In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Reading Tarot

I’m pretty convinced that tarot card reading is just an organized framework for letting your intuition loose (today, anyway; talk to me some other time and I’m convinced that it’s all woo-woo).  And there’s a lot about it as an experience that’s appealing to me as a woman.  I can speak with authority, because I can read something that the person sitting across from me can’t. I can have a level of intimacy with someone I don’t know very well and learn a great deal about her while being a part of her working out her own stuff. And because having your cards read is usually a weird and infrequent experience for that person, I think you feel like you’ve kind of arrived in a liminal space, not quite real life, where all that other stuff is set aside and it’s just two people doing this strange thing.

In other words, I think it’s a weird thing, but I don’t think it’s exactly supernatural. I think it’s just that we pick up on a lot of information from other people that we make use of without exactly realizing it and this, like I said, just gives you a framework for letting all that information come at you while you make meaning out of it intentionally instead of passively, if that makes sense.

I use my own variation on the Celtic Cross spread, which a lot of folks use, and I have a nice 21 card spread I like a lot, harry-herman-roseland-1870swhich looks very similar to the one used by the card reader in the painting here.

But I want to talk about not just this painting, but the whole series of paintings of this woman that Harry Herman Roseland did, which you can view over at Mary K. Greer’s excellent tarot blog. Because when I saw them all in a group like that, stuff started jumping out at me that I don’t think I’d have picked up on if I’d just been looking at one painting.

Because, I think, if you just look at one painting, it’s easy enough to get caught up in the intimacy of the reader and the person being read for.  Look at how they both lean over the cards, their heads curved in towards each other.  The African-American woman is the one with the power, with the literacy to read the cards in a way the white woman can’t.  It seems like the Black woman has control of the situation because they seem to be in her house, on her turf.

But when you see them all together like that, other things start to jump out, like the disparity in their social standing.  The white women all have on very lovely clothes and the Black woman is dressed in work clothes.  Look at how in every single painting, her knitting is close by, in one case, we can see it on her lap.  These white women have literally interrupted her work. (Though, I think Greer is right in the comments that we can’t overlook the symbolism of having a woman who works with yarn reading people’s fortunes.)  Also, look how many of them keep their hats on, as if, for them, they are still in a potentially public space.  And the parasols!  Look at how they point towards the reader in so many pictures, reaffirming that no matter what kind of intimacy we might think we’re seeing, there are some strong and potentially violent barriers between them.

I also think it’s interesting that the white women are almost always higher up in the picture, still literally above the reader. But it’s not as if the white women aren’t also in precarious positions. You might stop and see a fortune teller at a fair on a whim, but once you’ve taken the trouble to go to someone’s house (and I think that the fact that the white women are almost always pictured in pairs is not just indicative of it being problematic for them to be out in public alone, but also that they were doing something abnormal for them and wanted moral support), it’s usually about a level of desperation, of needing guidance or an edge in whatever.

It’s easy to imagine that these women are there inquiring about matters of the heart, or whether they will have children, but it’s easy also to loose sight of how important it was for women at that time to be able to do those things, in order to have social security. It might be weird to call it a feminist act, but I look at these paintings and I see a kind of proto-feminist act–women working together, through secret knowledge we don’t see shared with men, to make their lives a little easier to navigate.

I wonder, too, if we aren’t seeing the card reading as a way to mitigate the racial reasons the reader would not be able to present herself as telling the white women something they don’t know; they can maintain a fiction that it’s not her giving advice and passing along wisdom. She’s reading the cards. In one painting, she’s even consulting with a book. And this gives the white women a framework through which they can actually hear from a black woman and take what she says to heart.

As a reader, that’s something I’ve enjoyed, even if I couldn’t articulate it–the ability to speak with authority and be taken seriously, even when it might seem in other circumstances that I couldn’t know what I was talking about

I sometimes think that’s what appeals to me about blogging, too.


33 thoughts on Reading Tarot

  1. I love this post!

    I have used Tarot cards for some time now, as well. In a similar analogy to your own, I view them as sort of a sonar into my unconsciousness. I view it as similar to dropping pebbles into a well and using the sound to gather information about what is down there.

