Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#91
Adrian wrote, responding to the quotes from me:
That said: if you should need suggestions - anytime!
Tack-holes could have been made for exhibition purposes, ...
Yes - like I said above ...
... or simply for hanging them up to let the paint dry, ..
No. No artist in his right mind would do that because it would destroy his work without need!
... if the workshop was short on bench space.
You have no personal experience with such settings I assume.
The ART that is produced there comes first - above all else.
Your children can go without sleep when you need a place to comfort your art.

I try not to be picky here - but to understand about art (real ART and real ARTISTs) you must walk some miles in their shoes and you wouldn't come to such a solution as your tack-holes proposal above.
I was thinking of this, from 1770 Paris:
http://www.associazioneletarot.it/cgi-b ... er_due.jpg, from http://www.associazioneletarot.it/page.aspx?id=228. It shows 2 punches, as tools of the trade. These card-producers aren't artists, admittedly, just stencilers. But after the initial drying, so that the paint wouldn't run, couldn't they have put the cards on a clothes-line, so to speak? Another possibility: could the cards have been fastened together with a string when not being displayed, so as not to lose any?

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#94
mikeh wrote:When you say "too many", I need an example, of one that is clearly not for collecting, displaying, contemplating, or memorializing an event, something to distinguish it from the uses that manuscripts illuminations were made for, and the "Mantegna" cards.
Even the cheap market of the silk dealers had "large cards", whereby we don't know, what this means in cm values. It's good to have more facts.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#95
Kudos mikeh!

What an excellent find!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B15SAM ... MtM3c/view

So The Beinecke Library cares deeply for the details - but I wonder why the author did not come to the same conclusion as we (mikeh & me) that the Visconti family cards were not meant for a card game in the usual sense of the word: at a table AFTER SHUFFLING them?

Maybe he'll think about that now?
Because it is crucial - no?

As I mentioned above the most elevated point on a "card" should be aimed at for "maximum thickness measurement" - because when they are stacked upon each-other THIS point is what adds to the height of the whole pack.
This deck has other specifics than the Visconti-Sforza because of the additional female cards for the court of course. What were they meant for? Would they stay in the pack when it was in use - together with the male personage - or would they replace that male personage for a different game?

I have suggestions for that and it can be gleaned from the appearance of the misinterpreted "VIRTUES" - who are the same trumps as in the other decks - only "matured".
This is a complicated matter because you didn't add the 16 Geomantic Characters as "casting molds" for 16 Great Secrets to your "think tank" so far and I would have to draw on that deeply to explain.
I would suggest that you make up your minds with the already given links in the "quote box" with the headline:
>>> EDITION on the 19th + 21st of February 2016

at the beginning of:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1044

Here now are the maximum thickness measurements from the link:

1. "card" page 2 (Page of Cups): maximum thickness measurement: 1.55 mm (left top brim)
2. "card" page 3 (The World): maximum thickness measurement: 1.45 mm (left middle brim)
3. "card" page 4 (Death): maximum thickness measurement: 1.47 mm (left bottom & bottom brim)
4. "card" page 5 (Female Knight of Swords): maximum thickness measurement: 1.47 mm (left bottom brim)
5. "card" page 6 (Love): maximum thickness measurement: 1.47 mm (left top brim)

Like I expected the maximum thickness measurement appears always at the "brim" of each "card" - that stems from the folded over paper from the card back and some additional color to give the card face at least SOME protection when it so happened that they HAD to be stacked upon each-other for transportation perhaps.

Like I mentioned before: The most SHALLOW areas on the card face suffered the MOST abrasion – what is consistent with holding the „card“ between thumb on the card-face and the 4 fingers on the card back for close observation of the „main subject“ the „scene“ that is depicted – and so an observer wouldn't TOUCH the depicted persona!

This kind of abrasion that mostly took away ALL of the red color the KILIM was reddened with is not what you would see with any „normal usage“ of normal cards.
Just holding 5 cards in a game of Poker would result in „pressing“ the LESS elevated (in comparison to the "higher brim") persona or scenario-areas on 4 of the broad card faces against the 4 card backs while the thumb would occasionally rub across the persona to take away the fine lines and soft material in decades of usage!

