The Wildwood Tarot

[Le Fanu]

And surely nobody - not your average (not fanatical) tarot fan, not your average ebay seller - is going to be unaware of the power of the mythical "G" word.

What has grabbed people about the Greenwood (apart from the price, for some, maybe) is the artwork. It is this which makes it special. I know Mark Ryan had a role in it (the concept? The book?) but the visionary aspect is Chesca's own and - unfortunately for him - her presence in the deck has rather overtaken his. It's normal with the visual arts.

I'm thinking of Picasso's sets for the Ballet Russes (which I love), some of the ballets have all but been forgotten, but the backdrops and costumes by Picasso, because they're so incredible, are what live on. Same here. Sorry Mark.

 

[gregory]

And don't get me wrong. I think the art is lovely - and I shall buy it - but as the Wildwood, NOT for ANYTHING to do with the Greenwood.

 

[SarahRacheal]

It is the TONE and the way it is being done; it all seems ultra-disrespectful.

Agreed!

 

[HearthCricket]

To me the two decks represent very different times in history, as well, and thus give a very different atmosphere for readings. When I use the Greenwood I feel I am working with my ancestors. Cave art, primitive clothes, a world dominated by animals, not people, very Shamanistic, very ancient.

With the pictures I have seen of the Wildwood, it is more of a Robin Hood kind of deck. And I am fine about that. The clothes are more refined and detailed, it is a different century..it feels centuries ahead of the Greenwood. Still lovely, but just a very different deck and will gladly accept it as such, though sorry they are using the Greenwood name to tout a deck that will probably sell well on its own merits.

 

[northsea]

Finally, images of the Wildwood tarot have been posted on Aeclectic. I wonder how this will go over with the die-hard Greenwood fans especially since it's supposed to be a reconception/redesign of the Greenwood Tarot. What do you all think? So far I'm liking what I'm seeing.

ETA: Upon second look, while I think the Wildwood looks pretty good, you just can't mess with the original Greenwood IMO.

... looks at cards...


eeks, not another Druidcraft, somebody please find Potter, oh where oh where did she go?

 

[HOLMES]

ohh I like the images

I didn't like the greenwood imagery no offense to anyone out there,

I just saw wildwood and it is my kind of deck,, i would buy if i saw it and i like how they called it wildwood and not a greenwood second edition or what they did with the mythic tarot.

 

[Carla]

I like the Druidcraft, so I will like Wildwood, too, I'm sure. It's just as well I don't know anything about Greenwood, since obviously it's another deck I'll never get the chance to own!

 

[Cat*]

Hmm... I love and have used extensively both the Greenwood and the DruidCraft, but for some reason I can't get behind the Wildwood. It just leaves me cold. There's something different about Will Worthington's new art here that doesn't speak to me the way his DruidCraft (or Druid Animal Oracle or Druid Plant Oracle) images do.

As others have pointed out already, the artwork of the Wildwood feels completely different from the Greenwood. So I'm one of those who think that any linking of the two decks in terms of how the deck feels is just absurd.

I'm curious to see what they'll do with the court cards of the Wildwood (animal portraits like in the Greenwood?) and if they'll take up the Wheel of the Year structure of the Greenwood. If they don't, I wonder where the supposed link between the two decks actually is (besides the fact that Mark Ryan and John Matthews were/are more or less involved with both of them)... One could just as well say that the Wildwood was inspired by the DruidCraft because that also has Worthington art and a pagan/nature-based background...

Anyhow, I'm afraid I find the linking of the two decks a bad move in many ways. People who were hoping for an affordable/available version of the Greenwood will not get what they were looking for AT ALL. It just smacks of cashing in on the name and fame of the Greenwood... Which is a pity because I'm sure the Wildwood will be a strong enough deck to stand on its own two feet without having to lean on the distantly-related Greenwood. As it is, I can't help thinking that the Wildwood creators/marketers are not doing themselves and their deck any favor by the Greenwood association - except in terms of making money with it.

 

[shadowomyn]

There are a lot of re-conceptions of the Waite Smith deck floating around - I haven't heard anyone complain that they're disrespectful to the original version. So I guess I don't really understand the fuss behind a re-conception of the Greenwood. Otoh, that could be because the Greenwood was not my cup of tea, whereas the Wildwood seems right up my alley.

Just think of the Greenwood as a nice chamomile, while the Wildwood seems to be closer to Morning Thunder.

 

[Milfoil]

I never could get excited about mere illustrative pictures on cards. I was eager to see the images when the deck first came out, the title alone suggests something that I would find exciting, however as well drawn as the images are, the illustrative quality (like a childs picture book) just doesn't do anything for me.

It doesn't seem to be attempting to parallel the Greenwood and definitely feels different.

The key difference between visionary art like that in the Greenwood or the Ironwing is that it comes from a place of profound, visionary experience and is recognisable as such by those who have, however briefly, touched upon such trance states. The illustrative decks such as this Wildwood tarot and the Shaman tarot, however, clearly originate from the intellectual concept of the creator.

Whatever floats your boat as they say. I don't find it disrespectful as such, more naive than anything. Nice, pretty pictures but no depth.

Not for me but I can see it being popular amongst teenagers.