    I think the images that I lay out are open questions for me use as triggers for my conscious mind to examine what may be outside of its normal, more immediate and familiar space. It gives the unconscious part of my mind a chance to answer questions. Images and symbols are powerful tools for this kind of activity.

    I have a couple decks that I tend to use. My standard is Golden Dawn and the other is Crowley’s.

    Love is the whole of the Law. Love under Will.

    Be well.

  2. I like your analysis here but I wonder if it might be too optimistic. Part of me wonders whether the women of color pictured are further exoticized for taking part in what is commonly considered a pagan or mystical act, something along the lines of “voodoo.”

  3. Hmm. I was reading that as a series of pictures of the same woman with different clients.

    Still, I agree, of course the woman/women is/are being exoticized for performing a mystical act. But again, I think this leads back to why I find these images so thought-provoking: because there’s so much going on.

    The reader(s) are exoticized. But the white women weren’t lured there; they searched that place out and enlisted her services. The pictures may present “mystical” as a natural state of a black woman, but they also present “sinning” and “sneaking” as a natural state of white women.

    Which then makes me think about just whose eyes we’re supposed to be seeing that scene through. Is it a white male gaze? Sure seems like it. Look at how, in every picture but one, the women’s legs and stools make a barrier against the viewer, the heads and bodies are turned away from us. We can’t even get a good look at what’s going on in the cards.

    And which picture seems to most clearly contain a love-lorn woman? The one with the girl in the green skirt. And see how there’s practically a path created by the cards and then the way the light hits the logs in the fire place that lead you to her?

    I think the anticipated viewer is supposed to find this whole thing strange and exotic on every level and only when one of the women (a white woman, because, I think the viewer is supposed to be a white man) is very vulnerable (look how her parasol is placed compared to the other white women, how the cloth around her shoulders is arranged) is there a way in for the viewer, even if the subjects are unaware.

    Which a long way of saying, “Yeah you’re right about that and what do you make of this?”

  4. Or to come at it from another direction, we aren’t even considered as potential viewers of these paintings, I don’t think. So, who a woman looks at in those images and identifies with and why is already so far beyond that it’s hard for me to not realize that and to take great pleasure in it.

    Maybe that’s what reads as “optimism” but I don’t want to seem optimistic without being clear that what you see there is right.

    I just like the sense that the art is becoming (or is already) unmoored from anything the artist could have intended for it.

  5. I think that a lot of people do think it is exactly supernatural, and that letting people believe in it can cause them to make irrational decisions and fall into a pattern of magical thinking. Taro cards are essentially a template for cold reading, where you can toss out whatever comes to mind and see what sticks based on the persons reactions or by asking questions. Convincing people you know things that you don’t. People who are aware of what they are doing (really skeevy con artists, magicians/mentalists trying to make a point) are really good at it to, but they do it to prove how phony it is. People do make choices based off what they hear from psychics/other supernatural practitioners all the time

    http://whatstheharm.net/psychics.html

    Not to mention that a lot of them jump at the case to ‘help’ missing person cases, often creepily giving out made up details about the death of someone.

    I mean, I know it can be harmless or for fun, but so many people are in it for money or some other gain that its hard not to talk about it whenever supernatural stuff comes up.

    Richard dawkins has a good example of this when he talks about astrology- it doesn’t hurt anyone to think that they can generally characterize a group on something arbitrary like the month they were born, but if you replace ‘pices’ with ‘irishmen’ the problem becomes apparent. thinking in irrational generalizations doesn’t tend to only happen when people are having harmless fun.

    I wish I had more to say about the painting. My skeptic sense starts tingling when I see “reding tarot” as the topic line of a post.

  6. i can see the “sonar into your unconsciousness” concept. in fact, i can even think of entirely rational, reasonable ways that might be happening.

    the tarot deck has all these, for lack of a better word, archetypes associated with the cards. fairly vague, yet concrete enough to be distinct and useful, and all of them interesting and thought-provoking stories. powerful fuel for imagination.

    then you shuffle the deck and put out a random spread. it is random, of course; there’s no meaning or significance in it, it’s not related to anything else in reality. pure noise, as far as the order of the cards goes.

    but then you try to find a pattern in it, and as we know, the human brain is a very good pattern-finding machine. if there isn’t a real pattern to be found, it’ll invent one for you, no problem.

    so you’ll be dredging up a pattern where “really” there is just randomness, and of course it’s your own mind and subconsciousness you’ll be dredging it up from, using the cards’ stories as the framework to build it on. useful for introspection, certainly if you don’t take yourself too very seriously, since it’s yourself you’ll be reading in those invented patterns.

    trying to read for somebody else is nothing but woo, of course. skeptical atheists like me won’t tell you anything different. but that doesn’t make the cards useless. got a couple decks myself; can’t help but love the artwork, and the countless ways different artists can vary the themes.