BUT those areas where the personage is depicted suffered almost never ANY damage!

When the „card“ would be pulled out of the „spread“ in the hand to be placed on the table - additional damage would happen to the fragile card face!

And the author did grant your wish mikeh concerning the measurements of the d'Este „cards“ I see to my amazement – because I see that (like I predicted) no normal card-play disruption (see above!) has happened to them either. Even the background is very often completely intact!
This means there were never USED in ANYWAY - apart from pinning them to a wall with 2 broad-headed nails for a permanently fixed display.
Fortunately a card-back view is also provided (what would be awesome for the Visconti-Sforza Tarot too ... !!) that allows us to get more informed about the holes - but this shall follow later ...

There is much more to add and I'll be back later when I have a little more time on my hands :)

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#96
Apologies for being late to the discussion and not having read all the responses. I will endeavor to do so in the next week.

I strongly disagree that all the ornate cards were not meant for use as playing cards. In the first place, there is evidence to suggest that ornate decks were used. The Topkapi/Mamluk deck, for instance, with the replacement cards and signs of wear. The Cloisters Deck shows signs of usage as well. In the second place there are illustrations of people playing cards from the 15th centuries and later which suggest that ornate cards were played with and were possibly shuffled by third parties (servants and such). There is also the medieval culture of conspicuous consumption in which items of great value might be treated in a very casual fashion as a way of emphasizing the power/wealth of the owner. And, finally, there is the danger of applying the findings from one set of objects to all objects of that class. While it may be true that one ornate deck was never used for playing cards it may not be true of all other ornate decks. And, of course, the opposite applies.

I will update with my source images and references but I'm certain you're all familiar with them.

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#97
variantventures wrote:Apologies for being late to the discussion and not having read all the responses. I will endeavor to do so in the next week.

I strongly disagree that all the ornate cards were not meant for use as playing cards. In the first place, there is evidence to suggest that ornate decks were used. The Topkapi/Mamluk deck, for instance, with the replacement cards and signs of wear. The Cloisters Deck shows signs of usage as well. In the second place there are illustrations of people playing cards from the 15th centuries and later which suggest that ornate cards were played with and were possibly shuffled by third parties (servants and such). There is also the medieval culture of conspicuous consumption in which items of great value might be treated in a very casual fashion as a way of emphasizing the power/wealth of the owner. And, finally, there is the danger of applying the findings from one set of objects to all objects of that class. While it may be true that one ornate deck was never used for playing cards it may not be true of all other ornate decks. And, of course, the opposite applies.

I will update with my source images and references but I'm certain you're all familiar with them.
Welcome,
nice, that you have found the way to us.

For other readers, "variantventures" is responsible for the interesting report about the thickness of old cards, which recently enjoyed us.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B15SAM ... MtM3c/view
https://www.facebook.com/VariantofNormal/
Earlier he was active at aeclectic and engaged especially for the Mamluk-deck.
I took up some contact in the last week and invited him to this forum.

One question (perhaps you have the answer somewhere in the article) from my side: Which tool did the Beinecke use to get their results? I can only assume, that they must have had something very special to make such precise statements up to 1/100 mm.
Perhaps other museums with interesting playing cards don't have such a tool ... which might explain, why they stayed inactive on requests.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#98
Hi variantventures.

Good to have you here - but ...
--- not having read all the responses. I will endeavor to do so in the next week.
... I must hold my breath :) so long perhaps.

See: this is how rumors arrive!

Please quote were you did find the foundation for your totally understandable (but absolutely redundant :) ) disagreement ---
I strongly disagree that all the ornate cards were not meant for use as playing cards.
I completely AGREE with you - and not only because NOBODY said that!

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#99
Since I read about variantventures disagreement I will define again what THIS topic IS about:

The Visconti family cards. The big hand-painted 3 sets which reside today divided in several locations and institutions.

