Classification of Tarot

[Jewel]

As long as they are all based off the same idea, ie the seven of cups means many choices, then that also counts.

And here I thought it was about day dreaming and having ones head in the clouds ... hmmmmmmm *LOL*

This will probably get me shot, but ohhhhh welllll ....

I personally think that tarot is a type or style of oracle. One that has a more defined structure (majors, minors, courts, 4 suits). Being that most tarot decks today (not all) are based on the Marseilles, RWS and/or Toth, we would all have to agree that those 3 are tarot decks. That takes us to the minors we have pips, illustrated and "moody minors". So all of these must be valid illustrations if we agree on the 3 decks.

OK so with pips we will probably rely on numerology for interpretation. And the suits correspond to the elements, so then we have the elemental dignities. To some, esoteric symbology is very important in order for a deck to really be a tarot deck ... but wait that was added by the Golden Dawn. So I guess we need to ask what do we consider the origin of tarot in order to determine the elements that go in a real tarot deck ...

I used to get all hung up on it all, and wanted the esoteric symbology, but as time has passed I have grown to really like simplicity. I use numerology, elemental dignities, and the pictures on the cards to guide my interpretations (whether pips, illustrated, or "moody minors"). Obvisously the pictures and moody minors lend themselves to a broader interpretation by me as there is more for me to see as I resonate with them better. But I fall back on numerolgy and elemental dignities to help me with pips.

Based on my use of numerology and elemental dignities I think there is a broad range of imagery that can pick up on varied aspects of the meanings of the cards, and there is room for deck creators to expand and be very original with new imagery. They could pick up on some aspects of number and suit that I usually don't, thus deepening and expanding my understanding of particular cards. Magic Realist decks tend to do this for me.

Granted I do not disagree with you that there are decks out there that don't seem to fit within my own definition of a tarot deck (Waking the Wild Spirit is one example of this for me), and I honestly believed should not have been titled tarot. But as someone else noted earlier in the thread how we use and/or read tarot is what will define what a tarot deck should be for each of us.

As someone else suggested, define for yourself what a tarot deck is to you, and prior to purchasing decks research them to make sure they meet your criteria. One of the beauties of all of the varieties of tarot decks we have is that hopefully there is something for all of us, and that something will not necessarily be the same.

 

[Jewel]

Funny, I've never thought of oracle decks as poor cousins. In many ways they have less interference from rigid categorization or subjective and fantastical "history," and so are more useful and interesting.

This is exactly how I view oracles. I have several that I absolutly love, one in particular that I love more than any tarot deck. To me the difference between a tarot deck and what we term here an "oracle" deck is that there is that oracle decks are not held to any particular structure. To me tarot decks are oracles that have a more defined structure that is similar between many decks classified as "tarot" thus tarot becomes the grouping name of a particular type of oracle. Thus oracle decks cannot be poor cousins to tarot decks, because tarot decks are oracle decks too

Granted this is my view, and I do not expect all or any of you to agree with me. This is simply how I see it, and it makes sense to me.

So did I confuse everyone now??? *LOL*

 

[tarotreader2007]

So in a nutshell, there are two related questions:

in the first place, does somebody creating a deck and calling it 'tarot' make it a tarot deck (or, to use an analogy, does someboby distilling plums and calling the drink 'water' make it water)?

in the second, what makes a deck specifically a tarot deck!?

Here's the questions I'm here to answer as these really do get down to what "opposition" I'm faced with.

First question: No. I have to use this example otherwise I can't easily get my point across. I have in front of me Madame Lenormand French Cartomancy cards. They were designed by her or at least based off of her system. They are 36 cards, each has a name, and along with that card is a set meaning. Sure we can use intuition for the deck, but you have to have some connection (at least a good percentage of the time) to what the card dictates, otherwise, why would you use tarot and not an oracle (which is clearly what some of these are.) So I ask of you, does any deck with 36 cards with the same names as the French Cartomancy cards with DIFFERENT definitions than regular Mme L cards really a Mme Lenormand deck? I would say, definitely not.

Counter arguement to this is that this was designed by an individual. Well, wasn't the tarot at some point? And since the tarot was given certain definitions for their cards, we should at least have some sort of connection to it during a reading. I'm not saying to read out of the LWB for your readings. But you need to have what makes up a tarot deck in it to make it a tarot deck. Which brings me to point number 2.

