baba-prague
Thanks for that link. I've fallen out of the habit of reading Marie's blog and in fact I must start again as that entry is really interesting. Like all the best commentaries it really opens up the painting on a number of levels.
The Mary-el Tarot
rabble
My cards are sitting in front of me on my desk. They have a new lover.
They're just gorgeous, Marie! I love them!
Now, if you'll excuse my, I have to get back to admiring my new cards.
They're just gorgeous, Marie! I love them!
Now, if you'll excuse my, I have to get back to admiring my new cards.
UniversalSeeker
I got my cards today and I am ordering another deck right away to save for my old age, as I know this deck is going to be sought after in a big way.
Marie, these are wonderful, I can't wait to read the book.
UniversalSeeker
Marie, these are wonderful, I can't wait to read the book.
UniversalSeeker
noby
I must say that I'm a huge fan of this deck. It's one of the most beautiful decks I've ever seen, and I really connect with the imagery. I definitely don't see it as "just an art deck"; I think this will be an incredible reading deck, and will also be a wonderful deck for meditation on the archetypes of the tarot. I look forward to its eventual release as a published deck.
In my opinion, the Mary-El Tarot is "dark" without wallowing in darkness. It recognizes the sadness and pain of life while also not seeing that sadness and pain as the only realities of the world; the imagery of the deck is also attuned to the light that filters through the cracks. The deck is esoteric and mysterious without being pretentious. It's multicultural, yet lacks the sterile quality of something that's PC in a forced way; the different cultural elements blend together with the sense of being united by a genuine intuitive sensibility of the tarot's archetypes, rather than feeling like a pastiche.
My favorite card at the moment is Death; I believe the card captures the sadness and beauty of impermanence, and does not flinch away from the reality of old age and death. There's a liminal quality to the card, of being on the threshold where endings fade into beginnings. It has a quality of shamanic wisdom, of being able to see the "other side." It's one of many cards in the deck that circumvents the analytical mind and goes straight to the heart and gut, which is a treat. I can understand why Kiama burst into tears when she received the limited edition Majors/Aces version. This deck's got some real soul.
Thanks, Marie! Not only is it wonderful that you've made this deck and given it to the world, but it's also a great gift that you've shared the images and the process of making it with everyone. It's neat getting to read about everything from your thoughts on the cards to stories about your daughter's interest in tarot and insistence on watching you work on it.
A question: The Queen of Swords originally posted to the site was "doomed." May I ask why? I really liked her! I can't read any further back on the site's journal than the last ten entries or so (when I try to navigate "back" on the journal section, nothing happens), and I've been curious as to your thoughts on doing away with her, Marie. I like the current sketch for the new QoS too, but I think I liked the perspective of the older card better. That said, the cards I like "least" on this deck are cards I actually like better than most of the cards in my current favorite decks!
In my opinion, the Mary-El Tarot is "dark" without wallowing in darkness. It recognizes the sadness and pain of life while also not seeing that sadness and pain as the only realities of the world; the imagery of the deck is also attuned to the light that filters through the cracks. The deck is esoteric and mysterious without being pretentious. It's multicultural, yet lacks the sterile quality of something that's PC in a forced way; the different cultural elements blend together with the sense of being united by a genuine intuitive sensibility of the tarot's archetypes, rather than feeling like a pastiche.
My favorite card at the moment is Death; I believe the card captures the sadness and beauty of impermanence, and does not flinch away from the reality of old age and death. There's a liminal quality to the card, of being on the threshold where endings fade into beginnings. It has a quality of shamanic wisdom, of being able to see the "other side." It's one of many cards in the deck that circumvents the analytical mind and goes straight to the heart and gut, which is a treat. I can understand why Kiama burst into tears when she received the limited edition Majors/Aces version. This deck's got some real soul.
Thanks, Marie! Not only is it wonderful that you've made this deck and given it to the world, but it's also a great gift that you've shared the images and the process of making it with everyone. It's neat getting to read about everything from your thoughts on the cards to stories about your daughter's interest in tarot and insistence on watching you work on it.