I named these 3 before and will do so here again so that no mistake shall be made about that further on!
The „Visconti-Sforza Tarot Cards“ from The Morgan Library:

The whole set they have
http://www.themorgan.org/collection/tarot-cards


The "thickness" of every card of the BIG handcrafted Trionfi cards from the Visconti (-Sforza) family is the subject in question - and adding those 74 measurements to a calculation for the "thickness" of the WHOLE PACK of the survivors.

The topic here it is the PMB Tarot.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=10#p16620
This topic is about the THICKNESS of every single "card" of the surviving PMB "cards" so that the TOTAL thickness of the complete pack of the surviving PMB "cards" can be estimated nearly correctly.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=10#p16622
Actually I did not speak "about thickness of cards" in general - BUT about the thickness of the 74 survivors of ONE SPECIAL DECK that is named several times throughout our discussion already with link (although imprinted on the JPG 2. The GOAL) and measurements and description given at The MORGAN - the actual HOME of 35 of them today.

http://www.themorgan.org/collection/tarot-cards
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=20#p16633
But HERE in this topic exists only ONE often cited matter - and only THAT! : The Visconti-Sforza Tarot "cards" and their 3 dimensions. ONE dimension - the "thickness" - that is very easily measured with a CALIPER to determine the measurement IN caliper was kept from the trusting public to my amazement in totality - and Mr. K had a great deal to do with that (and to earn from it) when he made his quite moronic (or maybe not?) assumption about the 74 survivors of the PMB who were to HIS BEST KNOWLEDGE about the thickness (I'm sooo tired of that bloody word!) of TWO packs of NORMAL cigarettes! Right?

>> Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo ... the height is about that of two packs of normal cigarettes. <<
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=20#p16638
The question was Huck - how thick every "card" on it's own is and how much the 74 would bring in thickness in total assembled and stacked in one pack to the table if it was actually possible to gather them all in one place and to do that to them.

Hence this will never be possible the model was created that shall be now actualized due to the correct measurements at The MORGAN (performed by Mr. Voelkle - the curator there).
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=30#p16645
P.S. I must add this obviously because it could be (from your post I take that) that it escaped your attention that the topic of THIS thread are ONLY the PMB "cards" - no matter what atrocities there might have probably been elsewhere "created" around The WORLD in the chambers of dimwits or whatever YOU may call them "creators". So stick with the TOPIC PLEASE! HUCK!!
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=30#p16649
Thank you for posting and asking mikeh!

>> Why is it that you insist that only the PMB is at issue here? <<

Because as you can see the evidential data are not publicly availabe and very specific for every sole deck.
The caliper of the PMB "cards" (who were obviously none because they were not made for a card play at the TABLE.) was not known to anyone because nobody measured it!

The caliper alone (not only my assumption but the real measured and confirmed caliper) would have made it impossible to use them in any regular "card play fashion".

The caliper wasn't at ANY time questioned and all people who care about Tarot hear/read everywhere that the PMB "cards" were handmade and used for gaming at a table (like I hear even Mr. Voelkle assuming that the people at the fresco in the Palazzo Borromeo do just that: PLAY with those treasures in a game with cards AT a table).

I did point out in the other thread (the exact place I don't know at the moment - but I can look!) that those persons are OBSERVING the "cards" and the WALL to find the right "card" for the next correct place in the already achieved pattern on the WALL on the thereat painted kilim structure with the Tarotée-Crossings - the net of lines who are regarded the playground of the 16 gods.

They were made ONLY for ONE specific "game" at the WALL of a room that had to have AT LEAST 10 feet high walls - what could be found only in the house of a very rich person.
To get this "game" on a regular big table - say in a tavern - the Tarot de Marseille (for instance) was invented. It got evolved and the nails were not needed anymore (because of the structure of Tarot de Marseille card 1/3 - the ladder).

I tried to make some readers familiar with the IDEA that decoding today is a scientific thing with certain requirements that can be taught and studied to an end. This code we are talking about here (with the caliper too) was known originally only to the Visconti family (and later the Sforza) who were in partly posession of a "dead" fragment since Ottone declared to have captured a "beast" and swore >> I will not violate the Snake's uses << when he was Archbishop of Milan.

