RwS : Strategic Stickers

[Little Baron]

Thanks Lee.

I hope that you did not mind me using you as an example. I think it was a good example, because it does offer the view from a different angle. I think that maybe the way of looking at it is that the ideas were Waites, possibly (which may have been very similar to Smiths, from GD nurturing), but that a lot of her personality can be felt in the style of her illustrations. Even though it was more of a commition, I seems that people are more interested in thinking of it being a collaboration.

Even though, we do not feel like that about Anotella - am I right in thinking that she has illustrated other decks than your own? LoS have many decks in similar style. To my understanding, people do not have the same ideas when it comes to Lady Frieda Harris and the Thoth deck. They look at that as Crowley's own, regardless of the artist. Once again, forgive me if I am wrong.

LB

 

[Lee]

I hope that you did not mind me using you as an example.

Not at all! In fact, I'm flattered.

I think it was a good example, because it does offer the view from a different angle. I think that maybe the way of looking at it is that the ideas were Waites, possibly (which may have been very similar to Smiths, from GD nurturing), but that a lot of her personality can be felt in the style of her illustrations. Even though it was more of a commition, I seems that people are more interested in thinking of it being a collaboration.

I agree with your assessment.

Even though, we do not feel like that about Anotella - am I right in thinking that she has illustrated other decks than your own?

Yes, Antonella has done the Witchy Tarot and the Tarot of the 78 Doors. She is a well-known comic book artist in Italy.

LoS have many decks in similar style. To my understanding, people do not have the same ideas when it comes to Lady Frieda Harris and the Thoth deck. They look at that as Crowley's own, regardless of the artist. Once again, forgive me if I am wrong.

No, I think you're right.

-- Lee

 

[firecatpickles]

When practicing reading, you could try and give yourself corrections out loud, like, "Stop looking at that symbol;" or "The symbols for Death are Scorpio and Mem, not Pisces and Nun."

This technique is useful for musicians, like me, when we are practicing. For example, we, when playing I will count aout loud a particular measure, or say, "make sure you play a sharp here."

The audial cues become ingrained into your memor, so when you perform (i.e., do a reading) for someone, you will automatically cue yourself with your own voice in your head. It is a bit neater than having stickers all over the place--from experience during perfomrances I can tell you the stickers become quite dostracting, especially when you are in front of people and the music is whizzing by a lot faster than at practice time.

When I practice like this at home, my partner, John, asked me what I was doing. I said that I was shadowplaying. He says, "Well you sound nuts!"
Hey, but it works!

 

[Elven]

What a hoot of a thread!! I really enjoyed reading this - theres nothing like a good old thread dig!! and Im not familiar with all the names of the posters - ah - AT has surely been blessed with some wonderful personalities.

But the Strategic Stickers thread title got me and I had some wonderful visions considering the massive amount of removeable stickers we have at the discount shop down the road, especially the clothing ones - theres hats and t-shirts, shoes, thongs, briefcases, scarves, eyeglasses, pinafores, jeans, denim jackets, shoulder bags, backpacks, pigtails and suits. Theres the Bratz look too - LOL!!!
Well I would like to consider this a must-see-do project!! I have a spare RWS deck that needs a makeover!! maybe now the guy on the 7 of wands can have a set of new (though, not matching) set of shoes and leg warmers and the Magician could be holding a nice clutch bag

Please resume normal posting - I wont interupt anymore

Blessings
Elven x

 

[Fulgour]

In general I feel history is very important. It's true that the commonly accepted view of how a specific incident happened can change, but it's important that we examine what evidence is available and think about how it might or might not be valid, rather than simply ignoring historical evidence and believing whatever we want, which would result in simply living in a fantasy land. I'm very disturbed by a tendency among some people to utterly deny historical facts and believe, for example, that the U.S. never landed on the moon. There are other, more sinister examples of this tendency which I won't specify because I'm not trying to be provocative.