A question: The Queen of Swords originally posted to the site was "doomed." May I ask why? I really liked her! I can't read any further back on the site's journal than the last ten entries or so (when I try to navigate "back" on the journal section, nothing happens), and I've been curious as to your thoughts on doing away with her, Marie. I like the current sketch for the new QoS too, but I think I liked the perspective of the older card better. That said, the cards I like "least" on this deck are cards I actually like better than most of the cards in my current favorite decks!
FearfulSymmetry
UniversalSeeker said:
Thanks!!! I am glad you like them!
Marie
FearfulSymmetry
Hi Noby,
I have to say that I am blown away by what you have written. A lot of the things you mention are what I have attempted to do but you never really know if anyone else sees it beyond yourself.
The first idea that ever came to mind, or that I thought I saw a need for in tarot was when I first got my Thoth deck. (And at the time I had an art gallery in the Pomona Artist Colony, not far from you in Claremont!!) Anyway, the Thoth seemed so masculine to me at the time and the other decks seemed so much lighter, like there was a huge gap there and no balance. I remember thinking that I would like to make a tarot deck that would fall somewhere in-between. I don't know if I have, but I have tried.
You ask about the Queen of Swords. I wrote she was doomed because I knew I wanted to repaint her. I didn't think anyone would notice that lol. I also put a little skull and crossbones on mouse-over for all the cards I want to repaint. Someone wrote saying they thought that was a warning against copying the images! It isn't!!
The simple answer for why I am redoing that card is that I just don't feel that I captured her the first time around. Every time I look at that card I flinch because it is wrong. I actually liked the original sketch for that one a lot better than how it turned out as a finished painting. Hopefully you will like the new one a lot better when you see it fully painted, it will be a lot more developed and complete as far as the symbolism goes. Every time I repaint something I risk people not liking the new version as much, but sometimes it has to be done!
Also, I have been having problems with the journal. I know all those old messages are still here, I just need to work out the bugs. Sorry about that.
Thank you again, I am really flattered and will be happy to answer any questions or just chat about tarot with you
Marie
I have to say that I am blown away by what you have written. A lot of the things you mention are what I have attempted to do but you never really know if anyone else sees it beyond yourself.
The first idea that ever came to mind, or that I thought I saw a need for in tarot was when I first got my Thoth deck. (And at the time I had an art gallery in the Pomona Artist Colony, not far from you in Claremont!!) Anyway, the Thoth seemed so masculine to me at the time and the other decks seemed so much lighter, like there was a huge gap there and no balance. I remember thinking that I would like to make a tarot deck that would fall somewhere in-between. I don't know if I have, but I have tried.
You ask about the Queen of Swords. I wrote she was doomed because I knew I wanted to repaint her. I didn't think anyone would notice that lol. I also put a little skull and crossbones on mouse-over for all the cards I want to repaint. Someone wrote saying they thought that was a warning against copying the images! It isn't!!
The simple answer for why I am redoing that card is that I just don't feel that I captured her the first time around. Every time I look at that card I flinch because it is wrong. I actually liked the original sketch for that one a lot better than how it turned out as a finished painting. Hopefully you will like the new one a lot better when you see it fully painted, it will be a lot more developed and complete as far as the symbolism goes. Every time I repaint something I risk people not liking the new version as much, but sometimes it has to be done!
Also, I have been having problems with the journal. I know all those old messages are still here, I just need to work out the bugs. Sorry about that.
Thank you again, I am really flattered and will be happy to answer any questions or just chat about tarot with you
Marie
noby
I am so glad you enjoyed my comments. It's neat to know that a lot of what I'm seeing was intended, and not just stuff I'm projecting or over-interpreting.
I am currently studying the Thoth deck and various writings by Crowley, and am in love with his rich ideas and vision. I think the Thoth deck is a masterpiece, and am so grateful that someone with ideas as profound and illuminative as Crowley connected with an artist of such vision and depth as Harris.
That said, I completely agree with you that it's overly skewed to the masculine side of things. Crowley certainly seems to place the male higher in his hierarchy than the female, and so many of the cards are about the male side of things and male sexuality. Crowley's clear and keen ideas are enough to make up for the sexism and phallocentrism I find in his works, but it certainly does leave one feeling that there's something missing, something distorted. Interesting that to Crowley, the old dead Aeon of Osiris was the Aeon in which there was over-emphasis of the male and over-exaltation of the male, concurrent with the demeaning of the feminine. Perhaps, though (if one agrees with Crowley's ideas) he can be seen as a prophet of a new era, he was not completely beyond the influence of the old one?
