Deck Delights and Deterrents
Posted: 15 Feb 2021, 14:42
After spending a lovely time looking at video responses to PeekabooRose's "Tarot deck delights and deterrents", a whole wonderful chain of videos discussing your personal points of attraction to decks and the opposite, I thought it would be interesting to discuss these points in writing. What are the delights for me personally when I see a new deck? and what makes me hesitate?
It might be nice to have a neutral category, too, because I found that there are things that really don't influence my choice of decks.
Neutrals:
I noticed that many tarotists seem to pay great attention to cardstock, and for them, the wrong kind of cardstock is a real dealbreaker. I'm a cardstock omnivore and enjoy many different kinds of cardstock so for me, this aspect really doesn't matter. I can deal with mini decks and large decks, I can shuffle thick and thin, matte and satin and glossy decks. A cardstock has to be really weird in order to come up in my negative list.
Another thing that leaves me really unexcited is boxes. I put my decks into crochet bags anyway. I keep all the boxes but if they don't work well, I don't care. And decks where soooo much effort has gone into a box make me a bit suspicious - are tarot decks decorative articles for the perfect home, or are they tools to use daily? For me, a functional simple box is a better selling point than elaborate housing schemes for decks
Delights:
I'm drawn to decks with good art. As art historian, I probably mean something different from other users - I have seen people gush about lovely artwork where I saw only sleek, slick people-pleasing art. Good art doesn't mean oil on canvas and Renaissance technique - there are comic artists who have their totally individual line and touch. When I see a deck that uses lino print or ink drawing or any other hands-on technique, I always take a second look. Watercolour decks are always a magnet for my eyes. I guess what I'm looking for in art is a personal voice. I want to feel that I know more about the artist by looking at their art. What an unprofessional definition of "good art"!
I like diversity - not as decorative sprinkles thrown over the deck as afterthought but built-in structurally. Old, young, able bodied or disabled, ugly, pretty, from a multitude of ethnic backgrounds - now that can be done in two ways: by displaying the differences between the cultures (Haindl assigns cultures to suits and thus makes one culture more "earthy" or "fiery" than the others) and by emphasizing the underlying humanity that connects us beyond ethnicities, cultures and traditions (like most newer decks do). I prefer the second approach because it's more satisfying to look at for me, and it's less likely to fall into stereoyping. I'll have to think about that some more!
The same is true for gender diversity. I like decks where knights can be male or female or outside of the gender binary. All archetypal energies can be expressed by male or female figures, and I love the newer decks that experiment with the old "passive feminine" vs "active masculine" shtick. I always think we should educate all our children to be assertive and receptive, strong and empathic, we have to break out of the old stereotypes, they're stifling. So when I see that done in a fresh, creative and unforced way, I really like it.
Every deck that breaks out of the RWS monoculture mold is a plus for me. More Thoth, more TdM, more re-interpretations of the cards. Decks that take a new look at the meanings of the cards instead of replacing the RWS scenes with animals, Vikings or whatever, has my interest. (I do and love some RWS "clones" and they're no clones, I like them too - but in spite of them being so close to RWS, not because of it).
I'm also delighted when I see intelligent use of astrology and/or kabbalah. I love fairy tales and animals, so every well-done fairy tale or animal deck calls out to me.
I also have a bit of a crazy streak, and decks like the Housewives are real fun for me! I have also discovered that collaborative decks have a very special energy, like a big event with many people who have all one aim but reach it in their different ways - singing or dancing together, as individuals but as a group. Such decks really attract me.
More delights: stars and constellations attract me immediately - I love decks based on real knowledge of the stars and star lore (and where star maps are simply a decorative background, I'm immediately deterred).
I also love decks that let my Inner Child come out o play. Seemingly harmless decks that let me explore darker issues without frightening me - such decks often have surprising depth. Where I sense such a depth beneath the inviting harmony, I'm immediately drawn to it.
Deterrents:
This is more difficult!
These four Star cards are up on my tarot calendar board right now - it's Aquarius time! Some of my delights and some of my deterrents are up in this row of cards.
