Sacred Sites

[RiccardoLS]

You seem to imply that pop culture is some kind of derogative, poor and cheap.
The Visconti were royals, but do you think that the President of United States does not watch the Superbowl, does not listen to lady Gaga (or to the U2, or Pink Floyd), or that his children do not watch any Pixar movie?
Yes, they were done for royals, AND they were a pop culture artifact.

A theological essay would have been not popolar but academic.
Tarot cards... well I suppose it would be open to debate.

Anyway I agree that a stereotype is a generalization.
But you define it an inaccurate generalization.
Is it truly possible for a generalization to be accurate?
If we want to explore the negative side of stereotyphes is that the use of stereotype blinds us to proper observation and make us shakled to the generalization, unable to progress further.
But the true reson of stereotypes is that they are economic (I use the term as in psychology, implying the effective use of conscious and unconscius resources of the brain).
Economic = fast, immediate, intuitive.
If You use a not stereothyped image (whatever it is) you are forcing the onlooker to activate a conscious, complicated, effort to decipher the card. It is the opposite of intuitive. It could be defined as esoteric, in a way.

And again, you call a stereotyphe as a shallow symbol.
Can exist something like a shallow symbol?
A symbol is a synthetic reference to a broader concept. The symbols (by itself) contains nothing, and can only be "judged" but its ability to refer to his greater reference.
We may have misleading symbols (symbols declaring to be simbolyc of a concept, but in truth indicationg something else), we may have bad symbols (symbols unable to be a reference to the concept symbolized) and we may have symbols to shallow concepts (but that depends on underlying concept, not on the symbol).

Personally I think that the archetype (even if it would still be not accurate) could be considered the Arcana. Aka The Magician.
And that each and any representation of the Magician is a stereotype.
You have the Cat as a Magician... you are stereotyping the independence and the resourcefulness of the cat to portray a certain number of charachteristics.
If You have a Juggler like the Marseille, you are doing the same.
It cames differently, maybe, on esoteric decks, like the Thoth, where the symbolic and esoteric context makes the groud for a whole different visual approach. Not intuitive, but rather left brained.

That's why it's kind of disturbing when "Disney" transform important myths to make them easier to digest--it guts the true heart of the story.

As we are not speaking about Disney, but about the Magician card of this specific deck...
Am I correct if I say that, according to you, the steretyphization of the Stonehenge+Druid concept guts the true heart of the Magician concept?
While the Wolves (not an archetype, please, but a symbol) of a predator... they fit perfectly with the Magician card?
(magician as a predator? Why?) What I see, looking at the card, I see a Druid (that is quite fictional to me, by the way, like a Dumbledore) drawing power from the site, tapping and using magic, and that power (the wolves) is under his control and deeply rooted in nature.

And, again, in what I see in the card, there is not even an hint of what the purpose of stonehenge was. Do we know? Actually knowing it or not knowing it makes no difference in the card... because it draws DEEPLY - POWERFULLY in our common imaginary (with the exception of English archelogists, sorry Lillie).
It would be different, maybe, if it was derogatory or offensive for someone... like for instance it could have been a racial stereotypization. But the representation is in no way derogatory of nothing.

I wonder, are you intending to have the characteristics of the physical sites themselves represented accurately, or will there be stereotyping changes there too? And what about the lwb?

You should not wonder.
As I said before, I would not ever care if an hornithologist would came and tell me that the bird in the 8th of Wands is not correct.
Or if, in the same card, someone would point out that the lines were in a different position one near the other.

And I think that, if we were talking about the bird being not correct in the 8th of Wands, and not about the Druid, we would suddenly realize how fun this all is.

[Debra]

Ok, I think what Ric says (hi ric) in elaborating about stereotypes makes sense. It is true, all generalizations have some element of falsity because they deny the absolute individuality of everything. Sometimes that's really important and lots of times, it's not. There's not enough time to know each object as its own totally individual self, the ability to generalize accurately is a part of pattern recognition and for every animal species, it's a survival strategy.

I think a symbol is shallow if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and reflection, or doesn't convey much on its own. For example, you can depict the Moon with a photo of the moon, and it's really different than the dog and wolf howling at a moon that hangs above two towers. Add the crayfish emerging from the deep and the darkened road and the Moon card gains infinite depth.

With the sacred sites concept, I guess you've got two sets of symbols that you're making intersect--the archetypes from tarot (Magician, etc.) and the sites themselves. Like I said, I think people will look to the deck for education, because they care about sacred sites and want to learn more about them. So for me, it's disappointing if they'd be finding the sites represented according to popular misconceptions.

