Le Fanu
I don't really see that knowing where the images come from is a problem. I think it's only a problem if you already know the images anyway. Like I really can't deal with the Mona Lisa as the High Priestess wearing a mitre in the da Vinci Tarot.
Many of the images in the Golden I am familiar with but they are not images which have been "overplayed" as it were. The problem I have with the Touchstone is just that. Henry VIII's wives. Anne of Cleves with a bandage on her head (can't remember which card it is). That Danish princess who almost married Henry VIII on the 2 of Swords (with her hands clumsily adjusted). And that 3 of Swords featuring Katherine Howard with her eyes all krazy, like. We know the stories and that might be an advantage for some, but not for me.
I think the images in the Touchstone are much more overdone. I am familiar with both art periods of these decks but it's the Touchstone that jars the most. That's partly (I've said this before lots of times) because the art from the Touchstone came from a period when perspective was much more mastered so the collaging stands out more. One of the charms of the Golden is that the "off" perspective of the collaging actually works in the deck's favour, since it is a produce of the middle ages anyway, before Alberti's treatise on perspective.
If you don't actully know the images already then knowing that it is by Van der Weyden from an altarpiece in Ghent isn't going to spoil anything. I love knowing about the sources. Same with the Victorian Romantic and Bohemian Gothic; both decks wthout familiar images. Once I know, if it's just an image sourcing, it doesn't affect my meanings. Only if I know a story behind it might it change things. I continue to love the Golden.
(Thoughful; I was also confused by the "lion back" but I presume Freddie is talking about the card back, not that relicary (?))
Many of the images in the Golden I am familiar with but they are not images which have been "overplayed" as it were. The problem I have with the Touchstone is just that. Henry VIII's wives. Anne of Cleves with a bandage on her head (can't remember which card it is). That Danish princess who almost married Henry VIII on the 2 of Swords (with her hands clumsily adjusted). And that 3 of Swords featuring Katherine Howard with her eyes all krazy, like. We know the stories and that might be an advantage for some, but not for me.
I think the images in the Touchstone are much more overdone. I am familiar with both art periods of these decks but it's the Touchstone that jars the most. That's partly (I've said this before lots of times) because the art from the Touchstone came from a period when perspective was much more mastered so the collaging stands out more. One of the charms of the Golden is that the "off" perspective of the collaging actually works in the deck's favour, since it is a produce of the middle ages anyway, before Alberti's treatise on perspective.
If you don't actully know the images already then knowing that it is by Van der Weyden from an altarpiece in Ghent isn't going to spoil anything. I love knowing about the sources. Same with the Victorian Romantic and Bohemian Gothic; both decks wthout familiar images. Once I know, if it's just an image sourcing, it doesn't affect my meanings. Only if I know a story behind it might it change things. I continue to love the Golden.
(Thoughful; I was also confused by the "lion back" but I presume Freddie is talking about the card back, not that relicary (?))
