Nemia
I love this deck, too. I bought it together with the Byzantine and try to carve out time for a comparative study. The Golden Tsar is very much in the Orthodox Christian tradition, the Byzantine much less so - its creators look for the Pagan foundations of the Byzantine Christian faith. That makes it more universalist, in spite of its depiction of specific saints.
The Golden Tsar treats the Christian themes with much more reverence. And stylistically, it's noticeably closer to original Byzantine art.
The great advantage of the Byzantine, though, is the book that doesn't take the readers' knowledge of Christian motifs for granted.
It's interesting to compare the similiarities in the choice of motif (the Star of Bethlehem for example in both decks), but the differences in style and especially in attitude towards these motifs.
Overall, I find the Golden Tsar more fascinating and complex. Its creator is, if Google tells the truth ;-), is a Bulgarian artist. He most probably grew up with icons and is deeply connected to the Byzantine tradition and culture. He treats it with reverence. I have some other Atassanov decks (Klimt, Botticelli) and like them, the Botticelli reads better for me than the Klimt but I enjoy both.
Matthews and Conway, on the other hand, have an "outside" view on Byzantine culture (they feel much more at home in Celtic myths, I think) which is interesting, too. They actually try to create a tarot iconography as it might have existed in Byzanz - to be transferred to Italy after the fall of the Byzantine empire in 1453. That's a crazy idea but creatively, it works.
So I started studying both decks but didn't read yet with either - not even a deck interview. Somehow, having just moved house, I don't have a "tarot ritual corner" yet. Well, I have one but didn't use it yet, it's not yet lived in. I'm curious how they read.
The Golden Tsar treats the Christian themes with much more reverence. And stylistically, it's noticeably closer to original Byzantine art.
The great advantage of the Byzantine, though, is the book that doesn't take the readers' knowledge of Christian motifs for granted.
It's interesting to compare the similiarities in the choice of motif (the Star of Bethlehem for example in both decks), but the differences in style and especially in attitude towards these motifs.
Overall, I find the Golden Tsar more fascinating and complex. Its creator is, if Google tells the truth ;-), is a Bulgarian artist. He most probably grew up with icons and is deeply connected to the Byzantine tradition and culture. He treats it with reverence. I have some other Atassanov decks (Klimt, Botticelli) and like them, the Botticelli reads better for me than the Klimt but I enjoy both.
Matthews and Conway, on the other hand, have an "outside" view on Byzantine culture (they feel much more at home in Celtic myths, I think) which is interesting, too. They actually try to create a tarot iconography as it might have existed in Byzanz - to be transferred to Italy after the fall of the Byzantine empire in 1453. That's a crazy idea but creatively, it works.
So I started studying both decks but didn't read yet with either - not even a deck interview. Somehow, having just moved house, I don't have a "tarot ritual corner" yet. Well, I have one but didn't use it yet, it's not yet lived in. I'm curious how they read.
