the warp-drive, and said: "I'm working on that!". His cameo was about the four greatest scientists of all time playing poker together: Einstein, Galileo, Hawking and Newton. From memory, it wasn't Newton that lost his money. I would hate to play cards against any four such intellects - I'd be gone. They're all much better at maths and probabilities than I am. On the other hand, I'd probably rip through a cryptic crossword a lot faster ...