What makes a deck specifically tarot? Well, the usual 22 or 78 cards (depending, I won't go into detail). Then you need the names to be similar. You can have leeway with something like cups/chalices... Here's where it get's "foggy" shall we say.

This is my view so if you're going to accuse anyone, it's yours truly

To make it tarot, the cards need to be based off of the old traditional meanings. RWS does a terrific job in illustrating this through the pictures. Tarot was created with a specific balance of cards and what their meanings were and when you tamper with it, you mess the deck up AS A TAROT DECK.

I do love RWS. It's magnificent. Thoth, I don't care for. TDM I don't care for either. Now, even though the minors are really illustrated, they are tarot decks. Crowley does split a little but the root is still the same. I've come across some truly horrific tarots where this doesn't exist.

Also, unillustrated minors classify as tarot if they keep the same definition pattern, but they aren't nearly as telling as picture cards where you can let your imagination get absorbed into the cards meanings as opposed to definitions you programmed in your brain so when you see 8/c you might blurt out, abandonment (sp?). With the pictures, you can go further and branch out from the root definition. However, and this is a key point of mine, when you start giving a card (the deck designer being the 'you') a definition that's already been branched from the original root meaning, the person reading the cards will branch from the "wrong" message. And if it's supposed to be a tarot deck, this isn't 'true' per se. The root meanings are there to be built off of per reading, not per deck. Or at least, decks shouldn't branch away from this because it tampers with the deck's definition balance.

Back to my french cartomancy cards, they are very delicately balanced and when you get rid of the dog card (meaning long enduring friendship) and change it to adoption of an animal permanently for a new/better/improved french cartomancy deck, you just lost a key component. In tarot it's the same. There are more cards but each with just as much impact. The roots are extremely important. If a deck lacks the roots, there's nothing to go back to unless you remind yourself everytime you look at that card, it's supposed to mean the "original" version of the card.

THAT is what defines a tarot deck's parameters. (I do have to say, one of my favorite decks is the manga tarot which switches the cards around, but still gets the message across like a traditional RWS deck.) Things that violate these rules are in my opinion oracles. I have NOTHING wrong with oracles. I actually own one. I don't use it b/c I like tarot better, but for those that like it, GREAT!!!! I love people using more than just one global method. That's what makes it unique. However, when companies like ls pump out all of these "tarots" that look great but in the end are really oracles, it bugs me because I want these readings to flow instead of me having to change the meaning.

When I buy a tarot deck, I expect the meaning to flow and not stumble. I stumble with a majority of ls decks I get but I still get suckered in to buy them because as a collector, I love the artwork. Regardless, that's my view, and what constitutes the definition of a tarot. Now, I need to give my fingers a rest

tarotreader2007

**PEACE**

 

[Mellifluous]

Personally, I tend to agree with you. That's why I don't buy many decks. They always seem to have some things 'wrong' in them, even if the artwork is attractive. (Lots of times, the artwork isn't even attractive. lol)

Sometimes they seem completely random to me, like it's just a collection of art in a deck format. Many times they're cards about a completely different belief system, which - to me - it wouldn't even be worth trying to fuse to tarot; they could stand on their own as a different thing and you wouldn't have to overwhelm yourself learning both at once or trying to fit both together step by 78 steps.

Also, (and this is not meant to be any sort of criticism at all because I respect people who can do it), it always seems to me that people who read tarot purely intuitively are really doing psychic readings moreso than tarot readings. They may use the cards as objects to focus on - and be very accurate in what they see for someone - but there is a structure to the tarot deck meanings they don't follow (or seem to need). So, I usually figure people who do that could read people without any deck at all if they felt confident and comfortable enough in doing so.

It seems to me that most people who feel comfortable reading only intuitively often do use many other divination tools and utilize many other psychic talents as well. (Though they're certainly not the only ones to do so. lol)

Interestingly, just the other day I was looking at decks in the store. There was one called Tarot Oracle. The artwork was very attractive and all the meanings were the same/similar to RWS format. They'd taken out all the court cards for some reason. (My intuition says because they either don't like or understand court cards, or because they got into a time crunch to complete their deck.) It claimed in the little booklet that every major arcana card represents an important person in your life anyway so you don't 'need' court cards, which to me is just not so. lol So, I wouldn't buy such a thing.

That's my personal valuation of it though. (No offense if whoever made it is on here, by the way; I can't remember the name.) It's quite a beautiful deck, but not for me. I'm sure there are people 'out there' who'd like and use it though, whether they were new to tarot and oracles or not.