  7. I think that a lot of people do think it is exactly supernatural, and that letting people believe in it can cause them to make irrational decisions and fall into a pattern of magical thinking.

    You know, this is what pisses me off about people who get their back up anytime something that could be labeled woo woo gets discussed. Magical thinking? Irrational decisions? I hate to be the bearer of bad news but thats just about all human beings have. Rationality is an illusion, its a comforting belief, its an attempt at making meaning and predicting an ultimately random universe. Once you get past the most basic of scientific laws all you’re left with is the complicated little knot of cognitive boundedness and desperate faith that all humans use to make the world marginally less terrifying. Rationality, as we like to think of it, is little more than faith with a specific metaphysical orientation.

    Also, whats this about “letting” people believe something? The stink of that arrogance belies insecurity, friend.

    Taro cards are essentially a template for cold reading, where you can toss out whatever comes to mind and see what sticks based on the persons reactions or by asking questions

    And there is a certain kind of understanding which can be developed from that. I think you’re projecting your own bias into the discussion here. Aunt B mentioned Tarot as “a framework for letting your intuition loose,” another poster described it as dropping pebbles into the unconscious to see what echos, and a good portion of people with a serious interest in Tarot do readings for themselves. The “cold reading” indictment you’re offering is something of a strawman when pretty much everyone involved acknowledges that aspect of the work but is talking about it at a different level.

    Convincing people you know things that you don’t.

    Again, you’re spinning things in all sorts of ways to fit your own heuristics and worldview. Its not unlike the person who looks at archetypes on a group of cards and pieces together meaning within their own frame. Although the latter example would at least have the benefit of being a bit more honest.

    People do make choices based off what they hear from psychics/other supernatural practitioners all the time

    And one wonders why, exactly, thats so disturbing to you. Nietzsche talked a lot about something he called ressentiment, basically the aggressive reaction a person has as a result of seeing something different from themselves which they then interpret as a challenge to their own being. Maybe you ought to check your own shit and take a deep breath before leaping at the chance to call someone else foolish and irrational as a means of propping up your own frame and fending off the unconscious doubt that comes with the uncertainty of life.

    Not to mention that a lot of them jump at the case to ‘help’ missing person cases, often creepily giving out made up details about the death of someone.

    Not even close to what we’re discussing here…or how Tarot works in pretty much any tradition. Did you ever read the original post?

    I mean, I know it can be harmless or for fun,

    Condescending and dismissive, one wonders what you’re compensating for. Rhetorically, you’re both diminishing the value that something can have in someone’s lives (by reducing it to the level of entertainment) while at the same time diminishing it by calling it “harmless.” What really interesting, though, is that you call Tarot harmless in the context of a discussion of the harm you believe it causes because of it’s irrationality.

    My skeptic sense starts tingling when I see “reding tarot” as the topic line of a post.

    Which is why you came out swinging without bothering to process or engage with what actual people had written. Better to just invalidate someone’s lived experience and prattle on about rationality than to face the reality that not everyone sees the world in the way you do. If they’re wrong then you must be right, but if they’re different then perhaps you can’t claim the comfort of absolute Truth.

  8. Rationality is an illusion, its a comforting belief, its an attempt at making meaning and predicting an ultimately random universe. Once you get past the most basic of scientific laws all you’re left with is the complicated little knot of cognitive boundedness and desperate faith that all humans use to make the world marginally less terrifying. Rationality, as we like to think of it, is little more than faith with a specific metaphysical orientation.

    William, that is complete and utter BS. You’re making both a false equivalency and some sort of solipsistic argument beloved by woo-meisters everywhere. Rationalism, science, is nothing like faith. Astrology didn’t get us to the stars and casting out demons didn’t cure disease. Rational thought and methodology has actual, measurable results.