The Lo Scarabeo deck is the kind of competent watercolour art that looks completely lifeless and stereotypical for me. In some Lo Scarabeo decks, the split roles of creator and artist work well - Riccardo Minetti wrote about it in his book for the Fey Tarot. He created the concept for the deck, the artist made it happen and there was synergy. But in the Lo Scarabeo, I feel like the artist got a script that said: beautiful young nude spilling water into a lake with water lily, stars in the sky" etc - I feel nothing at all. And the star maiden has become a pin-up girl like the rest of females in this deck.
Next to it, the New Liminal Star. A totally unique composition, magical use of watercolours, and a deep feeling of the Star energy. The Star Maiden rising up into the skies from below, spilling her waters, a lovely balance between flow upwards and downwards. You can meditate upon this card and it will tell you all you need to know about the Star card - something the Lo Scarabeo card doesn't imo.
Then the Night Sun. Another sexy young woman, this time in computer graphic esthetics, strangely hollow and disruptive. In spite of its weirdness (it could be called Uncanny Valley Tarot and I really don't know why a tarot of that name doesn't exist) and darkness, that's a better try than the Lo Scarabeo! Above and Below are connected here, too, but in a weird way. I don't know why I bought that deck. It looks better since I trimmed it. But it's certainly not a Delights deck. Both the Lo Scarabeo and the Night Sun have some strong Deterrent points. I prefer the Night Sun though because it doesn't want to please.
The Haindl has other problems - weird cultural appropriations, it takes itself extremely seriously, and many of the minors are simply old Haindl paintings, cut to pieces and then had suit symbols added - but the majors are good, and so is this Star. Having the Star Maiden wash her hair in the water works well for me - I think about Berenice's hair in the sky - about the role of hair in mythologies - and I actually like Haindl's muddy-coloured Expressionist style.
So these four cards, directly before my eyes, show some points that delight and some that deter me. And yes, I do also buy and like decks that deter me.
I don't like decks where everybody looks like a model, and the whole deck is designed for Instagram prettiness with some flowers and crystals. Lifestyle decks. I have a hard time giving them a real chance. And the hype around such decks usually disappears quickly.
I don't like decks that promise complete systems like the Quest deck. Stuffing everything into the tarot system, runes and Hebrew letters and astrology and alchemy and mythology and Chinese symbols is like a soup with too many vegetables. In the end, everything tastes the same. Keeping things more open appeals more to me.
This doesn't apply to a deck like the Hermetic that really explores the Kabbalist and astrology angle. But it doesn't add runes, Haiwaiian wisdom or other traditions to it. Things are not the same even when they're comparable or remind us of each other.
The same is true for complete artworks. Decks that "lift" a whole van Gogh painting and call it Judgement or Strength do nothing for me. These artworks feel like squeezed into a frame. In the case of the Art of Life Tarot, with its cheesy added frame for the cards, this was so painful for me that I couldn't wait to get rid of the deck! A work of art has power but it's a totally different kind of power from a tarot card.
Hildegard Hynkel's decks are visually beautiful but I don't know whether I could work with them. they're too close to the artworks themselves and my professsion interferes for me. For others it might work, I don't know. I have no such problems with the Atanassov decks where an artist re-creates and re-arranges Botticelli's or Klimt's paintings. He obviously uses a different medium (coloured pencils) and that's enough for me to distance it from the original.
Artwork collages work for me, too - I like Kat Black's decks and also the totally crazy Distant Past .
For me personally of course the Baroque is by no means a very distant past but quite relatable, and I laugh when I watch video clips where people show tarot decks like the Kat Black's and talk about "Victorian" and "Renaissance" as though it's the same! while looking at paintings from the 17th century! Dear people - Renaissance is 14th century, Baroque is 17th century, Victorian is 19th century, and they're totally different! also different places! Italy, Netherlands and Britain are NOT the same! So decks that mix the periods too weirdly don't appeal to me, I can't put my finger on it, I like the mentioned decks nevertheless.
But simply taking paintings as they are and sticking on a tarot sticker - that's a no-no for me.