Bottom line is once you know what you're doing - or at least, what works for you and fits your belief system - you have to check decks out before you buy them. I'm sure there won't be an end to people calling whatever decks they want "tarot" any time soon, if purely for marketing reasons. Also, I think artists are drawn to the challenge of such a big project, which you'll see by all the works in progress published only on the internet. There are thousands of tarot decks now (and ever more oracles churned out everyday, some of which I see as merely pop psychology self-help books in deck format. lol That's the new trend that I see). They sell at this point in time, so that's that. Caveat emptor.

 

[jmd]

With regards to "They always seem to have some things 'wrong' in them" - do you mean like numbering Justice 11 instead of VIII, and placing a number on the un-numbered Fool, or adding scenic imagery on the pips?

Or is this more because titles have been, for example, changed from Pope to Jupiter or Hierophant; or Temperance to Art?

Or is it that the deck that one adopts, with all the alterations it incorporates, is deemed to be 'true' no matter how different it may be to others?

 

[tarotreader2007]

Also, (and this is not meant to be any sort of criticism at all because I respect people who can do it), it always seems to me that people who read tarot purely intuitively are really doing psychic readings moreso than tarot readings. They may use the cards as objects to focus on - and be very accurate in what they see for someone - but there is a structure to the tarot deck meanings they don't follow (or seem to need). So, I usually figure people who do that could read people without any deck at all if they felt confident and comfortable enough in doing so.

Caveat emptor.

This is another thing that I've noticed. Whenever I'm not in a time of stress, I can read without the cards and choose to do so. Cards for some "unrealized psychics" are a jumping off point but like many here say about tarot, just jump in and start with what feels like the answer instead of trying to validate your senses by the card(s) in front of you.

jmd, I have no problems in renaming the cards in certain ways. But, I do feel that it should be constituted of the same meanings and accurately portray those meanings through those pictures. I don't mind if Temperance=Art or the Fool is card 1 or 22 or if Cups are Chalices or Pope=Heirophant or anything like that. But a tarot deck, as I said before, is a delicate balance of feelings and energies in the world and when we eliminate one of those key energies and make it completely different, it takes away from the deck.

Think of it like this:

When you write an essay, there are certain grammatical rules you have to follow. The format and bibliographical information is quite often (or at least here in the US) formed MLA style. To get that essay published and have it wide known as an essay instead of just a journal entry or memoir, you need to abide by these "rules" of what's what. The content in what you talk about or how you use your transitions is up to you, but the format and the meanings of words in your essay have to concur and be consistent with other essays. Also, you wouldn't write an essay by just using nouns and verbs. You want to use adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, etc.

In other words, the essay is a tarot deck, having certain rules and parameters but with artist influence on the artwork. The lack of the modifiers (ie. adjectives, adverbs,...) creates a unillustrated minors deck IMO because it lacks a certain creativity.

The journal or memoir is the oracles or "wanna be tarot decks". They don't have to follow formats or anything. Everything is up to the author.

I hope that helped explain where I'm coming from.

After all, as long as I get that sweet tomato-y taste, I don't care if it's catsup or ketchup.

tarotreader2007

**PEACE**

 

[jmd]

I agree that for a deck to be a tarot deck, it has to display, to use the essay-writing analogy, certain grammatical rules... unless of course the deck is being depicted in a more poetic fashion - and how far could we then go before it becomes non-sensical as tarot?

...by the way, I have never seen a tarot deck that has its minor (by which I presume its pips, not courts) without any illustration (except the blank deck - but in that deck, I cannot even distinguish the blank majors from its minor, whether courts or pips).

 

[Mellifluous]

To me it's the artwork not matching the meaning - or any meaning I've ever encountered - for the particular card. Sometimes it appears to be completely opposite, and I just look at it and wonder why they did this. Where did they get this idea for this particular card and how/why do they think it corresponds? Usually just one card like that is enough to put me off a deck. If there are several I start to think they didn't know (or care) what they were doing in making it.

Also, when it's just abstract (or random) images and there's no clues whatsoever on the card itself as to meaning that seems wrong to me. I haven't been a beginner for a very long time, but the whole idea of the tarot is archetypal images. You shouldn't have to memorize an entire book of worded meanings and the pictures to which they are assigned just to get started. That sort of art choice makes a deck completely opaque and, I feel, irrelevant.

Occasionally the keywords or titles bug me, but more often than not, they seem to be good or fair choices. So, it's mostly the art.

