Comparative exercise

[Shalott]

The other night I engaged in a facinating exercise, unfortunately it was kind of a sudden inspiration so I didn't think to take notes, although I plan to do this again once my Heron Conver arrives: I laid out my Dusserre Dodal, Thunder Bay Press Conver (trying to disregard the colors as I know they aren't original), Hadar and Jodo-Camoin. For this exercise, the Dodal took on the role of "ur" Tarot, which the others were compared to, although I can't be certain that this is entirely fair. I only had room to do 3 at a time, so first I compared the Dodal and Conver, and was surprised to see how much disappered in the Conver: the like window behind Le Papesse became a canopy, the blindfold on the cupid in L'Amoureaux disappeared, the hat of the Roy de Deniers went from some fin-like thing to just an oversized hat. One of the Roynes (grr shoulda taken notes) had two windows behind her, that became some sort of cloth held up on poles. All of the Valets appear to be indoors, based on the surface they are standing on, in the Dodal, where they all seem to be outdoors in the Conver. These are the things that stand out in my mind, I'm sure there were many more little issues, other than the art itself appearing more aesthetically pleasing in the Conver, which I'm assuming has no meaning other than possibly more sophisticated techniques. (The Roy de Batons in the Dodal looked like a Gray Alien/human hybrid, whereas the Conver made him look like a person, for example.)

Then I lined the Dodal, Hadar and Jodo-Camoin up. This produced as many questions as answers. Color-wise, the Camoin absolutely shone (shined?), appearing much more historically accurate not only with the Dodal, but also what I know of the original color sheme of the Conver. (Except that Hadar went with the black earth.) But Hadar won the imagery category (lol my own little "Oscars"). He had the little window behind Le Pappesse and that Royne which one I can't recall. The Valets are indoors. The botanical imagery on the pips were much more similar when not entirely the same. It doesn't really surprise me that Camoin would follow the Conver model more closely, but if the goal of both Camoin and Hadar were trying to get back to the original model, wouldn't Dodal, being the earlier deck, be a better model? Which only then makes me wonder where did Hadar get his color scheme? In many ways, the Hadar and Camoin seem more similar to each other. It almost seemed as though they both had access to the same source material, yet they both opted to include almost the opposite ideas in their respective decks, like, after doing this, I wish they would actually work together, use Hadar's line-drawings and Camoin's colors and THEN we may really have something that could be labeled "Ur."

Incidentally, this new book Hadar is working on sounds like it goes into some detail as to what his sources were and the choices he made...I hope so as I would LOVE to see both of their bibliograpahies! (The seemingly added imagery on the Camoin, like the door on La Maison Diev, the raft thing the figure on L'Etoille is kneeling on, were these going on the assumption that these items were actually depicted at some time in the past, before the Dodal? If that's the theory he was working with, I can deal with that...but I just wish I knew!)

Any gaps you historians can help me fill in would totally be appreciated. This was quite a history lesson in itself!

[Fulgour]

I've noticed that too, about the Dodal Valets: definitely indoors.
Another thing was how the Dodal Valet de Denier looks directly
at you, the holder of the card, with such a sanguine expression.

[Rusty Neon]

Originally Posted by Shalott

In many ways, the Hadar and Camoin seem more similar to each other. It almost seemed as though they both had access to the same source material, yet they both opted to include almost the opposite ideas in their respective decks, like, after doing this, I wish they would actually work together, use Hadar's line-drawings and Camoin's colors and THEN we may really have something that could be labeled "Ur."

I'm curious as to why you think that Hadar's line-drawings merit being a part of the equation for the Ür-Tarot as opposed to line-drawings by someone else.

For each given card, to varying extents, what Hadar did was first take various elements from various patterns (e.g., some elements from the Conver, some elements from the Payen/Dodal patterns, etc.) for the basic linework, i.e., a mix-and-match, then he added elements of his own imagination, not supported by tradition or by any historic tarot patterns. Why should his decisions as to which element from which pattern to bring into his restoration, and as to which elements to add, have more Ür-character than a decision of another tarotist, especially in our day and age when access to scans of the Dodal, Conver and Payen and other historic patterns are readily available?