The historical evidence is that Smith was a professional artist,
well accomplished in her own right as a printer and publisher...
she didn't need (and wouldn't have tolerated) Waite as a boss.

It is only Waite's puffed up and exagerrated claims that provide
any evidence of his involvement in the creative process here...

And if we allow the cards to speak for the artist, that's evidence
enough to satisfy anyone. I mean, did a Pope dictate the Sistine?

 

[Lee]

The historical evidence is that Smith was a professional artist,

Exactly. She made her living (or tried to) as an artist. This means she took illustration jobs in order to earn a living.

well accomplished in her own right as a printer and publisher...

She initiated various short-lived self-publishing ventures, none of which were financially viable.

she didn't need (and wouldn't have tolerated) Waite as a boss.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Waite and Smith didn't get along or that there were any tensions between them. She was a member of the Golden Dawn. In fact, as another member here has pointed out to you, she thought well enough of Waite to follow him from the Golden Dawn to his own Golden Dawn group.

It is only Waite's puffed up and exagerrated claims that provide
any evidence of his involvement in the creative process here...

I'm not enough of a historian to know whether this is true. At the very least, the fact that Rider & Sons published Waite's book together with the deck tells us that either (a) the publisher believed in and supported Waite's claims to have initiated and directed the creation of the deck, or (b) the publisher was engaging in a conspiracy with Waite to steal the credit for Smith's work. I think it's much more reasonable to believe (a) than (b).

Regarding Waite's statements, we have no reason to believe they're not true. You certainly haven't provided us with any such reason.

And if we allow the cards to speak for the artist, that's evidence
enough to satisfy anyone.

Sure, we can allow the cards to speak to the question of who did what and what the deck creation process was. The problem with this is that you and I can look at the cards and interpret the clues differently. By asking the deck, "who created you?", we will get a completely subjective answer. I believe the historical evidence speaks much more clearly than the cards. Waite states that he initiated the project and directed Smith in the illustrations. Smith claims that it was a "job" that she did. Why should we disbelieve them?

The scenario that presents itself from the evidence is very simple. Waite decided to produce a new tarot deck. Realizing he would need an artist, he decided to ask an artist he knew, Pamela Colman Smith. She had the advantages of being a Golden Dawn member, and also having a reputation as an imaginative artist with a mystical nature. Smith, upon hearing his proposal, said "yes." Since she was a member of the Golden Dawn, we can presume she found the idea congenial, and even though there was only a small amount of money involved, she could probably have used the income. According to the practice of the times, she was paid as an "artist for hire" and her involvement with the project ended there.

There doesn't seem to be any reason at all to make the assumptions that you're asking us to make, Fulgour. No evidence that Smith "wouldn't have tolerated Waite as a boss." No evidence that Smith initiated the project on her own. No evidence that after Smith submitting them to the publisher, that the publisher and Waite conspired to place Golden Dawn-related symbolism on the cards without Smith's knowledge.

So far the only evidence you have presented is the suggestion that the cards speak for the artist. In other words, we are to believe all this because you choose to interpret Smith's art as specifically indicating the supposed Waite conpiracy.

I mean, did a Pope dictate the Sistine?

I don't see any reason to believe that the process of creating the Sistine Chapel was at all similar to the process of creating the RWS deck.

-- Lee

 

[Fulgour]

How does any of this amount to a "conspiracy" in any way?
History is a living heritage, and according to the facts then
we see Waite dried up and blew away and Smith flourished.
So some few people want to re-write his foolish little books
in such a way as to make sense out of them ~ but why so?
Waite never looked farther than the few shillings he nabbed
and when he finally drank himself to death nobody cared.

 

[Lee]

How does any of this amount to a "conspiracy" in any way?

Please forgive me if I've misrepresented your position. As I understand it, your position is that Smith initiated and completed the deck without Waite's involvement, and that Waite came along later and, presumably with the complicity of Rider & Sons, added esoteric symbolism to the deck and falsely claimed credit for creating the deck and directing the execution of the images, in other words that Waite undertook a conspiracy to expropriate the deck from Smith. Have I misunderstood? Please correct me if I'm wrong!

