We've already had several threads on it here in this forum.
Sometimes it helps to look at a question from another direction entirely.
This morning I was reading on another subject, and came across something that I thought was apropos to this discussion.
It's from a book called "The Art Spirit" by Robert Henri (1923). Henri was an artist (a painter primarily) and also a great teacher of art.
Here is some of what made me think of this:
He goes on to describe that it is through exploration of the 3 known dimensions that we become privy to the fourth, the essence of a thing, and to capture that is all the difference in the finished piece of art.The old sentimental idea that an artist does not use his brains prohibits an investigation, (into technique) and as this old sentimental idea still holds great sway there are yet only a comparative few who risk falling from the clouds by setting to work that dangerous and earth-earthy machine, the brain.
I have very often heard it said that an artist does not need intelligence, that his is the province of soul.
....
If a man (sic) has the soul of an artist, he needs a mastery of all the means of expression so that he may command them, for with his soul in activity he has much to say. If he refuses to use his brain to find the way to signify the meaningful depth of nature on his flat canvas with his colors, he should also refuse to use his hands, and his brushes and the canvas itself. However all these, the canvas, paints, brushes, hands and brains are but tools to be guided by the soul of man.
The brain can be prove to be a wonderful tool, can be a willing slave, as has been evidenced by some men, but of course it works poorly when it has not the habit of usage. An automobile can become a source of delight, but the first time you drive you are as apt to go up a tree as to go up the road.
It isn't hard to see the parallel to reading tarot.
Maybe it's because he was a teacher that he so emphasised the importance of really applying yourself to the work in an active way. Or maybe it was because knowing how much work real art is to make he resented the implication that it was some nebulous thing in the soul that made an artist great.
I think of that saying, the way of describing someone as having "the soul of a poet" when in fact, all real poets sweat and strain over every word that ends up in their finished work. Of course there is something special in them that makes them a poet, but if you have ever read any bad poetry, you know the difference that truly knowing and applying oneself to the craft makes.
I think he is saying there is not only room for both the "soul" (intuitive skill) and study, but in fact both are needed. Intuition without study is like trying to paint with brushes and no canvas. Study without some sort of inner spark is like having a canvas, but no brushes.
I think every reader has had the experience of laying down the cards and "BOOM" you know what they are saying. Artists have this experience too, at times, the work just (seems) to pour out. But more often than not, it isn't that easy. And to go to work on the problem, you need to have developed, through practice and study and discussion, some tools to help you get where you are trying to go.
Otherwise you're just reaching into dark, unlit places and pulling out whatever is in there and trying to present it as a jewel. (did I put that in a less crass way than I meant it? I hope so!
)That said, an overly pedantic approach can obscure the reader's own spark, their view into the essence of the cards and of the question at hand.
I feel like this approach, this way of looking at it, sort of dissolves the contention between the 2 camps. They really are two sides of the same coin. Both need time and nurturing and active engagement to bring out the possibilities of each.
