Artistic Skill, Aesthetics in the Thoth and other "GD-inspired" Decks.

[Grigori]

In other words, why were excellent writers involved in the GD but not visual artists?

The GD Tarot was largely created by Samuel Liddel Mathers, with the artwork executed by his wife Moina Mathers who was a trained artist. No one has seen that deck however, so who knows what that exactly looked like. I think it's good to remember that at that time the tarots in existence were primarily from the Marseille tradition. The concept of occult talented people working with a visual artist to create a more attractive deck was revolutionary then. Decks in the GD tradition were personal decks created by the user for magical reasons, not artistic, and arguably more valuable as a magical item having been created by the user. I don't think it's correct to expect they were intended to have artistic merit let alone excellence, they were supposed to have occult merit. It's only since that time that art has become valuable in tarot following tarot's rebirth in recent decades. Though occult significance has hugely waned in so many recent examples.

My taste and education in art is very different perhaps, I find the Thoth deck beautiful and most of the decks that are by more "accomplished artists" I find useless or naff for use as a tarot LOL I prefer the magical effect of Frieda's work, and find the Circero's even simpler work in the GD Magical Tarot very appealing in it's own way. I would love to see a really excellently created GD deck, there have been some very good ones that haven't made it to print, but I've not seen anything really amazing. Maybe Via Tarot comes closest to a deck with occult depth and also high artistic value. I have a reproduction of a card from the Sarah Magdalene tarot on my wall which I find stunning and moving myself.

I think there is a paucity of artistic brilliance in tarot generally, not just in the more magical areas. While we have some very good options out there, there is precious little that is both artistically stunning/valuable/excellent and also developed as tarot decks or magical implements. Then again outside of tarot how many artists have a series with 78 images or more than are consistent with each other, a theme, and also each of high quality? There are some decks in existence that are from acclaimed artists, but with images not intended as tarot and have been adapted. Others from exceptional occultists, but with little artistic value to recommend them. I'd much rather read with the later than the former, and judge a deck primarily from its value to me in application and its effect on the viewer.

 

[Zephyros]

Most decks today are created by artists, not occultists. While I wouldn't say that a deck can't be both, as Grigori said, a magickal implement and visually appealing (in my opinion there is at least one, the Thoth) today the trend is opposite what it was previously, so the same argument can be made against many modern decks, as in "why are they artistically accomplished, but not esoterically interesting?" A complaint made against esoteric decks is "it isn't good just because it's dense with symbols." Of course that isn't what makes a deck "good," it has to do with the ambition that goes into making it.

Probably the most artistically accomplished, by modern mainstream standards, GD deck is the Initiatory Tarot of the Golden Dawn. All the important elements are there in the cards, yet as a deck it is still lacking in vision, scope and perhaps grandeur. The Hermetic receives a lot of flack for its style and its... well, "interesting" way of depicting figures, but I still find it infinitely better than the Initiatory. This isn't because the cards are dense, but because it tries very, very hard to be more than it is. The Initiatory goes to the extreme opposite position of favoring style over substance.

In the case of the Thoth I suppose its stylistic eccentricities have become accepted because of the deck's ubiquity. It should also be remembered that the Thoth was inspired by Art Deco, with some of the cards blurring the lines between traditional modes of drawing figures and complete abstract painting. I really don't think judging the cards based on realism is fair, it's apples and oranges, a deck not trying to be realistic being judged by the realism of its figures. Ultimately pelicans need not look like pelicans.

 

[yogiman]

A year ago the Rosetta tarot was published. I am curious to know how this tarot is generally received by the thelemites.

 

[Grigori]

A year ago the Rosetta tarot was published. I am curious to know how this tarot is generally received by the thelemites.

I like the Rosetta very much. I have the deck and also use it regularly as an App on my phone. I see it as a more approachable way for many to explore the Thoth and GD tarots, and I find it an attractive and useful deck, and a very good companion book also.

I also really like the artwork of the Mary-El, and it has it's own depth also. Though it's "too much like but not the same as" GD and Thoth decks in structure to be immediately readable to me. I'd prefer something more directly related to their approach personally.

