| |
The following is a summary that reflects on my experience so far with this fascinating world of Tarot and some personal opinions that I've formed along the way. Its rather lengthy and is certainly not essential reading by any means. If you'd prefer to simply view sample images and specific information about the various decks then please feel free to do so via the text links above.
My initial introduction to some of the core elements and symbols of the tarot card deck was as a child playing an Italian card game called "scopa". The deck consisted of four suites that I later learned to be the same suites that constitute the "standard" Minor Arcana. Cups, Coins, Swords and Clubs (Wands). Following that I collected a few decks over the years, principally for the beauty of their artwork. Indeed I rendered most of these useless for their primary purpose by pasting them onto matt boards, framing them and hanging them on my walls. But beyond appreciating their visual aesthetics I was also curious to know what all the symbolism meant, where it came from and, of course, what powers, if any, they supposedly possessed. It’s not surprising therefore that when I received a letter from Llewellyn in early 2003 proposing the idea of actually producing a deck, I found the idea immediately intriguing. It hadn’t occurred to me. Tarot decks were something that I associated mainly in an historical context; not as an active genre (medium?) that is constantly expanding, with a myriad of new decks added each year, offering between them all manner of themes and variations. Nevertheless I was still concerned that my lack of familiarity with Tarot's history and symbolic content would be an issue, not to mention that I don't feel I have any psychic "gifts" in terms of actually reading the cards. It raised an interesting question; can I or anyone else really do justice to such a project without an intimate awareness or feel for the nature of their purpose? I'm very aware that many of the let’s say, more academic members of the Tarot community have raised these same doubts and questioned the validity of the resulting decks. Possibly there is no definitive answer, but personally I decided that I could at least try, after all my career as a professional graphic designer and illustrator had, on multiple occasions, required my having to create designs for products, services and consumers that I didn’t personally use or necessarily identify with. Beyond that personal reference point, clearly the creative world was also full of such challenges, with successful results. Multiple works of literature and visual arts have been produced by creative souls without personal experience of the stories and worlds of imagination they created.
However this shouldn’t represent a completely free ride of artistic license. Tarot was and is rich in its heritage, and I wanted to respect that as much as possible. I share the concern of many that the quantity and quality of decks currently being produced may have the unwanted consequence of watering down the integrity of the whole genre, especially with so many variations and questionable themes. Yet, I consider this concern has been taken too far by those who feel the "true" tarot belongs only to the classics decks of the past and thus are happy to dismiss all modern decks with the same knee jerk reaction. Presumably there is a point of balance between the two. Personally while I love many old decks and, as I mentioned earlier, I collected them, I also feel that many have questionable artistic merit. Yet these shortcomings tend to be overlooked by those in the community who prefer more traditional decks. At the same time, their nostalgic eyes are rather more critical of the decks being published today.
But does any of this actually matter? I really don't think so. Ultimately the final and most important opinion of all and the only one that truly counts is the personal one of each and every reader and querant as an individual; not the general opinion of "others" en masse or any group of Tarot cognoscenti.
It is claimed that a good or more experienced reader does not need so much imagery in a deck, which they actually find to be a distraction, indeed the appeal for many of the relatively less illustrated style of the Marseilles decks is just that, the simpler imagery they suggest allows more room for individual interpretation. While I can appreciate that rational, it certainly holds little interest from my perspective as a deck designer. Taken to its logical conclusion with this "less is more" approach, one might just as well have 78 blank cards with nothing more than a simple text reference on one side denoting which card it is. Presumably it might still function in the hands of some... but what a bland experience. On the contrary I prefer to offer images that are very detailed and full in imagery. My intention is that it will enrich the reading experience for both reader and querant, and that the depth and detail of those images is not a limitation but a stimulation and springboard to imagine even more. The nuances and detail are not always immediate and are often discovered at a later point. Those who enjoy and prefer their interaction with the cards from this perspective is the target audience I envisage when working on my images.
|
|