At least Jodorowsky and Camoin are more forthright and use, as the base line-drawing, one single pattern for continuity and out of respect for individual Marseilles pattern traditions (For this purpose, they decided to use the Conver pattern, but the Dodal pattern could also have worked) and then add interesting details, generally from other historic decks or from oral tradition, or inspired by ambiguities in the Conver line-drawings.

No modern 'restoration' (be it that of Hadar, Jodo-Camoin, or Sanchez-Rodes) is authoritative as to anything other than that it's an authoritative expression of their particular views. It is just the subjective opinion of the individual 'restorers'. Don't get wrong: 'Restored' decks do have their place. They can certainly be an entertaining diversion, by allowing the opportunity for many hours of fun to be spent comparing the 'restored' version against the various historic patterns.

[Fulgour]

Perhaps a modern example of a dubious restoration project
would be the recent 'cleaning' done on the Sistine Chapel.
Much seems to have been gained, but how much was lost?

A better name for modern versions of ancient decks might
be Recreations ~ without the misleading idea of restoring
something that exists already, however aged or imperfect.

[Shalott]

Originally Posted by Rusty Neon

I'm curious as to why you think that Hadar's line-drawings merit being a part of the equation for the Ür-Tarot as opposed to line-drawings by someone else.

Truly for the basic reason that these 4 decks are the ones I have access to and were looking at, and, it's similarities to Dodal, which for purposes of the exercise took on that role of "Ur." Perhaps I am too casually throwing that term around...if there's a better one, I am more than open to suggestion.

For each given card, to varying extents, what Hadar did was first take various elements from various patterns (e.g., some elements from the Conver, some elements from the Payen/Dodal patterns, etc.) for the basic linework, i.e., a mix-and-match, then he added elements of his own imagination, not supported by tradition or by any historic tarot patterns. Why should his decisions as to which element from which pattern to bring into his restoration, and as to which elements to add, have more Ür-character than a decision of another tarotist, especially in our day and age when access to scans of the Dodal, Conver and Payen and other historic patterns are readily available?

At this point I am by no means equipt to debate history with you! You're WAY ahead of me, which is why I was hoping you'd reply...but was this not the goal of Hadar and Jodo-Camoin? To re-create or restore what possibly existed pre-Dodal? Although, at this moment, Dodal to me would be IT, for the simple reason as it's the oldest known (Marseille-type).

At least Jodorowsky and Camoin are more forthright and use, as the base line-drawing, one single pattern for continuity and out of respect for individual Marseilles pattern traditions (For this purpose, they decided to use the Conver pattern, but the Dodal pattern could also have worked) and then add interesting details, generally from other historic decks or from oral tradition, or inspired by ambiguities in the Conver line-drawings.

See, after doing this exercise and seeing all the differences between the Conver and Dodal, I'm thinking that Conver isn't the best available model. I'm sure you know more than me why the Conver is the way it is, perhaps he had legitimate reasons to make the changes that he did, that Dodal would therefore not be the best available historic model.

Camoin's site is vast and has a lot of links that seem to not work and a lot of what appear to be promising pages that are "under construction." I haven't read every page on it although I do sift through it whenever I get the chance...but other than noting that the model was indeed (and understandably, being a descendant and "heir" afterall) the Conver, I haven't found really even a brief bibliography of his sources - I have yet to find ANY of Hadar's, other than the emails Diana posted here and the hope of a book detailing the work. I'd love this from both, just so I can understand better.

No modern 'restoration' (be it that of Hadar, Jodo-Camoin, or Sanchez-Rodes) is authoritative. It is just the subjective opinion of the individual 'restorers'.

maybe I should explain better my goal of this exercise a little better. Although it's worded like maybe I was pitting the decks against each other in a competition, that wasn't really what I was trying to accomplish. I just wanted to compare/contrast them and see what I could see...yes, hoping one would, in my opinion, be at least a little more "definitive" than the other (when compared to the Dodal at least) but it ended up a lot more 50-50 than I'd hoped!

So, would Conver then be the better historical model? If so, why? I'm not trying to so much debate as just plain learn...

(And maybe a question would be, why not just use the Dodal, and perhaps I will, but...I'd like to get a second copy...I don't want to destroy my museum piece )

[Shalott]

Originally Posted by Fulgour

I've noticed that too, about the Dodal Valets: definitely indoors.
Another thing was how the Dodal Valet de Denier looks directly
at you, the holder of the card, with such a sanguine expression.