 

[Kingdubrock]

Most decks today are created by artists, not occultists. While I wouldn't say that a deck can't be both, as Grigori said, a magickal implement and visually appealing (in my opinion there is at least one, the Thoth) today the trend is opposite what it was previously, so the same argument can be made against many modern decks, as in "why are they artistically accomplished, but not esoterically interesting?" A complaint made against esoteric decks is "it isn't good just because it's dense with symbols." Of course that isn't what makes a deck "good," it has to do with the ambition that goes into making it.

Probably the most artistically accomplished, by modern mainstream standards, GD deck is the Initiatory Tarot of the Golden Dawn. All the important elements are there in the cards, yet as a deck it is still lacking in vision, scope and perhaps grandeur. The Hermetic receives a lot of flack for its style and its... well, "interesting" way of depicting figures, but I still find it infinitely better than the Initiatory. This isn't because the cards are dense, but because it tries very, very hard to be more than it is. The Initiatory goes to the extreme opposite position of favoring style over substance.

In the case of the Thoth I suppose its stylistic eccentricities have become accepted because of the deck's ubiquity. It should also be remembered that the Thoth was inspired by Art Deco, with some of the cards blurring the lines between traditional modes of drawing figures and complete abstract painting. I really don't think judging the cards based on realism is fair, it's apples and oranges, a deck not trying to be realistic being judged by the realism of its figures. Ultimately pelicans need not look like pelicans.

Very interesting post. Although Admittedly I thought I addressed your comments about realism in an earlier post. It has nothing to do with realism until you start getting into realism. There is a difference between stylization and abstraction on one hand and being out of your technical depth and then compensating with abstraction and style on the other, which is what I see in some of her work on the Thoth, notably with human figures. As i said, i do like her tracing boards, and the numbered cards are nicely done. For example, in the Fuller images that Raven shared, I can suspect that he may not have spent time in the life drawing studios and atteliers, but it doesnt matter or come up because he is painting diagrammatically, with symbols, depicting processes and principles. If he used stick figures where human forms are depicted it wouldnt matter. Another example might be Innuit art. Proportion and realism are not a concern in a great deal of the images, but nevertheless, in the work of the trained artists, inasmuch as they are representational, the tricky parts have been worked through and mastered. You can have tiny hands or paws connected to a giant body and sideways head when the body is coming towards the viewer but somehow the gesture, movement, shapes and so on reflect a degree of training and consistency. The images are powerful, tell stories, instruct, and reflect a shamanistic view of survival and harmony, executed in a way that looks effortless, and which can be taught to future artists.

There is a legendary book by Betty Edwards called Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. She was well known for her research and teaching work in the area of beginning artists. She shows drawings that people do coming into the class of say, faces. They all show to varying degrees the extent to which the students have attempted techniques like shading and realism. There is this awkward mixture of skill and almost child-like execution. Whats happening in these cases is that the student is only capturing a certain amount of data-information from the model such as "blonde hair", "bangs", "fedora" or whatever, but then drawing idealized representations which come primarily from memory, such as "eye", "nose", "lips". To a greater or lesser degree they might attempt to revise these idealized forms to incorporate certain unique details of the model, but dont quite capture it. On the other hand, these same students might try and copy a photograph of a person or sculpture and may even appear quite talented.. But then put them in front of a model and the phenomenon just described emerges. Edwards brilliantly further illustrates this by having students copy a simple line drawing by Picasso of Stravinsky. People capture it to some degree, but with largely "meh" results. However, as if by magic, if they turn the Picasso drawing upside down, and try again, they have to look very carefully, closely observe which line leads to what, at which angle, where a slight curve starts and ends and how curved it actually is. This is because they dont have an idealized representation in their memory (or schema) for what they are looking at. When they are finished and then turn their own drawings upside down (in other words making them appear right side up) suddenly you have a room full of Picassos!
The point behind my mentioning this, is that the extent to which these schemas and idealized representations are apparent in the drawing - is the extent to which you can tell the artist hasnt been taught to really "see". It is the true seeing that shows up in good art, not true "realism" as a notion or concept. An artist that can truly see, can go way beyond the initial object, and explore, combine, play and revert back to the conventional all in one piece and we can somehow see what they see, feel what they feel.

Anyway, im pretty sure Ive made my comments and observations, and asked my questions as best I can. Hopefully this was somewhat interesting.