I really do think you've struck a balance with this deck. It unflinchingly looks into that which is sad and difficult, impermanence, death, and loss, fear, but it balances that with images of life, light, power, exuberance. Actually, I think the most beautiful emotion is when one sees the beauty in impermanence, feeling joy and sadness at the same time. If a deck drifts too far to "the dark side" or the "light side," I think it misses out on the intertwining of these two emotions and perspectives. The real richness comes from the place where they meet, IMO. I think that's where the tears come.
And I can see that meeting in many of your cards, especially Death. Also the World. She's seen it all, she's suffered--you can see that in her. But she's also so free and so exuberant, so beautiful. Her sadness is the sadness of seeing the real beauty of the world, knowing its close relationship with pain, and not flinching away from that. Letting it all in. And then there's the literal meeting of dark and light on the card. Rooted in darkness, crowned in light. Wonderful.
I'm definitely excited about meeting your new QoS when she's finished. I am really interested in crows, and feel an affinity with them, and am also an air sign (Aquarius), so I personally feel a connection with the different ideas and archetypes you're working with on that card.
I am currently studying the Thoth deck and various writings by Crowley, and am in love with his rich ideas and vision. I think the Thoth deck is a masterpiece, and am so grateful that someone with ideas as profound and illuminative as Crowley connected with an artist of such vision and depth as Harris.
That said, I completely agree with you that it's overly skewed to the masculine side of things. Crowley certainly seems to place the male higher in his hierarchy than the female, and so many of the cards are about the male side of things and male sexuality. Crowley's clear and keen ideas are enough to make up for the sexism and phallocentrism I find in his works, but it certainly does leave one feeling that there's something missing, something distorted. Interesting that to Crowley, the old dead Aeon of Osiris was the Aeon in which there was over-emphasis of the male and over-exaltation of the male, concurrent with the demeaning of the feminine. Perhaps, though (if one agrees with Crowley's ideas) he can be seen as a prophet of a new era, he was not completely beyond the influence of the old one?
I really do think you've struck a balance with this deck. It unflinchingly looks into that which is sad and difficult, impermanence, death, and loss, fear, but it balances that with images of life, light, power, exuberance. Actually, I think the most beautiful emotion is when one sees the beauty in impermanence, feeling joy and sadness at the same time. If a deck drifts too far to "the dark side" or the "light side," I think it misses out on the intertwining of these two emotions and perspectives. The real richness comes from the place where they meet, IMO. I think that's where the tears come.
And I can see that meeting in many of your cards, especially Death. Also the World. She's seen it all, she's suffered--you can see that in her. But she's also so free and so exuberant, so beautiful. Her sadness is the sadness of seeing the real beauty of the world, knowing its close relationship with pain, and not flinching away from that. Letting it all in. And then there's the literal meeting of dark and light on the card. Rooted in darkness, crowned in light. Wonderful.
I'm definitely excited about meeting your new QoS when she's finished. I am really interested in crows, and feel an affinity with them, and am also an air sign (Aquarius), so I personally feel a connection with the different ideas and archetypes you're working with on that card.
FearfulSymmetry
noby said:
I have to say that my opinion of Crowley and the Thoth has changed over the years. When I first bought the deck it was because I thought it was so beautiful and then something changed. For a long time I couldn't pick it up without feeling repulsed in a way and it wasn't until about 1 or 2 years ago that I remembered having what I now know is a panic attack but at the time thought was some sort of psychic prediction that something terrible was going to happen as I had had them before and had them come true.
Once I realized that I was able to get over my negativity. Plus in the old days I didn't really understand or know about the contribution Freida Harris had and I really appreciate it now. The same goes for the Rider Waite, I used to think it was overly simplistic and I didn't care for the art, frankly, but it has grown on me over the years and I now think it was a work of genius, intentional or not!
Crowley was an interesting guy wasn't he?? I think he had a lot of human flaws but I don't doubt for a second that he had a clear vision.