I don't like decks where majors, minors and courts all flow into each other. I have some good decks with gods and goddesses as court cards, and it always strikes me as weak point. Gods and goddesses belong for me to the sphere of the majors. Give me persons for the courts, and situations for the minors, each kind of cards with their own recognizable energy. I'm more forgiving when the deck is an animal or nature deck - it's all animals so how do you differentiate? Many artists manage to pull it off - the Wild Unknown is a good example for a nature-animal-based deck that has distinct energies for majors, minors and court cards.
Too witchy-kitschy puts me off. All this cauldron-brewing, pointy-hats stuff. I have nothing against Earth religions, just the opposite, but I feel that the wonderful thing about these religions is their freedom to re-create rituals individually and dress individually, not like a Carnival witch costume. I tried to read many books about Wicca but found the prayers and rituals there unappealing. Like in church, only under the full Moon. Sorry if I step on anyone's toes here! For covens etc you maybe need structure, but I personally want to react spontaneously to the elements, moon phases etc, so Wicca-based decks are not appealing to me (maybe they're too Anglo Saxon for me? I find it a bit absurd when German NeoPagans celebrate Celtic holidays... but I'm probably too judgmental!).
And I also dislike decks that are all positive. Decks that call the Tower "Chance for a New Beginning" and Death "Rebirth in Cleansing Light". I do like the Distant Past and Inner Child decks that are for the use of young people, so I totally support "softening" these cards. But for adult decks I see no need to make every card positive.
I used to have a friend who was heavily into positive thinking. When talking with her, I couldn't say anything negative because she was sure that I would "manifest" negativity with it. So everything had to be wrapped up in soft, gentle words. I found that extremely stifling and also fearful in a way. Life can be tough, life is very often very tough, and if my tarot deck doesn't allow me to say: this hurts! this is unfair! this is upsetting!, then what do I need it for? I stopped talking to this "positive" friend after some time, I couldn't bear her obsessive rose-colouring any more. The same goes for tarot decks. I want them to be honest. It's possible to be honest and uplifting at the same time.
Like overy rose-tinted decks, I also don't really like too dark decks. Don't give me a world that smells of roses only but also don't give me one that stinks of muck or mould only.
I like a good balance of light and darkness, of challenge and solution, of tough talking and support.
So what are the things that don't influence your choice, that delight and that deter you in deciding which tarot deck to buy or to study or to use? If these categories don't fit your way of looking at decks, change them!
It might be nice to have a neutral category, too, because I found that there are things that really don't influence my choice of decks.
Neutrals:
I noticed that many tarotists seem to pay great attention to cardstock, and for them, the wrong kind of cardstock is a real dealbreaker. I'm a cardstock omnivore and enjoy many different kinds of cardstock so for me, this aspect really doesn't matter. I can deal with mini decks and large decks, I can shuffle thick and thin, matte and satin and glossy decks. A cardstock has to be really weird in order to come up in my negative list.
Another thing that leaves me really unexcited is boxes. I put my decks into crochet bags anyway. I keep all the boxes but if they don't work well, I don't care. And decks where soooo much effort has gone into a box make me a bit suspicious - are tarot decks decorative articles for the perfect home, or are they tools to use daily? For me, a functional simple box is a better selling point than elaborate housing schemes for decks
Delights:
I'm drawn to decks with good art. As art historian, I probably mean something different from other users - I have seen people gush about lovely artwork where I saw only sleek, slick people-pleasing art. Good art doesn't mean oil on canvas and Renaissance technique - there are comic artists who have their totally individual line and touch. When I see a deck that uses lino print or ink drawing or any other hands-on technique, I always take a second look. Watercolour decks are always a magnet for my eyes. I guess what I'm looking for in art is a personal voice. I want to feel that I know more about the artist by looking at their art. What an unprofessional definition of "good art"!
I like diversity - not as decorative sprinkles thrown over the deck as afterthought but built-in structurally. Old, young, able bodied or disabled, ugly, pretty, from a multitude of ethnic backgrounds - now that can be done in two ways: by displaying the differences between the cultures (Haindl assigns cultures to suits and thus makes one culture more "earthy" or "fiery" than the others) and by emphasizing the underlying humanity that connects us beyond ethnicities, cultures and traditions (like most newer decks do). I prefer the second approach because it's more satisfying to look at for me, and it's less likely to fall into stereoyping. I'll have to think about that some more!