 

[devilkitty]

One might also point out the highly class-conscious nature of society at the time of these decks' creation, and that many of these figures were well-born -- or liked to make a pretense thereof (Crowley and both Mathers are great examples of "wannabe" hoi aristoi). Harris as well, perhaps to a lesser extent -- she was the wife of a baronet (though Percy hadn't yet been made a peer when they married) and should have used the style "Frieda, Lady Harris". Instead, she used "Lady Frieda Harris", which is a style used for courtesy titles of the wives of dukes, marquesses and earls. I don't suspect she was unaware, and preferred that people assume her of higher birth than she was.

In any event, to be too good at something (or to show it) was the mark of a tradesman in their eyes, and they didn't wish to be seen as such -- it was below the class they wished to present themselves as.

And I do love the Rosetta.

 

[Kingdubrock]

One might also point out the highly class-conscious nature of society at the time of these decks' creation, and that many of these figures were well-born -- or liked to make a pretense thereof (Crowley and both Mathers are great examples of "wannabe" hoi aristoi). Harris as well, perhaps to a lesser extent -- she was the wife of a baronet (though Percy hadn't yet been made a peer when they married) and should have used the style "Frieda, Lady Harris". Instead, she used "Lady Frieda Harris", which is a style used for courtesy titles of the wives of dukes, marquesses and earls. I don't suspect she was unaware, and preferred that people assume her of higher birth than she was.

In any event, to be too good at something (or to show it) was the mark of a tradesman in their eyes, and they didn't wish to be seen as such -- it was below the class they wished to present themselves as.

And I do love the Rosetta.

Great post.

 

[ravenest]

I enjoyed reading post 25 (thanks) and the description of Innuit art (which I love). But it somehow got me thinking about something, which may be related or not.

I am thinking about my last 'DREAM' ... not dream , but DREAM ... a magical, deep significant one. Now, in consciousness I am thinking how would I like to paint that? In my mind (because I don't have the ability to do it on paper or canvass) I construct an image from the dream ... fine, but on examination it is very 'ideal' ... I realised I filled in many details consciously; in my 'mind painting' I have worked out the details and added them, but in the dream they were not actually there. A figure holds up something for me to see. I see it quiet clearly, but not their hand ... if the face is important* then I see and remember that , or if male or female, if that isn't important then sex is not detailed. Normally I am not aware of colour but in some dreams ... wow! - THAT aqua colour ... I HAVE to try and mix that!

And speaking of colour ; Kingdubrock, what is your take on the GD colour scales? Are you familiar with Don Parvey's colour theory?

Sorry if I am adding too much to your thread, we could split - but I am interested on hearing your take on this.

* Important in that it is important to the figure in the dream , or the message of the dream (recently I read {Harpur} that 'I had a dream' {I dreamed it} is a relatively new idea, people used to say; I saw a dream or I was given a dream).

 

[Chimera Dust]

I can't comment on the role of aesthetics in GD decks, since I don't have many of them myself and have only just looked at online previews.

What I can say is that I'm really picky about the artwork in my decks, it has to look good in some way otherwise I just get unfocused and get put off by the flaws. Most decks I've enjoyed haven't had 100% perfect artwork, but their flaws were such that I could still appreciate them.

I tend to like elaborate decks with lots of tiny details on each card, but one thing I've noticed is that this doesn't always mean artistic skill. There are some decks with artwork that must have taken a lot of time to make, but which looks like someone in a beginner's life drawing class would do, and which looks rather wonky in an annoying way. I haven't found many simplistic decks I liked but I assume the reverse would be true for them -- wsome simplistic decks may look genuinely nice and the sort of thing I could love.

That's also true of art in general, I think. It happens too often that artwork that is more simplistic because it's abstract or because it's in a more untrained style ends up being an excuse to not put that much effort or skill into it. However, there are many good pieces that fall into those categories but their simplicity is deceptive, because once you look closer, you can see how it's beautiful or thought-provoking or downright awesome.

 

[Kingdubrock]

I enjoyed reading post 25 (thanks) and the description of Innuit art (which I love). But it somehow got me thinking about something, which may be related or not.