Most of those things I've written already and much more. It seems to be my fault though to have not made myself clear enough. Please ask some specific questions!

I explained already that to my knowledge only the handmade Visconti-Sforza "cards" bear that kilim structure that is mirrored in the Tarotée - THAT was the whole point of the Tarotée-Thread were we both met the first time and you did inform me after my astounded reply that you didn't care to read before posting and asking a specific non-substantiated question about them Tarotée.

I hope that I did answer your questions in your 2nd paragraph too with the above reply - and thank you for the info on the exibition. I'm looking foreward to your review too.
So I hope you understand that I really do not mean to be rude here - but what is the point of posting pictures and words when they are not used for following posts and/or replys.

I think I explained it here now in a sufficient way that and why the 74 survivors are the only possible subject for THIS topic. When they would be understood completely - and only then - it would be possible to COMPARE them with other "luxury cards (who - by the way LACK the substantial pattern to be READ - as an unbound book)". That was one of the premises of the Tarotée-Thread were we met and THIS thread (I hope that I did not forget that!) was announced as a prequel to that former thread.

Sorry to be late

Adrian
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=30#p16651
This was the ONLY subject of this topic for nearly 4 pages until … mikeh wrote on page 4:
Then according to you the Brera-Brambilla, the Cary-Yale, and the other decks made by the Bembo workshopwhose cards are based on the PMB should have the same attributes, i.e. thickness, necessitating a game where cards are pinned to a wall, because they were all made by the same workshop, that of Bonifacio Bembo, and probably most of them for the same extended family. Is that right? If so, you might ask the curators of those cards the same question you are asking the curator at the Morgan library.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=30#p16652
My answer (including a comment on the supposed (and in MY mind misinterpreted )VIRTUES of the
Visconti Tarot from the Beinecke Library

http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/ ... t&type=tag
Hi mikeh!

It is not so much about the workshop the "cards" were made in because they (the cards) were not thought up there. I try to explain throughout the "Tarotée - The Back-Door To The Secret" thread that the source for the "content" (for what the "cards" are only a new "vessel") lies beyond Christianity.

The Visconti Tarots that you mention were not of perfect structure because Filippo was mostly self-educated in alchemy and geomantics (> where the 16 gods stem from) and he worked with what Ottone took over from the "dead saracen" - a "bestia" (Biscione) that he swore allegiance to with the words that became the Visconti motto: >> Vipereos mores non violabo << (I will not violate the Snake's uses > mores is translated here as "uses" but can also be: custom - tradition - commandment - and some other) when he was Archbishop of Milan.

Somewhere in the "Tarotée - The Back-Door To The Secret" I mention that this was similar to the Negroli name change - an announcement to the world and those who could READ that message that HE > Ottone and his house from that moment when the Biscione emerged in Milan would never oppose the Great Serpent.
I mentioned that the dead Saracen in Ottone's story is a symbol for a "dead Barakah" (and I said that because you won't find a SERPENT in Saracenic "heraldry" especially not on a shield!) just like the one Gurdjieff was blessed with. That means a personal power to accomplish spiritual doings that can NOT be transferred to disciples (and so is DEAD).
You can read about such things in Sufic comments on the worthlessness of G's 4th WAY.
The TOOL he received instead is alive and well and was in the Biscione's entrails but could not be elevated to LIFE - until the teachers came to Filippo's court.

When the teachers finally came they corrected and completed Filippo's dilettantism and the fruit is the subject of this topic. So whatever other versions exist - THIS - the PMB - is the hallmark of Tarot.

Funny though that you should mention the "Cary-Yale" because just today I wrote an e-mail concerning that matter to an acquaintance from which I will quote here to clear some of my POVs:

>> (...) You spoke about about the horrific 5 x 14 structure in more detail- and yes I know that this is Huck's favorite model too.

