Brown Dots On Ancient Tarots Of Bologna

thinbuddha said:

I would argue that it is very unlikely that the same artist who carved the wood blocks would be the same person who colored all the cards. Even back in in the day before the assembly line, there would have been a division of labor.

Your idea about the spots being a negative side effect of the stenciling process is interesting. I still think that the spots are intended by the colorist.

Click to expand...

Hullo thinbuddha.

I know it does sound like it, but I did not mean to say that one artist produced the cards. But the artist who designed the image would have directed the craftsmen that produced the finished product, and I meant to say that I don't believe he would have directed them to apply blobs of brown as decoration. The colorists did not improvise on their own. Notice how all of the elements of the final image are included in the black key block. (Except for these spots.)

To apply the color, several prints of the black key block are made. (One for each desired color.) Then, using the black line image as a guide, the holes are cut in the paper wherever you want the particular color to appear. Then the sheet is varnished for durability. Then it is used to apply its particular color with a short bristle stencil brush.

Abrac said:

I'm partial to the idea that a previous owner of the original deck put them there after they left the factory. Some of the cards don't have any dots at all.....

Click to expand...

Hullo Abrac.

There are several old decks around that have these spots, so I don't buy the "eccentric card owner" theory. Notably, I've seen several Minchiates.

Not every card needs to have adhesive on it. A sheet would have about 10 or 12 cards on it, and you might only need to apply the stickum in 3 or 4 places. Perhaps in difficult areas.

Note how particularly neat the coloring is on the first example. Other methods of stenciling result in more color-outside-the-lines effect.

Abrac said:

This doesn't appear to be random as you would expect if they were simply there to hold the stencils in place. And there are so many of them. Why would someone use 10 drops when 3 or 4 would do? It looks like someone did it intentionally with something in mind that only they will probably ever know.

Click to expand...

I don't know how many dots of stickum were required. Maybe 3 or 4 weren't enough. Maybe it was just sticky wax? I'd use a few squirts of spray mount, and let it dry to tack, but they didn't have that.

OnePotato said:

Hullo Abrac.

There are several old decks around that have these spots, so I don't buy the "eccentric card owner" theory. Notably, I've seen several Minchiates.

Click to expand...

True, that's a good point.

I don't buy this stencil thing. If you already have black key lines to color within why go to the extra work to cut a stencil? Also given the fairly sloppy registration evident, the stencil idea would be little improvement in merely 'coloring outside the lines'. Besides if a stencil were used and it was not laid perfectly over the keylines the color that appeared "outside the lines" would all be outside the lines in the same direction depending which side the stenicil was "off" on. On these cards the misregistration occurs all around the keylines in any given color. Unless of course the stencil holes were cut very raggedly- but then what would be the point of a stencil?
I say all the colors were hand applied in the same way a kid paints in a paint book or that each color was a seperate woodblock, sloppily registered. It would have been very difficult to register several colors on the sorts of wooden presses used at the time, so I really think they were all hand colored with a brush on one color black prints that were made with a woodblock- probably less than a dozen at a time. If a large sheet of these were made it would require several woodblocks or a pass through the press for each impression.
There is also no evidence that the person who designed the cards is the same person who carved the blocks. I print every day from cuts that were made a hundred years ago. They were engraved by a different person than the one who drew the artwork.

Well, Flournoy uses stencils as they once did--it's clearly much faster than "painting" within the lines free-hand for this "assembly-line" type work.....Flournoy shows the process on his website.

blackairplane said:

I don't buy this stencil thing. .

Click to expand...

When I was in France I watched a demonstration of this stencil technique. It seems very likely to me that this would have been used for coloring tarot cards.

Wow. I just clicked on this thread but feel free to contradict me as I'm no expert.
I looked at the brown spots and immediately smiled to myself as I was reminded of how I used to add to illustrations in my books as a kid, dabbing an overused marker all over the place.
And here everyone's having such an interesting discussion about auras and value and colorists...wow. I've learned a lot. Thanks! This is fascinating stuff.

Here are a couple of back designs of the type we have been discussing. I found them in Kaplan, Vol. 2., pg. 295. They are from the collection of the Sforza castle.

THE WORLD

"The five of cups has a back design of a symmetrical scroll design above a panel inscribed AL MONDO, the logo of a card maker of Bologna who worked in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century."

THE LION

"The back design features a flower, perhaps a poppy, and a panel inscribed AL LEONE, probably indicating a Bolognese or Milanese cardmaker of the eighteenth century. Bolognese cardmakers of the time frequently included such panels on their back designs, but Milanese cardmakers may have also used such labels."

I hate to revive an old debate, but doesn't the deck (referenced as "Sicily, Antonio Monasta, probably 17th century" on this page) pretty much settle things once and for all? I mean clearly the brown markings (including the familiar brown dots) found here are intentional?

Right. I think the most plausible explanation is from OnePotato, in posts 33 & 41.

Debra said:

Right. I think the most plausible explanation is from OnePotato, in posts 33 & 41.

Click to expand...

OnePotato said:

....I would suggest that they may be stains caused by spots of glue, or perhaps wax, that were used to temporarily keep the stencil firmly in position while the color was applied. Even if the glue or wax was cleaned away, the residue could have caused the paper to brown with age. Perhaps not everyone used this method, so the "decorative spots" are not always there.

Click to expand...

No no no.... This is exactly the sort of theory that I wanted to put to rest!

What I am saying is that what you see is decorative coloring put there intentionally by a shop artist. If you look at the brown coloring on this new example, much of it follows the design of the cards, and in no way could be suggested to be a random application of stencil glue or foxing damage as had previously been argued. Rather, it is clearly put there intentionally as a decorative element. Look at the 2 swords, for example. The brown is clearly there to decorate the swords in a complementary way (one has a brown blade, the other has a brown hilt). I think that most of the cards presented from this deck clearly show that it is a design element. We can argue about whether or not it was a good choice, but I think that it is pretty clear that some artist did it intentionally, and NOT as a by-product of the production process. I would carry over the argument to both decks....