The Missing Leg

#61
Well this is a delight.

Pen, I love your illustrated extensions of the tables and the possibilities for the missing leg. My own perspective drawings look a lot like these old cards. Probably most people who don't work to see and understand perspective have the same problem in our drawings.

With these woodblock decks, however, I don't see the bizarre perspective as a problem. I think it's art.

mmf, I wrote something about the similarities between the Vieville and the cubists for the ATA newsletter. I love these strange impossibilities.

Mike, thanks for giving us so much to think about.

Just to clarify: I do not see a fourth leg in any of these pictures. I don't believe there is one "hidden" within the frame, and I don't know if there's one outside the frame.

What other cards have something "important" outside the frame?

Re: The Magician

#62
Thanks, Debra. I (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=388&start=0#p6604) think the Dodal, "Chosson," and especially the Conver Pope cards suggest something important outside the frame--ambiguously, to be sure, just as in the case of the Magician.

Then there is the question of where people are looking, when they are looking out past the frame: are they looking at something that is part of that scene, or at other cards in the sequence? For example the Magician is looking to our left. Is he watching out for the police, for somebody who might get a good look at his tricks, or at another card? I of course say yes to all of the above. Since we don't know whether the cards should go left to right or right to left, I put the Popess to the Bateleur's left. So you get her severe (Noblet), or fake-innocent (Conver) look at him, and his anxious look back, like "OK Mom, I'll do the water into wine trick if you insist. But your friends really shouldn't drink so much, and I hope nobody reports me to the authorities."

Re: The Magician

#63
Before we get off the table topic entirely, I can't resist posting de Gebelin's artist's version of the card, 1781, from trionfi.com's reproduction.

Image


Not only are there four legs (and half a purse), but the poor guy's foot is in front of the front table leg!

Re: The Magician

#65
mikeh wrote:Before we get off the table topic entirely, I can't resist posting de Gebelin's artist's version of the card, 1781, from trionfi.com's reproduction.

Image


Not only are there four legs (and half a purse), but the poor guy's foot is in front of the front table leg!
In front of the front table leg! Not only that but the back edge of the table is wider than the front, but at least the table has four legs... :wink:

Pen
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy...

Re: The Magician

#66
mmfilesi wrote:My favorite magician ^^

Rosenwald Sheet
I like this one a lot too. The magician's legs are in front of the front legs of the table on this one as well, and again, the table has four legs. Unlike the Gebelin, the perspective of the tabletop is accurate.

Pen
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy...

Re: Unstable Tables

#67
Fantastic renditions, Pen!



Like Debra, I see this as part of the art... and has as been mentioned already, the woodcarver shows many examples in which the perspective is rather wonky.

In this case, it's not only the 'length' and location of the single table leg, but also the surface of the table (everyone would slide off!).

Perhaps I missed it, as I have not read the whole thread, but there's also another possibility: that the table has three intended legs, with the single one placed in the middle of the right-hand side. Three-legged tables are, in any case, far more stable on un-even ground.

I am not suggesting that this was the likely intent, by the way.

Personally, I consider that the main image was to show the Bateleur and his wares on the table top. To show this maximally, the table top had to be extended as much as possible, thereby causing part of its corner to be outside the frame. As the legs were drawn, usage of the available space below was probably of greater importance than whether or not the perspective was correct.

Given the nature of the type of legs, I suspect that the artist 'imagined' it with four legs, one out of frame, with the whole drawn rather crudely (as with numerous other cards).
Image
&
Image
association.tarotstudies.org

Re: Unstable Tables

#68
Hello jmd.
jmd wrote:
Like Debra, I see this as part of the art... and has as been mentioned already, the woodcarver shows many examples in which the perspective is rather wonky.

In this case, it's not only the 'length' and location of the single table leg, but also the surface of the table (everyone would slide off!).
Absolutely...
Perhaps I missed it, as I have not read the whole thread, but there's also another possibility: that the table has three intended legs, with the single one placed in the middle of the right-hand side. Three-legged tables are, in any case, far more stable on un-even ground.
If you mean behind the Bateleur's left leg, this possibility is the main thrust of what I was trying to disprove with these images. As for the stabilty of three-legged tables, that must surely depend on where the legs are positioned.
I am not suggesting that this was the likely intent, by the way.
I guess that the artists'/designers' intent is the aspect of tarot history that fascinates me most of all. A huge subject, given all the different decks.
Personally, I consider that the main image was to show the Bateleur and his wares on the table top. To show this maximally, the table top had to be extended as much as possible, thereby causing part of its corner to be outside the frame. As the legs were drawn, usage of the available space below was probably of greater importance than whether or not the perspective was correct.
I totally agree, but still feel that any artist or designer would have had seen the limitations of artistic licence and observed them to some extent.
Given the nature of the type of legs, I suspect that the artist 'imagined' it with four legs, one out of frame, with the whole drawn rather crudely (as with numerous other cards).
Thanks for your thoughts on this, jmd... (*)

Pen
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy...

Re: The Magician

#69
Pen, I am still waiting for an explanation of why the fourth leg, in the Noblet and Vieville and Conver, could not be behind the bateleur's leg, straight up and down and totally hidden by his leg. You only showed that it couldn't behind his leg at an angle to it, partly visible at the top, something I had conceded to Debra already. Or did I miss something? (I have tried "Arghhh!!", but it doesn't help.)

Re: The Magician

#70
mikeh writes, in response to my question "what other cards have something important outside the frame,"
Thanks, Debra. I (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=388&start=0#p6604) think the Dodal, "Chosson," and especially the Conver Pope cards suggest something important outside the frame--ambiguously, to be sure, just as in the case of the Magician.
Whoops. My question was imprecise.

Yes, it looks like people in some cards are looking outside the frame, because their eyes or heads are facing to one side or another and they are not looking at something inside the frame (like a big ole' cup, for example).

I meant, rather, what other cards have something important to the image in the card itself relgated to an implied position outside the frame, as perhaps the 4th table leg is. If it is.

I'm interested in jmd's suggestion, echoing an earlier theme in this thread, that 3 legs are more stable than 4, especially on unpaved ground. A rectangular table with two legs at one end; on the other end, a single centered leg. Stable.

Wait, I'll draw a picture.
3 legged table.JPG
3 legged table.JPG (30.96 KiB) Viewed 2766 times

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron