The Bohemian Gothic Tarot

Embla said:

I think it is interesting to see how this deck, while still in the making, is carrying an energy with it that is bringing out these important questions that we are discussing here about honesty and constructive criticism, authenticity and creativity, the risk of remaining within our comfort-zones etc, which is not a question directed only at artists or creators of tarot decks, but pointed at ourselves also, as human beings, tarot-readers and deck-owners. Because buying a new deck every day/week/month can also be a way of avoiding to break new ground and challenge ourselves by going deeper with ourselves instead of surfing the safe wave of consumption. In my opinion, we, as tarot-readers, need to push the envelope also. It is not only up to the creators.

Click to expand...

This section is so perfectly put and could/should hold a thread, all of it's own.

And Whipsilk, I agree with all you have said. The seamless collaging is extremely admirable. In a sense, the VR almost feels like it was a bridge to this. I am thinking of cards like it's '9 of Swords' that were veering towards this subtle horror we speak about.

And I know that I was looking for a dark deck from day one, back in 1997. I found the Rohrig, and like the Archeon and all the others, none of them satisfied my taste-buds. Despite my questions, from what I can see, this is the closest yet. I appreciate that Karen says this is more an 'occasion' deck, but I think I have always searched for 'the one', which puts just a little more pressure on a deck and carries a little bit more weight in my search. Maybe this is where my often brash comments come from.

But what I like and can see is being avoided, is that this is darkness, without the cheese.

LB

Well, I'll just say that I had the same reaction to the LS Vampires. Too much blood everywhere (and why such messy eating?)

But that's precisely what has made that deck work well for many people - I've seen here that for many people the blatant blood is important. So I think our approach isn't better or worse. But it's quite different.

I even considered putting a small trail of blood from the corner of the Queen of Swords mouth, but then decided not. Too "stated" - it would close down the meaning too much. Is she vampiric? You, the viewer/user has to decide. Is the sword hers? Or did it belong to a man who at some point in the past attacked her with it, meaning to drive it through her heart? If the latter, then we can see clearly what became of him - all his bones nicely arranged in a parody of a religious symbol, in front of which she stands quietly reading...

The Queen herself is beautiful, she draws us in and in a sense "seduces" us - and that's also the point. If she is just repulsive (like the Van Helsing film's bony-bat Brides) then our options are easy. But if we KNOW what she may be, and still find her touching and lovely (shades of Carmilla again) then we're asked to question ourselves. That, I think, is far more powerful than the "quick shock" bit of visceral reaction that so many modern horror visuals go for.

whipsilk said:

So I personally don't even comment on the vast majority of decks (especially those in the Creation forum) because my comments wouldn't be positive.

Click to expand...

As much as I love AT and specially the creation forum, the general lack of good, constructive criticism, for me as an "artist", is frustrating at times. I would welcome any feedback, as negative feedback is usually far more challenging and helpful in the long run. I hope most creators create not to have their ego's drooled on, but to explore and express their views of tarot. So why the reluctancy to express honest opinions? It's nice that At is a save and gentle place, but a bit less suger and a bit more spice would be nicer.

LittleBuddha said:

I couldn't tell you what film it is but many of us must have seen that very old film clip where the shadow is walking up the stairs with the long fingers. That freaks me tens of times more than some 'in your face' bloody horror flick.
LB

Click to expand...

I think you are referring to "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens" by F.W. Murnau from 1922 (so it's silent movie). Seen as one of the first cinematic adaptation of Stokers Dracula (alas without the permission of his widow so most of the original films where destroyed - luckily some survived!) - look at your lockal DVD store for it

Back when I did a gothic module at uni. we were taught the difference between 2 types of gothic fiction:

'horror' -lots of gross out blatant scenes, in your face, overstated, creates short-lived disgusted fear, eg The Monk

'terror' -lots of suggestion, subtler, not so much gore, more atmosphere, drawn-out suspenseful fear, eg The Italian

I don't think this dichotomy always works, but its just a useful way at looking of the 2 ways writers created fear. Personally I prefer terror, and always prefer films which seem to draw more from this tradition. And if the Bohemian Gothic preview is anything to go by, it is closer to this idea of the gothic, which I don't think any previous gothic tarot has managed.

9 of Swords reminds me eerily of a decades' old black & white movie called "Carnival of Souls"--a sort of quiet horror movie.

Particularly where the female lead, Mary Henry, is inexplicably drawn to a deserted carnival outside of town & compelled to dance the night with an eerie man who looks more dead than alive.

At the time I first saw it, I had no idea it was a horror movie; thus, memorable as not only the first such movie, but also for its story.

For me, the movie's success as a horror story lies in its apparent ordinaryness & its dream-like sequences. Along with subtle details, they combine to deliver a gradual realization & a dawning horror that simultaneously repels & fascinates.

la-luna said:

I think you are referring to "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens" by F.W. Murnau from 1922 (so it's silent movie). Seen as one of the first cinematic adaptation of Stokers Dracula (alas without the permission of his widow so most of the original films where destroyed - luckily some survived!) - look at your lockal DVD store for it

Click to expand...