The same is true for gender diversity. I like decks where knights can be male or female or outside of the gender binary. All archetypal energies can be expressed by male or female figures, and I love the newer decks that experiment with the old "passive feminine" vs "active masculine" shtick. I always think we should educate all our children to be assertive and receptive, strong and empathic, we have to break out of the old stereotypes, they're stifling. So when I see that done in a fresh, creative and unforced way, I really like it.
Every deck that breaks out of the RWS monoculture mold is a plus for me. More Thoth, more TdM, more re-interpretations of the cards. Decks that take a new look at the meanings of the cards instead of replacing the RWS scenes with animals, Vikings or whatever, has my interest. (I do and love some RWS "clones" and they're no clones, I like them too - but in spite of them being so close to RWS, not because of it).
I'm also delighted when I see intelligent use of astrology and/or kabbalah. I love fairy tales and animals, so every well-done fairy tale or animal deck calls out to me.
I also have a bit of a crazy streak, and decks like the Housewives are real fun for me! I have also discovered that collaborative decks have a very special energy, like a big event with many people who have all one aim but reach it in their different ways - singing or dancing together, as individuals but as a group. Such decks really attract me.
More delights: stars and constellations attract me immediately - I love decks based on real knowledge of the stars and star lore (and where star maps are simply a decorative background, I'm immediately deterred).
I also love decks that let my Inner Child come out o play. Seemingly harmless decks that let me explore darker issues without frightening me - such decks often have surprising depth. Where I sense such a depth beneath the inviting harmony, I'm immediately drawn to it.
Deterrents:
This is more difficult!
These four Star cards are up on my tarot calendar board right now - it's Aquarius time! Some of my delights and some of my deterrents are up in this row of cards.
The Lo Scarabeo deck is the kind of competent watercolour art that looks completely lifeless and stereotypical for me. In some Lo Scarabeo decks, the split roles of creator and artist work well - Riccardo Minetti wrote about it in his book for the Fey Tarot. He created the concept for the deck, the artist made it happen and there was synergy. But in the Lo Scarabeo, I feel like the artist got a script that said: beautiful young nude spilling water into a lake with water lily, stars in the sky" etc - I feel nothing at all. And the star maiden has become a pin-up girl like the rest of females in this deck.
Next to it, the New Liminal Star. A totally unique composition, magical use of watercolours, and a deep feeling of the Star energy. The Star Maiden rising up into the skies from below, spilling her waters, a lovely balance between flow upwards and downwards. You can meditate upon this card and it will tell you all you need to know about the Star card - something the Lo Scarabeo card doesn't imo.
Then the Night Sun. Another sexy young woman, this time in computer graphic esthetics, strangely hollow and disruptive. In spite of its weirdness (it could be called Uncanny Valley Tarot and I really don't know why a tarot of that name doesn't exist) and darkness, that's a better try than the Lo Scarabeo! Above and Below are connected here, too, but in a weird way. I don't know why I bought that deck. It looks better since I trimmed it. But it's certainly not a Delights deck. Both the Lo Scarabeo and the Night Sun have some strong Deterrent points. I prefer the Night Sun though because it doesn't want to please.
The Haindl has other problems - weird cultural appropriations, it takes itself extremely seriously, and many of the minors are simply old Haindl paintings, cut to pieces and then had suit symbols added - but the majors are good, and so is this Star. Having the Star Maiden wash her hair in the water works well for me - I think about Berenice's hair in the sky - about the role of hair in mythologies - and I actually like Haindl's muddy-coloured Expressionist style.
So these four cards, directly before my eyes, show some points that delight and some that deter me. And yes, I do also buy and like decks that deter me.
I don't like decks where everybody looks like a model, and the whole deck is designed for Instagram prettiness with some flowers and crystals. Lifestyle decks. I have a hard time giving them a real chance. And the hype around such decks usually disappears quickly.
I don't like decks that promise complete systems like the Quest deck. Stuffing everything into the tarot system, runes and Hebrew letters and astrology and alchemy and mythology and Chinese symbols is like a soup with too many vegetables. In the end, everything tastes the same. Keeping things more open appeals more to me.