I am thinking about my last 'DREAM' ... not dream , but DREAM ... a magical, deep significant one. Now, in consciousness I am thinking how would I like to paint that? In my mind (because I don't have the ability to do it on paper or canvass) I construct an image from the dream ... fine, but on examination it is very 'ideal' ... I realised I filled in many details consciously; in my 'mind painting' I have worked out the details and added them, but in the dream they were not actually there. A figure holds up something for me to see. I see it quiet clearly, but not their hand ... if the face is important* then I see and remember that , or if male or female, if that isn't important then sex is not detailed. Normally I am not aware of colour but in some dreams ... wow! - THAT aqua colour ... I HAVE to try and mix that!

And speaking of colour ; Kingdubrock, what is your take on the GD colour scales? Are you familiar with Don Parvey's colour theory?

Sorry if I am adding too much to your thread, we could split - but I am interested on hearing your take on this.

* Important in that it is important to the figure in the dream , or the message of the dream (recently I read {Harpur} that 'I had a dream' {I dreamed it} is a relatively new idea, people used to say; I saw a dream or I was given a dream).

Hi Raven,
Thank you for that thought provoking post. it got me thinking. This is only my personal opinion, but in order for you to best capture and or convey the essence of your DREAM, it would primarily depend on the purpose for doing so.

If you felt for example that it was a dire prophesy of something imanent that affects many people and you wanted it to be seen by many, the direness felt and responded to this might determine your choice of media and or possible collaborators. Would it be time based - so..a video... a staged performance on the steps of city hall, or a media interview perhaps? A billboard or newspaper ad.. in which case it might be wise to work with an agency of skilled graphic and type communicators. Something requiring a slower gestation and ongoing familiarity, so maybe a piece of public art like a sculpture or flyering throughout the city with a compelling question or statement or URL to a website.

if it was something you wanted to keep personal and reflect on, perhaps simple sketches in a sketchbook. Simple un-self-conscious painings with guache using only primary colors and experiement with mixing until the colors that seem right appear.., work with collage, or, maybe just do your best to convey it with the sort of imagery and style you like, and not worry too much aout the outcome. To dialogue with, perhaps a Jung-style "active imagination" journal. Fill a whole notebook a little each day until you feel its been sufficiently explored...

Yet in another context, your DREAM could for example, be a precise manifestation of a traditional magical or meditation or yoga practice. A definite sign that others who have tread the same path have also dreamt. A distinct signpost in a series of such DREAMS that are for the purpose of gaguing "progress" and that others who do the practices should also have. So, perhaps in this case you dont want to give it all away because others need to discover it for themselves, so it contains only a prompt, as a trigger, or a message or visual language that can only be understood after one has had an appropriate experience or DREAM of their own. In this case the need for representational accuracy, or emotional transmission through color, or the energy created by interacting patterns or forms or whatever is determined by the function of the representation. A series of smaller component images that interact in a modular fashion in separate panels (like the Tarot!). A graphic novel perhaps that seems to be about something else. A Poem if you write poetry. An instrumental piece if you play an instrument. Make a killer quilt if you are a quilter. Such a set of images exists in the Zen tradition called the Ten Ox Herding Pictures:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=ten+o...OfC2wW93YCQDA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAA&biw=768&bih=928

Determinng these things is partly personal and creative, but also, imo, depending on where it falls within the personal-shared spectrum, possibly a matter of tradition, approprate use of, or departures from, or alterations to certain established conventions like reading from left to right, what color means in the public sphere vs the estoteric sphere, or any number of other cultural determinants. You may do something, and then one of your spiritual sisters or brothers in this or a future generation may add to, subtract from, or modify it. Then people have two and the process evolves.


As for the GD color scales, I confess I havent learned them. There is a profound color system and tradition in Tibetan Buddhism I am more conversant with. This applies to the "Buddha Families", the emotional energies, medicine and art. In the Marseille cards, Jean CLaude Flornoy speaks about a color code preserved in a song that was sung among the "Compagnons" - semi monastic artisan guilds who made the early printed decks such as the Dodal or the Noblet deck. To this code, long ago, the colors light blue and flesh-tone were added, perhaps based on an oral tradition. As well, of course, I was trained in colour theory in art school. This is based more directly on optics, chemistry and physics, with no set psychological or spiritual attributions beyond culturally accumulated ones. There is also a sort of informal color system within the advertising and spacial decor trades believed to influence people subconsciously. I do find it all very fascinating.

So anyway, these are just my own ramblings inspired by your post.

It all kinda depends.