I don't think I have ever actually uttered these words outside my head (and I guess I am not doing so now, ha!) But I really feel that he was gay, not just bisexual, or all sexual, or openly experimental, just gay and somehow even in his overly appearing openness he was very repressed about it. And his art and writings are very similar to a lot of the art and philosophies of gay men friends I have had- there is a different feel to it, a different focus, and it feels masuline. Have you ever seen any of Crowleys drawings? Lady Freida went a long way to balance him out.
Marie
noby
Interesting thoughts on Crowley. I don't know enough about him to be able to speculate on his sexuality in an informed way, but what you say makes sense. Either way, whatever his orientation, it's still pretty clear in his writings that he doesn't see the feminine as something as equal and central as the masculine. What bothers me the most is that he took his archetypal ideas of male and female and believed they also applied to actual human men and women.
I think this is an egregious error, spiritually, politically, and intellectually. It's one thing to take certain fundamental energies one encounters in the universe and to label them as "male" and "female" in order to try to understand and work with them, to use the terms as a sort of metaphysical shorthand; it's another to equate those in any overt way with males and females as biological individuals.
I take no issue with setting up a system in which "male" = active, initiating and "female" = passive, receptive. It's another thing entirely, however, to go on from there and to say that men always reflect traits which are "male" metaphysically and women always reflect "female" traits. The metaphysical and the biological are two different things, and the same terms in each system refer to different things. They're not equivalent. It's an error to think they are. Each of us has both "male" and "female" qualities within us, at least when one is using the archetypal definitions of those words (and possibly the biological definitions as well, but that's another story for another time).
I don't mind the Empress being feminine and the Emperor being masculine. Symbolically, that makes sense. But I think it's incorrect to think that on an individual-by-individual basis, women are like the Empress and men are like the Emperor. Both can be receptive, creative, and generative, and both can be authoritative, vigorous, and aggressive. Even cliched gender stereotypes reflect this: the "catty" woman and the males who are the "dreamers" and "artists." You don't have to be male to be a fighter, or female to be a nurturer. To think in that way is deluded--in Crowleyan terms, or at least how I would interpret them, it's being stuck in the thinking of the old Aeon.
Nor can one even extend archetypal male/female qualities to the bedroom, beyond a certain point. (It should be noted here I'm not intending to exclude non-hetero sexualities, but am focusing on male/female sexual interaction because it's the source of the kind of archetypal thought I'm discussing.) Sure, the archetypes reflect the sexual mechanics. That's where they come from. (It seems most human ideas arise out of our fascination with our own sexuality.) But even then, the dynamics of submission and domination, the dynamic interplay between giving and receiving, is not pinned to gender. Women are not passive receptacles, any more than men are not receivers in the sexual act. If the man did not receive and the woman did not give, the sexual act could not take place.
Unfortunately, Crowley seemed all too ready to proceed in this kind of thinking, extending his ideas of the metaphysical male and female to the biological, social, and political realities. He seems all too ready to see real-world gender differences as the same as differences between male and female in metaphysical systems. It's flawed intellectually and speaks to some deep-seated inner blindness. All that said, I wouldn't want to go back and make Crowley any different than he was. The systems he came up with, though tinged with corrupting influences, are brilliant and functional. Of course, no system for explaining the nature of reality,the universe, and consciousness is ever going to be "complete" and "accurate." They're all approximations. So it's silly to want to throw out a system because it's flawed, if it's a functional system. And I find Crowley's ideas and systems to be very functional and helpful as I ponder metaphysical questions and work with the gift and burden of a human mind. So while I think it's important to note and be aware of the potential shortcomings of a particular person's vision, I don't see this as being grounds to dismiss it as invalid.
I think this is an egregious error, spiritually, politically, and intellectually. It's one thing to take certain fundamental energies one encounters in the universe and to label them as "male" and "female" in order to try to understand and work with them, to use the terms as a sort of metaphysical shorthand; it's another to equate those in any overt way with males and females as biological individuals.
I take no issue with setting up a system in which "male" = active, initiating and "female" = passive, receptive. It's another thing entirely, however, to go on from there and to say that men always reflect traits which are "male" metaphysically and women always reflect "female" traits. The metaphysical and the biological are two different things, and the same terms in each system refer to different things. They're not equivalent. It's an error to think they are. Each of us has both "male" and "female" qualities within us, at least when one is using the archetypal definitions of those words (and possibly the biological definitions as well, but that's another story for another time).