  9. Rationality is an illusion

    yyeeeah. it’s an “illusion” that’s taught us how to build jumbo jets, how to make megacities into functioning, livable places for unprecedented numbers of people to live and work, how to raise skyscrapers that don’t have to be climbed step by step up nothing but stairs and ladders nor illuminated by nothing but oil lamps. it’s a “comforting belief” that’s put telescopes into freaking orbit. for an illusion, i’d say it’s a rather remarkably useful one.

  10. You’re making both a false equivalency and some sort of solipsistic argument beloved by woo-meisters everywhere.

    Damn right I’m making a solipsistic argument, but the thing is, it isn’t just woo-meisters who are fans. Ultimately, for anything other than solipsism to make sense, we have to trust our own perceptions. Our deeply flawed, biased, fragile, coherence-seeking perceptions. More than that, we have to believe that those perceptions are able to help us arrive at something approaching the level of transcendent truth. I reject that, plain and simple.

    Comparing rationalism to faith is not a false equivalence because, ultimately, they both rely on a fundamental assumption that human beings are capable of discerning and knowing fundamental truths. Is science more useful in my life than magic? Sure, day to day I wouldn’t trade penicillin for prayer, but thats a matter of utility rather than philosophy. On an epistemological level science and faith aren’t nearly as different as we would like to believe because human beings are unreliable narrators. We fill in gaps, we develop theories, we get disproven and upset on a nearly constant basis.

    Rationalism, science, is nothing like faith.

    Except that they’re both means of making sense of a senseless world. But hey, thats pretty minor, right?

    Astrology didn’t get us to the stars and casting out demons didn’t cure disease.

    Astrology didn’t get us to the stars, thats entirely correct. It did form the basis of quite a bit of human society for a great deal of time, however, encouraging the development of civilization by bringing meaning to lives. Also, lets not forget that a considerable amount of human scientific effort was expended purely in order to develop better tools for woo woo pursuits. Pythagorus wasn’t a scientist, he was the leader of a mystery cult. Chemistry grew from alchemy.

    As for curing disease, you’re right, casting out demons doesn’t cure disease. Although I’d point you to outcome studies for people diagnosed with schizophrenia in Africa versus the United States. Untreated people diagnosed with schizophrenia in Africa do better, with not uncommon full recovery, than treated people here in the US. The human mind is an odd thing and science really doesn’t have much of a grasp on it.

    Rational thought and methodology has actual, measurable results.

    But how are these actual, measurable results measured? I like science, its a great thing for certain pursuits, good methodology is what I want behind the engineering of the car I drive or the airplane I ride on. Rational thought is what I look for in an electrician or a plumber. Actual, measurable results are vitally important in a great variety of pursuits, but for discussions of meaning?

    My problem with science is when it is applied to the subjective, when “rational” people forget that there are things under the sun which simply cannot be quantified and measured. Too often people who get worked up about “irrational” behavior are people who haven’t quite grasped that a good portion of our lives cannot be explained with numbers, cannot be predicted no matter how desperately we might need such comfort. In this discussion, we’re talking about reading cards (and at least a few people mentioned possible rational explanations for it’s perceived utility, something which those barking about woo woo have conspicuously failed to engage) and how it helps people develop a sense of meaning. If you try to substitute science for cards (or psychotherapy, reading tea leaves, astrology, Jesus, gut instinct, etc) all you’re going to get is the trappings of science used in service of subjective meaning. Sure, its comforting if you’ve taken science to be your core form of belief, but thats missing the point of science and utterly useless for people who have a different way of engaging with subjective human experience.

  11. Whew, I’m not even sure how to bring this one back on the rails. But I feel obliged to try. First, conflating tarot card readers with demonstrably fake psychics who might misdirect police investigations is about like conflating the priest who serves a sip of communion wine with the bartender who hands a guy his 16th beer.

    It may feel like you’re striking a great blow for rationality, reason, and skepticism, but to those of us on the receiving end, it just seems like you’re missing the point.