I did actually wonder about the bird. And I still do. It does matter what the bird is--a North American bald eagle would be out of place, or a Garuda, or a penguin Why not show an indigenous bird, as long as the illustrator is painting a bird? Or one that has mythical significance for the people of the region?

[RiccardoLS]

Originally Posted by Debra

OLike I said, I think people will look to the deck for education, because they care about sacred sites and want to learn more about them. So for me, it's disappointing if they'd be finding the sites represented according to popular misconceptions.

If you are looking at the deck for education, you will definitely become disappointed.
There is no attempt to that.
But I think the deck is for a different purpose.
It attempts to be evocative.
It won't make it good or bad... just different (and maybe good or bad for many other reasons).

(besides... I think it's the same problem the discussion faced at the time of the Shaman deck.
Misconceptions or maybe assumptions about what the deck was about. And we all know how the Shaman Tarot discussion got ugly.)

I did actually wonder about the bird. And I still do. It does matter what the bird is--a North American bald eagle would be out of place, or a Garuda, or a penguin Why not show an indigenous bird, as long as the illustrator is painting a bird? Or one that has mythical significance for the people of the region?

Again the problem I guess it's economic. Ecenomic not as in money, but as in resources and attention.
While in the Magician/Stonehenge/Druid, I think the Druid actually fortify the impact (even if through something not accurate) and makes the card better... more usable... for the bird, actually anything similar to the bird depicted would have been just fine.
I really don't know if the bird is correct or it isn't...
BUT...
- I would never have the chance in the LWB of ever telling what the bird was.
Any meaning about taking a bird with mystical significance for the local people would have been lost to everyone but the local people.
- try to portray me (or in this case Massimiliano Filadoro) talking to the artist... if you were in his place what would have you stressed about the card?
"try to give me a sense of immense size, something that only a bird could see, something that makes men look small... add the nazca lines, like blending in the landscape, shaping it, part of it and sculpted on it. Give the sense of movement, of cinetics..."
I think this is what Massimiliano kind of told to the artist.
That was was important to the card.
No details, not the angle of the bird wings, etc... etc... not even the relative position of the nazca lines one to another. Just the essential, because it's wise not to clutter the artist mind, but let it open...
On this I have no clue but my personal experience. The more you try to control an image and a concept, the more it gets weaker, brainer...

It may be that this doesn't work with the way you conceive Tarot.
But it's not "evil", or something to be offended with (I think, I hope)...
And I - also - hope, that is something to be discussed. We live in a Tarot world that is filled with themed decks, so it could be important to look at these things not through a good/bad lense, but in a why to understand the why and the whats...

A deck like this is meant to bring our mind to the sites, the way we may imagine them.
The link between those sites and our personal experience (because each of us will have seen just a fraction of those, at best, is through imagination... and projection.
And through those sites we should/could intuitively open up to a larger world than what we can see and understand.
But that world is not, and will never be, contained by the cards. (this is why it's not educative).
And from that larger world, there is probably a connection to an even larger world that is personal to each of us... the worls of our personal sacred sites.

It is also for this reasons, for this philosophy behind the deck, that some of the depicted places are not real, but mythical. Shangry La I think is one of the places, for instance.

[gregory]

Originally Posted by Lillie

So from that point of view, the idea of druids at stonehenge leaves a nasty taste in my mouth, and anything that puts them there seems to be further legitimising both the fallacy, the unfairness and their right to the stones.

So the natural human reaction to them saying 'we belong here and you don't', is to say 'you have no right to be here at all'.

And for me, that's the way it is. That's why it's such a trigger word to me.

That was what kicked in my gut reaction too. It is a very BRITISH thing, and I am now aware that many from other countries had no idea about any of that. I wasn't trying to justify the card; I don't - as I said in the very first place - think it needs to be justified - it is symbolic of an idea (the creator's) - but I had to confess that what I actually posted initially was more about my distaste for all that than actually historically valid, after chatting to Lillie about some bones.... And I thought I should admit that. I like the card; I like what appears to be behind the deck. And I felt I should concede that much as I hate That Word There, even historically, I can't snarl at it as much as I'd have liked to; there is probably a modicum of something actually true in there.

