Re: Vieville :It is really a reversed deck ?

32
jmd wrote:I suspect the latter. viz,
EnriqueEnriquez wrote:[...] the images in many decks were reversed as part of the dynamic of the printing process
Me too.
But I'll also add that I don't think the cardmakers made a lot of "mistakes."
I think they knew what they were looking at, and they knew what was important, and they knew what didn't matter to the subject at hand.

Yes, I think the Vieville images are reversed from the majority of decks that set the "standard" imagery.
But I also think it doesn't make any difference.
I think the images read the same either way.
I think the artist copied a print of a reference deck, and didn't bother to flip the drawing to account for the reversal of the woodblock.
Or, perhaps even more likely, the artist drew the image directly on the block, rather than on a sheet of paper.

As to the "exceptions", or cards that are not flipped....
I think it's misguided to presume that an artist should have the consistency of a machine.
I have no problem believing that he corrected some images, but not others.
Perhaps he "corrected" the first few, then got tired, or bored, or just had a whim.
"Intentional Fantastic Revelation" is way, way, waaaay down the list.
I am not a cannibal.

Re: Vieville :It is really a reversed deck ?

33
OnePotato wrote:
jmd wrote:I suspect the latter. viz,
EnriqueEnriquez wrote:[...] the images in many decks were reversed as part of the dynamic of the printing process
Me too.
But I'll also add that I don't think the cardmakers made a lot of "mistakes."
I think they knew what they were looking at, and they knew what was important, and they knew what didn't matter to the subject at hand.

Yes, I think the Vieville images are reversed from the majority of decks that set the "standard" imagery.
But I also think it doesn't make any difference.
I think the images read the same either way.
I think the artist copied a print of a reference deck, and didn't bother to flip the drawing to account for the reversal of the woodblock.
Or, perhaps even more likely, the artist drew the image directly on the block, rather than on a sheet of paper.

As to the "exceptions", or cards that are not flipped....
I think it's misguided to presume that an artist should have the consistency of a machine.
I have no problem believing that he corrected some images, but not others.
Perhaps he "corrected" the first few, then got tired, or bored, or just had a whim.
"Intentional Fantastic Revelation" is way, way, waaaay down the list.
Thanks OnePotato,
I think I agree very much with what you have said, but I'd like to know what you mean by "I think they knew what they were looking at, and they knew what was important, and they knew what didn't matter to the subject at hand." Are you suggesting that they understood the subject matter and the traditional iconography necessary for a card to be "acceptable" for each subject, or are you suggesting that there is something more that they are aware of beyond that?

Re: Vieville :It is really a reversed deck ?

34
OnePotato wrote:I think they knew what they were looking at, and they knew what was important, and they knew what didn't matter to the subject at hand.

Thanks OnePotato,

As Robert, I also agree with what you are saying, and I also wondered about that paragraph.

When I was teaching visual communication and graphic design, we spent lots of time studying the way in which the visual identity of any given graphic object is created by an specific combination of elements: color, typeface, composition... It takes a specific ‘mix’ to create something that visually says ‘pizza’ or ‘The New York Times’, way before we actually read what the text says. Once these specific elements are fixed, one can tweak and stretch them without the graphic object loosing its main communicative purpose. That is how a designer can work without having to invent the wheel every time while giving each project enough freshness to make it memorable. In the same way, there are iconographic characteristics that would define a beggar, a prince or a hermit: clothes, accessories, specific elements of a trade or status... (To these iconographic keys I would include posture, which is often overlooked. All these characters in the cards behave like the title they represent, and even when some details may vary, in the Tarot de Marseille the characters posture is almost always copied identically from deck to deck). Both the Noblet’s Empress and the Vieville Empress read as an empress no matter if one of them is flipped. But for those who understand which attributes make a Fool a Fool, there is always room for a little mischief, and for the expression of a personal style.

Thanks again,


EE
What’s honeymoon salad? Lettuce alone
Don’t look now, mayonnaise is dressing!

Re: Vieville :It is really a reversed deck ?

35
I meant something along the lines of what Enrique just said.

to expand a little bit....
I believe the cards depicted subjects that were familiar and generally understood by all.
I also believe that all of those people regularly employed a visual language in order to communicate fairly complex concepts.
I think that visual language "worked" differently than today's written language, so that the "structure" of thought was different.
I believe it was non-linear.

So, when a cardmaker produced a card, he made an image that presented the overall subject.
He included whatever attributes he felt he needed in order to make the image successfully readable.
Beyond that, the variations didn't matter.

The trouble with the modern quest for consistency is that it was not deemed necessary.
That is both the beauty and the strength of the old system.

All of this is just my opinion.
(...because oranges do not leave evidence in the form of apples.)
I am not a cannibal.

Re: Vieville :It is really a reversed deck ?

36
I agree with all the comments... and yet...

For me, it's this combination of understanding the important general elements in the context of what is considered 'normal' in those times that allows for alterations to emerge without clear significance. So of course the artist is 'free' to alter details that are contextually equivalent.

This does not mean that all details that are included are without 'errors' - errors in the sense that I cannot but imagine that certain elements may have become unclear and in the process of copying further 'lost'.

As an example, if considering the lower left-hand corner of many TdMs of the Papesse card, there is the ongoing remnant of something that would likely have been more clearly drawn had the instrument been clearer in decks from which later ones were copied.

It is a combination of the copyist's art that of course leaves its trail (of oranges from oranges, if you like), yet also masks its original with a veil of confusion.
Image
&
Image
association.tarotstudies.org

Re: Vieville :It is really a reversed deck ?

37
Thanks OnePotato.

Now, you wrote:
OnePotato wrote: I think that visual language "worked" differently than today's written language, so that the "structure" of thought was different.
I believe it was non-linear...


The trouble with the modern quest for consistency is that it was not deemed necessary.
That is both the beauty and the strength of the old system.

Could you expand on that, please?


EE
What’s honeymoon salad? Lettuce alone
Don’t look now, mayonnaise is dressing!

Re: Vieville / TdP

38
Another coincidence I see that suggest to me that the Vieville deck is not a reversed deck (aside the example I gave about XXI card,and also the V card ),is regarding to the TdP.

-The figure depicted as LE FOVAS ?,XIII and XV all walks towards to the left,as in the case of Vieville.
The Universe is like a Mamushka.

Re: Vieville :It is really a reversed deck ?

39
For example we have the case of the IIII card,here Cary Sheet and Chosson: -So seeing some decks we have this regarding to the posture of the Emperor :
a-Towards to the right: Noblet,Heri
b-Towards to the left: Vieville,Pierre Madenie,Dodal,both Payen,Conver and Chosson

*So given this are we going to conclude that Noblet is a reversed deck ???

For god sake !
The Universe is like a Mamushka.