    For me, and I think for many pagans, it doesn’t matter if how tarot reading works is completely understandable and ordinary. It doesn’t matter if I flip a card and I start to tell you what the card means and I pick up on a shift in your demeanor (even one I might not be aware I have picked up on) and shift the reading to head in the direction your body language indicates might be fruitful. It doesn’t matter if I’m just telling you a story about yourself that I am making up without realizing it.

    Because it works.

    It works in that it gives the reader a chance to say things to the questioner that she might not otherwise be able to hear. And any reading ends up giving the questioner a chance to speak and hear openly about the currents in her own life.

    It’s powerful stuff. Of course it’s completely of the world, how could it be otherwise? But how does that rule out the woo-woo stuff? Only if you’re still dealing with and responding to a Christian framework–that sees some things as being worldly and others as being spiritual and therefore not of this world.

    Of course it depends on the pagan system, but in general, that’s not a line pagans draw.

    I always feel like these “skeptic v. believer” arguments are contingent on the skeptic having an understanding of the believer as being a kind of superstitious that hangs on a Christian framework.

    But I freely admit that I’m superstitious. And I don’t hang my beliefs on that old Christian framework any more.

    Even if you can show how unscientific magical thinking is, and I have no doubt that you can, it still works for me, still explains things in my own life in ways that make sense for me and allow me to change my own behavior in ways I feel improve my life and make me happy and are interesting to me.

    So… I don’t know. You know, if in 200 years, one of my decedents reads this and is embarrassed to discover that his ancestor had such stupid beliefs, well, so history will judge me as being a person of my time.

  12. Man, I want to say more, but I don’t think I will…

    but:

    This is a woo thread. If you don’t like woo, please don’t comment in the thread, ok? I don’t, because I have strongly negative reactions to Auntie B‘s woo ideas. I still read the posts for other reasons, I guess–I was comparing this post to an earlier Racialicious post on paintings where black imagery was shown as subordinate to a white focal.

    There are many rich areas of discussion for a thread like this, and people who can barely tell the difference between induction and deduction have no business derailling the thread by yapping about “unscience”.

  13. The point here is not whether card reading is valid or not, it’s that it exists and yet its existence is largely unseen or misperceived. It’s one of the oldest professions—divination—which is probably older than whoring. And, despite its age, ancient venerability, and ubiquity (found in every culture), it has been, for the past several hundred or even thousand+ years, a barely acknowledged social construct. It flies under the radar and even when seen is so distorted in the eyes of the majority that little is really known or understood about it.

    Roseland’s pictures form a historical document and window into an unknown world that had/has its own rules and conventions that are rarely mentioned except perjoratively – so as to quickly veil the window with prejudice and supposition, rather than to non-judgmentally view what is actually going on.

    The side-tracking of this discussion seems to be a frantic attempt to make sure that a clear-headed assessment will be impossible. That the subject will be well-covered before it is even truly observed.

    As to supposed “proof” like that presented in “what’s the harm” (see earlier comment), I wonder how many stories would be recounted had the topic been not psychics, but “What’s the harm in going to the hospital?” where people would tell their horror stories about the illnesses, death and other harm derived directly through the malpractice of doctors and hospital care.

    Instead of simply discounting a realm of human experience found in every culture, based solely on its abuses, wouldn’t it be better to first examine what it actually is and does and it’s purpose and roles in those cultures (including out own)? Otherwise, it essentially remains a largely unseen, “outlaw” profession – a hidden reality right in front of our own faces, like it has been for so long.

    The Roseland pictures are only a small part of approximately 150 pictures I currently have of card readers from the (possibly) 16th century to the 1920s. I plan on putting them up on my blog and inviting such excellent commentaries as that by Aunt B to help us see what is actually going on.

  14. I love your idea that tarot is “just an organized framework for letting your intuition loose.” That explains so much to me. Reading cards has always felt truthful to me, as if the information I got from it could really be counted on. I never felt this way about a lot of other woo-woo things, so I eventually stopped looking into all of it and figured secular humanism and a hearty interest in philosophy were good enough for me. But this summer I found an old deck of my cards, and took them out again, partially to see how deeply these new mindsets had taken hold…but it felt the same way, like I could really solve problems by laying out and analyzing a spread. I think you’ve just offered a way of assimilating that experience with my disbelieving, skeptical self. Of course there is more going on in our heads than we consciously recall – maybe tarot just helps us latch on to what we’ve already known.