History is a living heritage, and according to the facts then
we see Waite dried up and blew away and Smith flourished.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Are you speaking of during their lifetimes? Smith was never a terribly successful artist and seems to have struggled in her later years. Waite, on the other hand, wrote many books and was very well-respected as an occult scholar. Or are you speaking of after their deaths? I would say probably Waite and Smith are equally well-known at this point.

So some few people want to re-write his foolish little books in such a way as to make sense out of them ~ but why so?

Waite's books may have been foolish, I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder. Assuming they were foolish, that doesn't necessarily mean he lied about his involvement in the deck. Personally I think Waite was a pompous ass, but then again many creative people have less-than-attractive personalities.

Waite never looked farther than the few shillings he nabbed and when he finally drank himself to death nobody cared.

Care to supply any evidence for these statements? And what do they have to do with whether Waite created the deck, as he claimed?

-- Lee

 

[Talisman]

Evidence ?

. . . Care to supply any evidence for these statements? And what do they have to do with whether Waite created the deck, as he claimed?

-- Lee

There's nothing like someone asking for evidence to wreck a good agrument.

Lee mentioned conspiracy theories, so just for a new sense of perspective, consider this scenario:

You drop into Aeclectic 100 years from now, and find there are lively discussions going on about the Gay Tarot. Only instead of mentioning Lee in any but the most slighting way, they are discussing proof that the deck was really created by Pamela Coleman Smith. The proof is based on ancient legends deciphered from scrolls found in the ruins of Atlantis. This is expected to be confirmed when the original Tarot engraved on golden tablets by Hermes is found in a still undiscovered room under the great pyramid in Egypt. (Hey, Eileen Connley got lot'sa mileage out of this.)

Loot at the symbolic evidence. Notice the way the television sits in one card, and the diving board in another, for just two examples.

As conspiracy theories go, this one's pretty mild, and lot's less mean and harmful than many.

Should Lee be more sad that he is not given enough credit as creator of the deck, or pleased that 100 years from now the deck is still used and is considered a seminal Tarot work ? (I think this deck has a shot at this, and, no, I don't wanna argue it. I don't even own the deck.) And, cruelly, will the question even matter to those using the deck ?

So, Waite and Smith. You want my personal opinion, I think the pair of 'em were in cahoots.

The original deck may have been just a work for hire, a bread 'n butter exercise for Smith, but then it is strange if that were the case she apparently retained control of the original cards, or at least thought she did. She did offer them to Alfred Stieglitz to sell at his New York City art gallery. (207 ? 290 ? I forget, something like that.)

Stieglitz apparently declined or didn't answer. He was busy promoting Georgia O'Keefe and others.

So -- and if this is well known please excuse my ignorance -- what happened to the originals of these cards ?

I'm also curious as to what size the original cards were. I don't know much about printing and reproduction back then, but did she have to make them the actual size that was printed ? Good grief ! Surely not, not with all those details.

Talisman

 

[Lee]

I've been looking around in my books and on the internet to see if there's any info on Waite's later years, but have been unable to find anything.

However, I did find something interesting, and quite refreshing among all this vilification of Waite. In R.A. Gilbert's "Golden Dawn Scrapbook," he writes about one Christina Mary Stoddart, an ex-member of the Stella Matutina (an offshoot of the Golden Dawn). Ms. Stoddart apparently saw occultism as "the work of a Jewish cabal bent on the destruction of the Christian civilization," and wrote books promulgating this viewpoint. Occult society members and occult scholars of course denounced her, including Waite, but, according to Gilbert, "only Waite had attacked her anti-Semitism." So, one nice thing about Waite!

I'm no great fan of Waite, I find his writing unreadable. But surely people are more complex than being either silent-screen heroines or mustache-twirling villains.

-- Lee