Back from work with more replies...
RiccardoLS said:
Idealized women
I think most Tarot decks depict an idealized world. [...] Yes, it's not realistic. It's idealized: symbolic.
When we talk about majors, don't we talk about Archetypes?
I absolutely agree with you! Of course we are talking about archetypes, at least with the majors, and archetypes are by definition idealized, or even clichéd. That's how we are able to read them in the first place: we recognize something familar. What that familiar thing is, however, is culturally specific. Beauty ideals are culturally and historically specific. And culture and history change - which is why tarot images also change over time. If that change is too radical, too much at once, people won't be able to read very well with the deck (unless they read entirely intuitively and don't care if their reading material is tarot or an oracle or picture postcards) and probably won't buy it. So of course recognizability of the archetypes is an issue for a publisher who wants to sell decks.
My point is that an archetypal mother-woman (to stick with the Empress for now) looks more like the Venus of Willendorf than the Venus of Milo (or maybe mostly like a cross between the two). She needs to be mature (as a mother as well as a lover), and she needs to be convincing as someone in power, even more so than any of the Queens. Barbie will never be taken seriously as a mother or a business woman or any other person with real power, no matter what costumes are produced for her. Again, it's more about the face and posture than it is about the body/clothes.
And aside from the Majors: the Minors are supposed to portray everyday life, symbolically or not, and I believe there's a LOT of room for variety in them. There are many many cards where gendered/sexualized energy is totally irrelevant (in the Sensual Wicca are several cards that are without people even!)...
RiccardoLS said:
When I see the script of a deck, I usually assume that the artist will make all characthers "appropriate" to their role. The young man will be dashing and handsome. The young woman innocent and alluring. The old king wise and strong, etc... (you see the sexual energyes of the young man are not blatant, but they are definitely present. The knight is in a shining armor, indeed). And when the script goes in a different direction, it does usually for a reason. It is meant to challenge and surprise.
I understand what you're saying. It's like genre fiction. Or a James Bond movie. You have a hero, an adversary, a sidekick, a love interest, etc. Basically, we're talking clichés here. Those figures are instantly recognizable, and they populate our imaginations. More of the same very obviously sells very well, in books, in films, and in tarot decks.
But IMO genre fiction and other "formula" products are most effective (including financially) and interesting when they deviate from the standard "just enough." Too much, and it's not recognizable as a James Bond movie or a romance novel anymore. Too little, and it's utterly boring (and not just to people who actively seek being challenged). Two-dimensional cardboard figures talking to each other. Yawn. You gotta find the right balance between old an new. You gotta change the script, subtly, but noticably. There's no need for crash-boom-bang (unless it's a James Bond movie
) to make people "get it." A tarot deck doesn't need a "feminist" or "equality" political agenda (in fact, such a deck would probably just annoying) to incorporate more physical variety - and make it look good. For me, this still is most of all an artistic and philosophical issue.
RiccardoLS said:
I maybe think that - as Firemaiden maybe pointed out - we live in a world that is afraid of sex. The "innocence" of the Star is seen (not just for Sapienza, for me as well) means that the Star should not exude any powerful sexuality. Well... if we see the RWS, do we see a totally asexual deck?
I don't think the RWS is asexual, but it is very stiff. All those rigid postures don't look very sensual to me, and therefore I have a hard time imagining all those people having fun in their bedrooms (or wherever) once the camera is off.
As oversexed as the Western world currently is, I don't think it's actually very sensual and/or pleasure-focused. Sexiness seems to be about surface appearance only, not about desire from deep within yourself, not about pleasure that's not related to buying anything. There are so many taboos against exploring one's sensuality and sexuality (especially in the majority of the USA, if I may say so as an outside observer), people are scared off of sex, and especially for women sex always seems to be tied to potential danger of violence and/or unwanted consequences.
I actually like the Star in the DruidCraft. She's naked, alone, outside, and totally fearless. And that's why she's not an "object", no matter if we like looking at her or not. She neither invites nor refuses, she just is. And that's quite sensual/erotic and very un-sexual at the same time (if that makes any sense - I'm running out of adequate language to describe my impressions here).
RiccardoLS said:
subtle sex energies
This is what I'm most concerded about.
[...]
However, in many decks (and maybe because of the comic book background of many artists), we have a sublte sexuality that cames as an underground current. That is what mostly interest me, as I think it really influence the overall feeling of the deck, much more than any single card, or graphic, etc...
Well, as I said, it's like genre fiction. And just in case I haven't mentioned it before: I don't think genre fiction is "unworthy" literature, just as I don't think that comic style, "sexy" decks are "unworthy" tarot. I just like variety, on my bookshelves, in my tarot collection, and in my bedroom, too.
I can't help being slightly bored by all that conformity in "subtle sex energies." I've seen it done in the same way a million times before, in advertising, in Hollywood films, in novels, in comic books, in fashion magazines, etc. It looks all the same to me, and it neither makes me want to spend money, nor does it titillate me in any way. Challenge me and my idea of tarot. Give me something to think about. Make me want to look twice. Stretch the boundaries of tarot concepts and of tarot aesthetics. This doesn't have to hurt, you just need to do it right
(you being all tarot publishers, not just you personally, Ric).
RiccardoLS said:
marketing
[...] And you quote the Decameron and the Gay Tarot as examples of the presence of a market willing to buy over some concept. I know sales figures for those decks, and ... when I see most people asking for something A, I see a contracdiction. I could say - figures in hand - you are a minority. But I'm not convinced the answer is that.
I was not presuming to know your tastes better than you, believe me. Yet, I have sales figures and they are a definite "people like perfect breasts" kind of opinion I cannot ignore.