Yes, and Herzog did a remake which is both a homage and a beautiful (if flawed, but then Herzog always takes risks) in its own right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu_the_Vampyre

http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue08/reviews/nosferatu/text.htm

http://images.google.com/images?sou...q=herzog, nosferatu&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

temperlyne said:

As much as I love AT and specially the creation forum, the general lack of good, constructive criticism, for me as an "artist", is frustrating at times. I would welcome any feedback, as negative feedback is usually far more challenging and helpful in the long run. I hope most creators create not to have their ego's drooled on, but to explore and express their views of tarot. So why the reluctancy to express honest opinions? It's nice that At is a save and gentle place, but a bit less suger and a bit more spice would be nicer.

Click to expand...

This is interesting commentary Temperlyne and I agree that sometimes more upfront criticism is needed in Creation (though I've also seen people shot down in flames when they've tried).

However, I think there is a difference between posting in "Creation" and asking for feedback. and having a deck posted here in "Decks". I suppose that in Creation I expect to see more "card-by-card" critique. Here that isn't always appropriate. Well, the thread gets very long and a bit derailed apart from anything - but beyond that the focus on individual cards can detract from a view of the deck as a whole at times.

That doesn't mean that I think comments should be all positive - or all negative. Both can be very useful - to everyone, not just the deck designer/s. But it does make me a bit cautious of posting individual cards here (I think larger batches may be different) as I don't want to imply that we're asking for the kind of micro-commentary that happens more on Creation.

The experience of showing the Baroque Bohemian Cats' Tarot card by card as they were done taught me that there is a fine line between welcoming input and ending up feeling like you're on the end of a "design committee". Okay, I'm smiling as I say that, but we really aren't wanting simply to take the route that gets the most votes. At times on BBCats we had people saying things like "Please add a mouse in this cat's paw" - and it just wasn't in fact that helpful, while at the same time it felt embarrassing to blatantly ignore such detailed requests. I found that really exhausting at times, and the last thing you need when designing a deck is to be exhausted!

By the time we're making final (or 90% final) cards, we have the entire deck in mind (and usually a lot of it in sketch form) and we know how one element is intended to balance out another. That can awkwardly make it appear that we're unresponsive to suggestions. However, I will say that on the few occasions we've taken up a strong suggestion from the forums against our better judgement (because of our overview of the entire deck direction) it's usually been a mistake. In the end we have to follow our own beliefs and judgement, while remaining open to hearing comments. From time to time we may of course ask for input on some particular issue we're struggling with - and when that happens AT people can be enormously knowledgeable and helpful.

I hope I've expressed that well and it doesn't seem arrogant. It's just supposed to be an honest explanation of why I see the purpose of "Creation" and "Decks" on AT as being different. I suppose that the very involved discussions and disagreements about our cards all happen here between me and Alex, and many, many options will have already been battled over before we ever show cards here. If it wasn't like that I think the danger would be bland, confused decks. Or decks that feel like "Pick and Mix" - it always worries me when a deck designer is so unsure of their vision that they repeatedly ask "Should I use this image, or this, or this?" I understand why that happens, but I'm not sure that a strong deck is likely to emerge from such a process. I see such questions as signs that the deck creator would perhaps be better locking themselves away from all input for a while (except perhaps for some known and trusted critic) and working out clearly and confidently their own design, purpose and style for their deck rather than asking for blow-by-blow comments on each and every individual card.

Does any of that make sense?

I appreciate your honesty Karen. And I understand what you mean.

I have often thought that when I have read threads by other artists here, where people have said 'add this' or 'it would be my perfect deck if you did that'. I don't have the ideas, let alone the interest in shaping someone elses work in that fashion. For me, I am just commenting on the product as it evolves as a whole. Unfortunately, it probably is a little card specific at the moment, since we have seen so few. In this thread, I have been commenting on impression and mood, I hope, alone.

I also see what you mean about 'decks' and 'creation'. I have created some bits and bobs here in my time. Some not very sophisticated. And some a little better than the not very sophisticated. Of course, it is nice when someone says they like something. And it can be wounding when they say they don't. But for me to put it out there, I have to appreciate that others are not going to see things from my viewpoint. An annonymous person commented on my Sun card, saying he would make a better Devil. Ok, comment appreciated. But as my deck, I suppose I see him in the way that I do and since it was only being created for 'me' that is fair enough.
But I also like a meaty thread that doesn't just blob along with 'oooohs' and 'ah's'. It has become so bloody predictable on here of late. The stuff about Victorian horror, films and the difference between horror and terror has been very interesting, and when I buy the deck, I might do a little side-line research.

But less about me. I am looking forward to seeing some of the guys in this deck. I might be the only one that is actually glad that this deck won't be titled the 'Dark Sister'. It gives it a very feminine [almost extremely strong femenine] influence that I felt a touch excluded from. I know that is silly and that it wasn't intentional to make it a deck for women on the main, but that was how it felt to me.

LB


EDITED to remove a comment that was insensitive to another. Apologies to that person.

What you say makes a lot of sense, Karen. Total sense.

I think that a thread like this, for you two, could be quite stifling, in terms of the creative process; and confusing. If I was you, I think that I wouldn't bother posting any more cards and just get on with it. Personally, I think it is far nicer to see the thing as 'one' at the end. There is always going to be posts that are going to concentrate on one little detail. And that is quite different than viewing a finished product in it's entirity. And posting them here and going through all of this could be extremely exhausting for you, mentally. I remember in Kats thread, how people were discussing which head they liked better on the shoulders of one of the characters. Aside from using your own better judgement, that kind of jury doesn't really aid your own creation and shouldn't affect it. I would have thought it hinders it.

Maybe you should retire to the dungeon, and come back and see us in Autumn when you have created your monster

LB