It has some disqualifying flaws though:

You mention the d'Este family (1557!) - 100 and more years after Filippo is assumed to have his "cards" made.
The “Visconti di Modrone” is assumed to be commissioned by Filippo Maria Visconti – Duke of Milan – between 1441 and 1447.
The so-called "virtues" there are an educated mis-reading of a former interpretation Filippo made when he was working with alchemy and geomancy on his own and alone before he got the teachers assigned.

http://www.darktarot.com/the_oldest_tarot_deck.php

The WORLD - that would be 1 of your assumed later added "replacement cards" - is in existence there too - before the 22 got (in your opinion) completed.
When you look at the "pedestal" of the "Emperor" and the "Empress" you will find a similar 1 beneath the feet of the mis-read "FAITH" what makes her another version of The POPESS - just like the later 1 on the PMB "cards". Why that should make her 1 of the IIII guardians you can see on TH:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1044&start=70

Another mis-reading is the "CHARITY". If you would know about the source of the 16 gods who are the ancient 16 geomantic figures (quite well known to Filippo and other alchemists) as I pointed out in the thread on TH several times you would know that the later "TEMPERANCE" with her 2 vessels is about SOBRIETY in every meaning of the word and depicts a virgin and so the sign PUELLA. If you had gone to the sources I linked you would know that already.

Filippo had just dreamed her to mature (what is not possible because HER being a SYMBOL) and have conceived a child who she is now nourishing in her lap with her milk.
The symbol for SOBRIETY is still there in her right hand as the emptied bottle - just like the emptied WINE CARAFE in the same right hand of the virgin. You may know that through Renaissance it was the custom to spice wine with all sorts of things and so the WINE CARAFE had like a modern TEA pot an inbuilt "strainer" at the bottom of the "lip" to hold the spices back. The WATER instead could be served in an open jar - like the one the virgin carries in her left hand - her symbol for SOBRIETY.

"HOPE" is another "learned" mis-reading. Of the later STAR. She looks in the same direction and the LIGHT appears at the same place. She PRAYS for a CHILD. And the "STAR" has already conceived one - judging from her caring posture that is quite typical for "bearing" women.

So you see: the later assumed additions were already present in 1442. (...) <<

And it's not about "caliper" alone. When you look at the "Cary-Yale" it is quite obvious that those "cards" would not survive 1 game at a table where they had to be SHUFFLED and PUSHED around.

For me I do not need such confirmations from other curators. This exercise was only meant as an example that even the most fundamental assumptions about Tarot must be questioned when you want to get a grip on that matter.
It would be nice though still when someone would provide such data - that should motivate others to look for themselves too.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1084&start=40
Just there The „Visconti Tarot“ and the „d'Este set“ became parts of this topic – BUT under the afore written pretexts!

The following posts drift away from the topic for some time … but are telling still ...
… until on page 8 / 11 Jun 2016 I published Mr. Voelkle's answer concerning the measurements of the Visconti-Sforza Tarot at the Morgan library
So everyone who reads through this topic should get that I again and again emphasized and specified the subject here – with NO generalization concerning BIG cards AT ALL!

Every deck should be evaluated specifically – but in this thread no other BIG cards (except the 3 specific Visconti family sets plus the d'Este set for comparison) would have a place!

Adrian

Re: The Visconti-Sforza Tarot in 3-D

#100
Every deck should be evaluated specifically – but in this thread no other BIG cards (except the 3 specific Visconti family sets plus the d'Este set for comparison) would have a place!
A forum is a community place. If one wants, that nobody adds something to an article, one can make a personal webpage instead. If one wants to have a place, where one can control the comments, one can make a webpage with comment function. There you can delete any comment, which you don't like. Here not.

Forum publications have advantages and disadvantages ... from the personal perspective of the author. If somebody makes statements, as you did with analyses with strict commentaries, that the PMB MUST have been only a show object, you shouldn't wonder that you meet arguments with observations which lead to an opposite interpretation.

And these observations naturally may include info about other decks. Naturally a thread starter may beg, that other authors should keep strictly limited to the theme. But the dynamic of the discussions usually makes this not very successful.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron