Ravenswing
I've looked over the scans of the Dark Grimoire--great dark artwork. But there's one thing that bothers me. None of the minors are marked. There's no wands, cups, swords or pentacles to be seen. (This may be true of other decks, but I don't recall seeing any). Instead, the card depicts the (more or less) 'accepted' interpretation of the card.
Granted, this allows much in the way of artistic freedom--having to stick 7 wands in the 7 of wands is limiting. But I find it hard to call a card the eight of swords if there isn't a sword to be seen (by the way, when I saw the Grimoire's eight of swords my immediate reaction was 'Strength reversed') The only designation on these cards is the border. And for the many of us (**raising my hand high***) who remove them, there will be none.
Do you feel that a deck that calls itself tarot needs to have minors that show definite concrete elemental designations? Or is it sufficient to illustrate their meanings?
Rather than a two of cups do you find a twoishness of cups 'acceptable'?
I'm wondering if we're seeing an 'evolution' of tarot...
raven
Granted, this allows much in the way of artistic freedom--having to stick 7 wands in the 7 of wands is limiting. But I find it hard to call a card the eight of swords if there isn't a sword to be seen (by the way, when I saw the Grimoire's eight of swords my immediate reaction was 'Strength reversed') The only designation on these cards is the border. And for the many of us (**raising my hand high***) who remove them, there will be none.
Do you feel that a deck that calls itself tarot needs to have minors that show definite concrete elemental designations? Or is it sufficient to illustrate their meanings?
Rather than a two of cups do you find a twoishness of cups 'acceptable'?
I'm wondering if we're seeing an 'evolution' of tarot...
raven