I don't mind the Empress being feminine and the Emperor being masculine. Symbolically, that makes sense. But I think it's incorrect to think that on an individual-by-individual basis, women are like the Empress and men are like the Emperor. Both can be receptive, creative, and generative, and both can be authoritative, vigorous, and aggressive. Even cliched gender stereotypes reflect this: the "catty" woman and the males who are the "dreamers" and "artists." You don't have to be male to be a fighter, or female to be a nurturer. To think in that way is deluded--in Crowleyan terms, or at least how I would interpret them, it's being stuck in the thinking of the old Aeon.
Nor can one even extend archetypal male/female qualities to the bedroom, beyond a certain point. (It should be noted here I'm not intending to exclude non-hetero sexualities, but am focusing on male/female sexual interaction because it's the source of the kind of archetypal thought I'm discussing.) Sure, the archetypes reflect the sexual mechanics. That's where they come from. (It seems most human ideas arise out of our fascination with our own sexuality.) But even then, the dynamics of submission and domination, the dynamic interplay between giving and receiving, is not pinned to gender. Women are not passive receptacles, any more than men are not receivers in the sexual act. If the man did not receive and the woman did not give, the sexual act could not take place.
Unfortunately, Crowley seemed all too ready to proceed in this kind of thinking, extending his ideas of the metaphysical male and female to the biological, social, and political realities. He seems all too ready to see real-world gender differences as the same as differences between male and female in metaphysical systems. It's flawed intellectually and speaks to some deep-seated inner blindness. All that said, I wouldn't want to go back and make Crowley any different than he was. The systems he came up with, though tinged with corrupting influences, are brilliant and functional. Of course, no system for explaining the nature of reality,the universe, and consciousness is ever going to be "complete" and "accurate." They're all approximations. So it's silly to want to throw out a system because it's flawed, if it's a functional system. And I find Crowley's ideas and systems to be very functional and helpful as I ponder metaphysical questions and work with the gift and burden of a human mind. So while I think it's important to note and be aware of the potential shortcomings of a particular person's vision, I don't see this as being grounds to dismiss it as invalid.
FearfulSymmetry
I totally agree.
I never really thought of Crowley that way, as treating people as though they behaved like the symbols, that's interesting, I'll have to keep that slant in mind when I read about him.
Something I love about symbolism is how it can get simplified into just being men and women and mothers and fathers, circles and fires and arrows or whatever. One of the reasons I think traditional tarot titles work so well is that they aren't an exact representation, to switch an Emperor for masculinity or a Devil for addiction is great because the conscious mind doesn't quite get it but the subconscious understands perfectly, it is all in the language of the subconcious. If you call it what it is it will get absorbed by the conscious and never go any deeper. It's interesting to think that Crowley somehow blurred the line between reality and symbolism. I would like to think he lived concsiously but maybe he was driven by deeper stuff. But then what do I know, I don't have any formal psychological training, just my own muddled observations. I don't know that much about him either, reading is a lot different than knowing someone in the flesh.
I wouldn't change him either, I think he accomplished some important stuff and fulfilled whatever destiny or higher purpose he had.
I have heard Lady Freida being criticized as unsuccessful and mediocre too but I think she was an excellent artist.
Marie
I never really thought of Crowley that way, as treating people as though they behaved like the symbols, that's interesting, I'll have to keep that slant in mind when I read about him.
Something I love about symbolism is how it can get simplified into just being men and women and mothers and fathers, circles and fires and arrows or whatever. One of the reasons I think traditional tarot titles work so well is that they aren't an exact representation, to switch an Emperor for masculinity or a Devil for addiction is great because the conscious mind doesn't quite get it but the subconscious understands perfectly, it is all in the language of the subconcious. If you call it what it is it will get absorbed by the conscious and never go any deeper. It's interesting to think that Crowley somehow blurred the line between reality and symbolism. I would like to think he lived concsiously but maybe he was driven by deeper stuff. But then what do I know, I don't have any formal psychological training, just my own muddled observations. I don't know that much about him either, reading is a lot different than knowing someone in the flesh.
I wouldn't change him either, I think he accomplished some important stuff and fulfilled whatever destiny or higher purpose he had.
I have heard Lady Freida being criticized as unsuccessful and mediocre too but I think she was an excellent artist.
Marie