I've never encountered any decks in person that change the numbering, though I've read about that issue in many places. I wouldn't care for a Fool card that was numbered 22 because I think it's highly significant that he represents the start of your journey learning and using the tarot. But if he's 0 or 1 or no number at all, it probably wouldn't bother me - much. lol

I don't do a lot with numerology, (except I suppose with pips we all do), so I don't know if the switch of Justice and Strength would bother me. (In my deck, Justice is 11, btw.) Maybe because the order I know is so ingrained in me now after all these years, it would; but maybe not. I think you can make sense of the experiences they represent coming after the chariot and the wheel whichever way you go, so it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

As for the deck you learn on or adopt, yes I'm sure that has a lot to do with it. However, everyone starts somewhere, and many times people don't resonate with whatever first deck comes into their hands anyway or don't find it accurate for reading. They end up seeking out other decks. I've seen in threads here many times, in fact, people recommending that beginners start with other more traditional decks so they can make some sense out of what they're learning and have a good foundation.

Same with individual cards in your adopted deck; some of them may always seem a bit off or the artwork on it seems too [fill-in-the-adjective]. That leads most of us, sooner or later, to read widely on the subject, look at the card in other decks, come to places like this, or personally tussle with the meanings experientially until we've cracked it. Usually this is necessary though, in my opinion, because the deck creators' book meaning or choice of artwork for that card is 'wrong'. lol (Sometimes the traditions become superstitions though, which themselves seem wrong, as we see on all the threads about why this or that card is thought to be 'bad'.)

The human imperfection factor (imperfection of the creators of the deck) leads you into the wider communal wisdom and tradition though. When you find more accurate meanings and points of emphasis, you then carry them in your memory though it may conflict with what's in your deck/booklet. I think this is how it's supposed to work actually; there's a big oral tradition and a universal wisdom to be tapped into with tarot. No one book or deck will ever capture it all correctly, because it's not meant to be an individual activity. That's my theory anyway.

So, no deck and book set is perfect; not even our personal favorites. You'd still want the best you could get though, with a very high number of 'accurate' cards in one deck. It's one thing to have two or three cards in a deck (or meanings in a booklet) that you would change or that you know others view extremely differently. It's quite another to find there's only two or three cards in a whole deck that seem right to you, or that the whole system of your new deck is off from the vast majority of other people's decks.

You shouldn't really have to know what deck someone is using, in my opinion, as though each one is a system unto itself, (built on the creators' individual preferences or worldview), that has to be deferred to and learned separately. There should be a universal aspect to using tarot. The variation in interpretations will then come mostly from the individual readers. That's my belief about it anyway. I'm sure lots of people disagree. lol

It's like everything else you can buy though, there's quality or genuine articles and then not-so-good quality and knock-offs...

This is another thing that I've noticed. Whenever I'm not in a time of stress, I can read without the cards and choose to do so. Cards for some "unrealized psychics" are a jumping off point but like many here say about tarot, just jump in and start with what feels like the answer instead of trying to validate your senses by the card(s) in front of you.

Thanks, tarotreader2007. Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking about. Good for you!

 

[SunChariot]

Also, (and this is not meant to be any sort of criticism at all because I respect people who can do it), it always seems to me that people who read tarot purely intuitively are really doing psychic readings moreso than tarot readings. They may use the cards as objects to focus on - and be very accurate in what they see for someone - but there is a structure to the tarot deck meanings they don't follow (or seem to need). So, I usually figure people who do that could read people without any deck at all if they felt confident and comfortable enough in doing so.

Logically you would think so, it makes sense. But I know I read that way and I cannot read people or situations really at all without my cards (or Runes). I have intuitions without them but the intuitions are usually wrong. It only works properly with the cards for some reason. They give you the hints you need to set your thoughts in the right direction.

Bar

 

[jmd]

Is (in the context of this thread) van Leeuwen's deck a tarot deck?

http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/herstelde-orde/

It consists of 80 cards, has nearly ALL its Atouts (Majors) numbered differently, and bases its pips on the Waite/Colman Smith, which is itself based on a deck (the Sola Busca deck) whose Atouts (Majors) have no relation to the 22 cards we commonly attribute as central to tarot?

By the way, I am here mainly pointing to questions that do need to be asked.

(In my personal view, the basis of tarot, or for something to be purely tarot, it has to be pretty close to the Marseille/Bolognese pattern, and its deviation from this determines its distance to tarot itself.)