Originally Posted by RiccardoLS

If you are looking at the deck for education, you will definitely become disappointed.
There is no attempt to that.
But I think the deck is for a different purpose.
It attempts to be evocative.
It won't make it good or bad... just different (and maybe good or bad for many other reasons).

Exactly.

Originally Posted by RiccardoLS

While in the Magician/Stonehenge/Druid, I think the Druid actually fortify the impact (even if through something not accurate) and makes the card better... more usable...

THAT is where the trouble came (I am SO over it now !) for me - the word DRUID there would have made it HUGELY less usable for me, for a while. Not the image - the word. I let my prejudices attached to THAT WORD get to me.

Originally Posted by RiccardoLS

It is also for this reasons, for this philosophy behind the deck, that some of the depicted places are not real, but mythical. Shangry La I think is one of the places, for instance.

THAT almost says for me what I feel about this deck - it is IDEAS, not history.

To the extent that I hadn't even noticed that bird. Hmmmm. Gryphon vulture ? I wonder how many will note that one ?

ETA I asked a bird fancier, who says it could be almost any eagle from anywhere in the world, seen from that angle. I was amused...

But whatever is painted for a deck comes from an artist's inspiration - it isn't a still life. I would rather see a bird that fits what the artist FEELS than one where he had got out a bird book and tried to make that fit a local specimen. You immediately lose the flow, I think. You'd be thinking - "no wait - I can't have a grey feather there because they don't have one", instead of "a flash of grey there looks perfect and gets the point of the mistiness across" or something. Which is a closer way to get a symbolic message across, perhaps, if not textbook zoological accuracy.

ETA I think- as I said when she posted - that Cerulean said it very well a few posts back, though I think historical accuracy less important than a powerful image - after all, we ALL know what Shangri-La looks like, from reading the book.

[Milfoil]

The whole Stonehenge = Druid thing, I have to admit, I agree with Lillie here and for the exact same reasons but I can live with the more modern association. Druids are more associated traditionally with groves here (clearings in the forest) than stone circles which pre-date them. The concept of the deck is interesting however and has the potential to be inspiring, evocative and educational if approached in a certain way.

If an image is to be evocative then the artwork needs to be of a style which conveys that. For example the Haindl doesn't attempt literal or historical accuracy but does evoke the feel of the elements portrayed therein. A more illustrative style of image tends to remind us of book illustrations where facts are being portrayed and so the mental leap between concept and fact is less easy to define.

Looking at the 4 illustrations offered so far, I find it difficult to see them as mere concepts because the illustrative style reminds me of Ladybird books from my childhood. The illustrations are technically excellent, easy to view and lend an overall continuity to the deck but as a former art teacher (degree level) perhaps my own personal preferences are towards the unique and individual work of art rather than a more general illustrative style so for that I apologise.

I do, however, understand the constraints of time and finances on the development of a commercial product such as as tarot deck when compared to individual works of art.

For 78 sites of a sacred nature around the globe, many are not going to be immediately recognisable or their association with that card's meaning apparent so the LWB will be vitally important. Readers will depend on both the images and the explanations to understand some of the less well known sites. There is the chance here to both offer a concept which will tie in with the Tarot card meanings as well as offering some factually correct information on the site itself. This could, potentially inform general understanding of sacred sites and help people to see them with more respect rather than as mere tourist stops to be got through or experienced.

I would love to see Machu Pichu, Ayres Rock and possibly the Wandjina and Gwee-yarnn rock art site in the Kimberleys included. Looking forward to seeing some more of the finished cards Ric.

[Mi-Shell]

Concerning the card of the Magician at Stonehenge,
may I ad to the conversation, that in the DruidCraft Tarot we also have the Magician at Stonehenge and the book implies, that we are here seeing a druid working a ritual.

[gregory]

And given that they do indeed have rituals there today - isn't that then fair enough ?

[Aerin]

Originally Posted by gregory

And given that they do indeed have rituals there today - isn't that then fair enough ?

I tend to think so...

[AJ]

Originally Posted by gregory

- after all, we ALL know what Shangri-La looks like, from reading the book.

Assumption my friend. I've not read the book and if there as a movie or play I haven't seen it. I look forward to seeing it from Lo Scarbeo's viewpoint.

[gregory]

Originally Posted by AJ

Assumption my friend. I've not read the book and if there is a movie or play I haven't seen it. I look forward to seeing it from Lo Scarabeo's viewpoint.

*giggle*

Fair enough. I thought everyone in my-ish generation had had to read that book in school. But of course you are MUCH younger than I am...