YES YES, I saw that too...and his little headband/crown thing looked more like little beads in the Dodal, where all the others have him in flowers!

[Rusty Neon]

Originally Posted by Shalott

Truly for the basic reason that these 4 decks are the ones I have access to and were looking at, and, it's similarities to Dodal, which for purposes of the exercise took on that role of "Ur." Perhaps I am too casually throwing that term around...if there's a better one, I am more than open to suggestion.

If, as you note, the merit of the Hadar is its similarities to the Dodal, why do you need the Hadar at all if you have the Dodal? As well, as noted in my earlier post, the Hadar is an eclectic mix-and-match of patterns plus Hadar's non tradition based imaginings. What does the Hadar add to the equation, except as a novelty?

I haven't read every page on it although I do sift through it whenever I get the chance...but other than noting that the model was indeed (and understandably, being a descendant and "heir" afterall) the Conver, I haven't found really even a brief bibliography of his sources

Indeed, I find the pretensions of Camoin that he is an "heir" of the Conver tradition rather sad. He should focus on his life and his own achievements. (However, that said, don't get me started on Hadar. Hmm, I think I'll leave it at that.) To my mind, what brings value to the Jodo-Camoin project is Jodorowsky's involvement. In fact, it was Camoin who approached Jodorowsky asking the latter to become involved.

So, would Conver then be the better historical model? If so, why? I'm not trying to so much debate as just plain learn...

(And maybe a question would be, why not just use the Dodal, and perhaps I will, but...I'd like to get a second copy...I don't want to destroy my museum piece )

The various Marseilles patterns (e.g., 1650 Noblet, 1701 Dodal, 1760 Conver, Payen, etc.) are part of the variety that makes up the Marseilles tradition. One of them isn't "better" than the other; each of them each give us their own particular perspectives. Diversity in unity; unity in diversity.

[Fulgour]

Originally Posted by Shalott

YES YES, I saw that too...and his little headband/crown thing looked more like little beads in the Dodal, where all the others have him in flowers!

I've been hearing some irate scoffers lately saying
we're koo koo for Dodal, or calling Dodal a doodler.
But for anyone who has worked and studied long
and hard to develop an understanding of Marseille,
Dodal is the anchor to which all else must answer.

[Shalott]

RN: Yes yes...I think I know better than to mention Hadar in your general direction ( ) But I don't believe his deck is entirely without merit...really, the MAIN question that came out of my exercise it where did his color scheme come from, as it's the BIGGEST difference between his deck and any other - actually closer to the 1880 colors, which wouldn't seem to be consistent the goal of recreating a pre-Dodal Ur or Proto (would that be better?). But it was also that color scheme which initially attracted me, easier on the eyes to someone who isn't used the brightness of a Camoin - which I am now finding more attractive.

But, still, I don't know that "better" was what I was getting at either...more historically accurate, maybe...I don't know that I went into this exercise really looking for any kind of outcome, though, just wanted to observe, and this was quite a history lesson...especially when comparing the Dodal and TBP Conver. I really can't wait for the Heron Conver now! But then, why have the photoreproductions for study purposes and not compare/contrast them? Maybe it's my own preconceived notions, but I tend to see the photoreproductions for study and the "recreations" for actual reading...I think I will just have use the Dodal to try to get over that! (Even though I know the deck itself is new, it looks so ancient I'm afraid to shuffle it...silly, I know...)

[Rusty Neon]

Originally Posted by Fulgour

I've been hearing some irate scoffers lately saying
we're koo koo for Dodal, or calling Dodal a doodler.
But for anyone who has worked and studied long
and hard to develop an understanding of Marseille,
Dodal is the anchor to which all else must answer.

I agree that that the Jean Dodal, along with the other Marseilles decks, is a valuable and vital part of the variety that makes what is the Marseilles Experience.

It's funny that you should mention Doodle. I just checked the LWB for the Jodo-Camoin deck a minute ago. On p. 16, there is mention of various decks that Jodo and Camoin consulted during the preparation of their deck. One of the decks is listed as "the tarot of Doodle". I see now that this is a typo in the English translation. Proof of this can be found on p. 3, in the original French text, where that deck is properly referred to as the "Tarot de Dodal".