This doesn't apply to a deck like the Hermetic that really explores the Kabbalist and astrology angle. But it doesn't add runes, Haiwaiian wisdom or other traditions to it. Things are not the same even when they're comparable or remind us of each other.
The same is true for complete artworks. Decks that "lift" a whole van Gogh painting and call it Judgement or Strength do nothing for me. These artworks feel like squeezed into a frame. In the case of the Art of Life Tarot, with its cheesy added frame for the cards, this was so painful for me that I couldn't wait to get rid of the deck! A work of art has power but it's a totally different kind of power from a tarot card.
Hildegard Hynkel's decks are visually beautiful but I don't know whether I could work with them. they're too close to the artworks themselves and my professsion interferes for me. For others it might work, I don't know. I have no such problems with the Atanassov decks where an artist re-creates and re-arranges Botticelli's or Klimt's paintings. He obviously uses a different medium (coloured pencils) and that's enough for me to distance it from the original.
Artwork collages work for me, too - I like Kat Black's decks and also the totally crazy Distant Past .
For me personally of course the Baroque is by no means a very distant past but quite relatable, and I laugh when I watch video clips where people show tarot decks like the Kat Black's and talk about "Victorian" and "Renaissance" as though it's the same! while looking at paintings from the 17th century! Dear people - Renaissance is 14th century, Baroque is 17th century, Victorian is 19th century, and they're totally different! also different places! Italy, Netherlands and Britain are NOT the same! So decks that mix the periods too weirdly don't appeal to me, I can't put my finger on it, I like the mentioned decks nevertheless.
But simply taking paintings as they are and sticking on a tarot sticker - that's a no-no for me.
I don't like decks where majors, minors and courts all flow into each other. I have some good decks with gods and goddesses as court cards, and it always strikes me as weak point. Gods and goddesses belong for me to the sphere of the majors. Give me persons for the courts, and situations for the minors, each kind of cards with their own recognizable energy. I'm more forgiving when the deck is an animal or nature deck - it's all animals so how do you differentiate? Many artists manage to pull it off - the Wild Unknown is a good example for a nature-animal-based deck that has distinct energies for majors, minors and court cards.
Too witchy-kitschy puts me off. All this cauldron-brewing, pointy-hats stuff. I have nothing against Earth religions, just the opposite, but I feel that the wonderful thing about these religions is their freedom to re-create rituals individually and dress individually, not like a Carnival witch costume. I tried to read many books about Wicca but found the prayers and rituals there unappealing. Like in church, only under the full Moon. Sorry if I step on anyone's toes here! For covens etc you maybe need structure, but I personally want to react spontaneously to the elements, moon phases etc, so Wicca-based decks are not appealing to me (maybe they're too Anglo Saxon for me? I find it a bit absurd when German NeoPagans celebrate Celtic holidays... but I'm probably too judgmental!).
And I also dislike decks that are all positive. Decks that call the Tower "Chance for a New Beginning" and Death "Rebirth in Cleansing Light". I do like the Distant Past and Inner Child decks that are for the use of young people, so I totally support "softening" these cards. But for adult decks I see no need to make every card positive.
I used to have a friend who was heavily into positive thinking. When talking with her, I couldn't say anything negative because she was sure that I would "manifest" negativity with it. So everything had to be wrapped up in soft, gentle words. I found that extremely stifling and also fearful in a way. Life can be tough, life is very often very tough, and if my tarot deck doesn't allow me to say: this hurts! this is unfair! this is upsetting!, then what do I need it for? I stopped talking to this "positive" friend after some time, I couldn't bear her obsessive rose-colouring any more. The same goes for tarot decks. I want them to be honest. It's possible to be honest and uplifting at the same time.
Like overy rose-tinted decks, I also don't really like too dark decks. Don't give me a world that smells of roses only but also don't give me one that stinks of muck or mould only.
I like a good balance of light and darkness, of challenge and solution, of tough talking and support.
So what are the things that don't influence your choice, that delight and that deter you in deciding which tarot deck to buy or to study or to use? If these categories don't fit your way of looking at decks, change them!