Faceless art -- spawned in slime?

About faceless art... I like it.
I dont care if someone thinks it has no soul. Thats not true.

The emotions are in the colours selected, in the forms, in the symbols, in the way they are blended. Thats the soul, it resides in each trace. Each card has its own soul. A face can look much more empty when is portrayed witha a dead expression and i've seen this a lot of times.
But those drawings are so alive... why they need more faces? Being faceless they have some kind of universalism and a timeless sense. This sensation is very hard to achieve when you try to personalize the character with an specific face.
Anyway we find both on this deck.

The ilustrations in the Thoth are probably my favourites on tarot all the time. And I love the art from Frieda Harris.
So many times the problem is not on the art, but on the eye of who is looking.

About that Crowley self-portrait... i was laughing both at the portrait and what you have said. And for the signature... im wondering what a graphologist would tell about that...

firemaiden said:

You are going to have to work to convince me that the eyes of Horus, Ra, and Shiva are different eyes...


MP uses an eye in the pool of water in the Moon card...

Click to expand...

Eyes are just eyes. A symbol for the truth and clarity. No matter which god the eye belongs too.

Aye.........I agree

Blessings

Inana said:

About faceless art... I like it.
I dont care if someone thinks it has no soul.

Click to expand...

i rather like it too.

to me, alot of what Lady Freida is trying to do is to simulate the archaic style of art common in what she percieved the relevant period of Egyptian art to be.
in that period, the human form was very stiff and invariably 'eyeless'.

It's also very much in the manner of the vorticist painting of Wyndham Lewis and allied work [Gaudier's hieratic head of Pound, etc], which tended towards the depersonalised and superhuman.

Ah very interesting! So there is an aspect of the de-personalisation which brings in the "super-human". I suppose it does, a bit in this deck.

I like Lady Frieda's faceless art. But then, I love abstract art. I suppose some people just need/want everything spelled out for them; however, I fail to see why he needed to be so vicious about it. I admire Lady Frieda's strength in doing what she darn well pleased!

The self portrait reminds me of the alien that was on "The Flintstones". All he needs is the helmet.

Crowley says:

these are the shells cast off from the Tree of Life, these are the larvea of abomination....

Click to expand...

about faceless faces. Could he be referring to the Qlipoth here? (The Dark Side of the Tree of Life) After all, the Qlipoth is called the Veil of Shells I think....

If he is, then I think it is quite significant: faceless faces to Crowley were part of the demonic, soul-less side of human nature. Crowley was always striving to gain contact with his Holy Guardian Angel, as all Thelemic followers do. Which means he was trying to move away from the Qlipoth, away from his demonic side: he was trying to neatralise it.

But here he saw Frieda Harris making the people of the Court Cards (whom Crowley viewed very highly) into Qlipothic demons?! I see the problem he had.

What I just said may be utter rubbish, but it makes sense to me!

Kiama

And to the 'wasn't Crowley bi?' question...

Yep, very much so. He had a sexual relationship with one of his students (or was it co-student) Victor Neuberg.

Kiama

Kiama said:

Which means he was trying to move away from the Qlipoth, away from his demonic side: he was trying to neatralise it.

Click to expand...

It seems to me he was trying to approach the demonic side...

But i dont really know much about Crowley, so maybe you are right. Anyways your thoughts here are interesting.