Obviously, I can't say anything about any sales numbers here. But maybe I haven't expressed myself clearly enough. I didn't mean to say that the Gay Tarot or the Decameron are huge bestsellers, on the contrary. I assume they are niche decks, which probably have a market that's large enough to keep the decks in print, but which might not stay in print if there weren't other decks out there to refinance them (please forgive me if I lack understanding of the publishing world, I'm always eager to learn more than I know so far).
My point was that I think we're comparing existing "perfect breasts" decks (which you have sales figures for) with nonexisting "more variety of perfection" decks (which no one has sales figures for because they simply haven't been produced in a comparable setting (in terms of publishing company, art style, marketing, etc.)). We'd have to compare maybe the DruidCraft with the Sensual Wicca, or something like that, and even then I'm not sure that sales figures alone will be proof of anyone's point here. I mean, as much as publishers want and need to earn money with what they produce, they still must have some limits as to what they will not put out, no matter how much it would bring financially. Maybe just because it's at odds with the company's philosophy or overall image or whatever.
I'm also not suggesting to give up the "standard sexy" decks, I'm suggesting to
add to that range.
RiccardoLS said:
court cards
How do we accept that the Tarditional structure of Court Cards is TOTALLY unbalanced in direction of males?
Should't that be changed (we have some decks that do)?
Yes, it should, and I like it a lot that LoS does often change the Courts system. At the very least, pages should be readable as either male or female. I'm not sure, however, that we should generally be aiming at having exactly as many males and females in one deck, in exactly equal roles and occupations. It's about a balanced
feel, not about a checklist/statistic, as WolfSpirit has already said before.
RiccardoLS said:
Because so often we look for the easy answer. And a card whose meaning arrives through a layered journey does not catch.
Of course the meaning of a card needs to be understandable. That's what I tried to say above with the comparison to genre fiction and James Bond movies. I don't agree, however, that the easiest answer is always the best. Not even in advertising or genre fiction or James Bond movies.
Going with your image of layers here: I'm not talking about "thick, heavy, scratchy wool coat" around the true meaning here, I'm talking about the sort of slightly-obscured that would be the equivalent of a "semi-transparent negligée thrown over the meaning. Seduce people into looking twice, into trying to look beyond that gauzy layer. You can do it with women, now do it with meanings, too.
RiccardoLS said:
Have you seen Strength in the Etruscan Tarot? That card was the only one ever noticed of the whole deck, and was heavily criticized.
I looked it up just now because I hadn't seen it before. It's an interesting take on Strength. On first sight, I didn't like it because it just looked like "stupid bully strength", which is almost the opposite of how I understand that card. This is not "taming the animal inside of you so its energy doesn't destroy you". But on second sight, I can see several fascinating interpretations in that image (e.g. how much "in control" is that guy anyway? is this Strength gone bad, a man trying to kill off his softer, more vulnerable side? etc.). It's a card that's worth discussing for sure.
Why are you bringing up this example? What was the creator's idea behind that image? Now I'm curious... (See? The marketing already works. I've never even noticed that deck before, and now I'm already studying one of its cards...)
RiccardoLS said:
Do You really think the Morrigan of the Celtic deck is embarassed by her own apparence? I look at the card and I don't see her running, but rather dancing. And I see a primal force in her clutching hand. (and have anyone noticed that both the Hermit and Justice feature a a naked man in that deck?). Yet, believe me, when the box of the deck was changed to feature the Star card, sales went better. ^_^ Because it was emerald green.
I'm not sure she's embarrassed but she looks like someone who'd hate that picture of herself if she ever saw it. It's the difference between sex that looks good and sex that feels good. In visual art (or visual porn, for that matter), you have to pick positions that look good, or people will just go "huh? that's not believable!" when they see the pictures of the mindblowing, orgasmically earth-shattering, deeply loving, but very un-photogenic sex from the outside. Know what I mean? It's more important what the viewer thinks of the image than what the person in the image might feel or think. I tend to identify with tarot characters (that's how I read, I empathize with them), so I arrive at making up stories about the poor embarrassed Empress who'd have picked a pose that would have made her look better
and more believable as an Empress if she'd had any choice... It's just my way of saying that the art doesn't work as it was intended. Plus, we might just have different takes on this image. But that would just go to prove that it probably works the other way round, too: what you find sexy, I might find boring (and not enticing me to buy anything)...
But yes, I see that she's meant to look as if she's dancing (not "just" jumping around as I said - not sure where you got that running idea?).
RiccardoLS said:
I was surprised, actually, when I first read that the Manga Tarot was not suitable for beginners because of gender switching. I did the Manga Tarot to be a beginner deck. Then I said: "silly me", "how naive of me".
Again, genre fiction and James Bond movies. I agree, the Manga Tarot deviates quite a lot from the standard deck (which is why it might not be the ideal beginner's deck, at least not if the beginner expected other decks to be similar in gender). It's on my list of decks that I keep coming back to, precisely because of the gender switch, and I'm sure I'll buy it eventually. Even though I don't particularly care for the art style.
WolfSpirit said:
I think it is probably because I am pagan myself, but I love the Druidcraft: it is not a sexless deck, the men are men and the women are women but I see much more equality in this one. It is not an erotic deck, but it reads often lusty and it does have cards that are risky for a mainstream deck, like the naked hanged man an the passionate lovers. And it is a popular deck – so I am not a minority here (although of course not everyone loves the DC nor would I expect them to).
Can I just sign that?
)
I mean, we went from different variations of nudity, to different body shapes/ages/etc., to men vs. women in tarot decks (particularly nude ones), to nudes in art history, to the beauty of the male and female body, to eroticism and sexuality in tarot decks - and back (to name just what I can think of off the top of my tired head)... I certainly had other points, too. 