  15. Besides ripping people off, psychics also distort history and the cultures of other people by wrongly connecting tarot cards to Gypsies, Kabbalah and Native Americans. I think when tarot cards appear in the media, the whole truth about them should be told. There is no evidence at all that tarot cards were created for any “intuitive” or “woo” purpose. Tarot is really a type of playing card deck. Tarot was intended for game playing and nothing else and in some European countries tarot card games are still played. Far too often the media gives the impression that fortune telling is the only use of these cards or they spread the bad history of the psychic industry.

  16. Besides ripping people off, psychics also distort history and the cultures of other people by wrongly connecting tarot cards to Gypsies, Kabbalah and Native Americans.

    Nonsense. It’s well-known and oft-stated that tarot’s origins lie somewhen/womehwere around 15th-century Italy. Still, I suppose some charlatans might do that. Regardless, this post makes no such claims.

    Nor is any equivalency drawn in this post between “psychics” and “people who read tarot.” Those groups may overlap, but are not necessarily the same. I read tarot, but I am about as psychic as a doorknob. You’d likely be just as well off asking my cat what’s up with you, and I tell people this up front (nor do I charge for readings).

    But reading is still interesting to me, so I do it anyway. This is, if I am understanding Aunt B. correctly, more a thread for people who think reading tarot is interesting, and less a thread for people who think it’s all manner of foolishness that must be debunked at once, this minute, lest it spread like a virus.

    PLEASE, skeptics. Please cut this post a break. Big internet, lots to read out there, etc.

  17. Apparently it’s also a thread for people who want to mislead others about the intent of their blog posts, huh, jk? Ha, ha, ha. Shoot. Y’all need a good laugh, try that. I, myself, kind of love the “I am so superior and have also completely missed the point” genre of blog post, and perhaps have even contributed an example or two to it.

    Mary, thank you so much for coming by.

    As for you skeptics, thanks but we have all gotten the picture now. No need to heap on here when someone else, somewhere else, might need your wisdom. Like jk, for example, who has a whole blog about tarot reading.

  18. Me, I’m just bemused by all the parasols. Defence against tanning, blackness, and potential “black arts” all in one, apparently.

  19. Interesting look on the series of paintings. The paintings themselves are beautifully executed.

    Weighing in on the skepticism v. “woo” debate: I am a skeptic AND I have a set of tarot cards that are purely for my own personal interest and amusement – that is how I personally choose to use them. I have done readings for a couple of friends at their request and let them take what they wanted from it. I don’t believe it does anything more than provide a sort of structure to sort out what your thoughts and situation involve, as well as going through future plans in a general way.

    Tarot holds what you want to take from it, like many other things. Some people take more, some take less, some take nothing at all. This isn’t a defense of reason area – calm down and realize everyone has different opinions and beliefs on things. The OP wasn’t trying to force people to take Tarot as a revelation of divine will or have people make important life decisions on it, so as far as I see, no harm no foul.

  20. The reason we skeptics are commenting is because the media is very pro-woo biased. Besides being a skeptic, I use tarot cards for their original purpose, playing card games. Many of us are critical of the biased way that tarot is commonly presented in the media. I want to make a comment on that painting. I don’t think it really depicts the reading of tarot cards. It looks like fortune telling with playing cards and not tarot cards. The distinction is more clear in the other Harry Herman Roseland paintings. I agree the paintings are beautiful but isn’t it misleading to imply that the subjects are “reading tarot” if that’s not what they are really doing.

  21. B, my blog posting was in fact a response to yours here, and it points out how misleading your brand of “thinking” is, regardless of the topic.

    At the least, you are confusing yourself, with your own moody “woo-woo”. At the worst, you are creating an affirming place for simpletons to explore the summits of their imagination.

    Of course the latter provides a basis for the content of cartofeminist Tarot, which Mary Greer, among others, has spent a career promoting.

    Maybe you should put down the cards and assess your grip.

  22. Oh, well, at least now you’re willing to be openly hostile here, instead of just fishing for readers to drag back to your place. Ha, ha, ha.

    Anyway, the folks here are very bright and I assure you that they can read this and decide for themselves whether to be mislead by me. Again, I think we’re butting up against the “skeptic v. imagined Christian” framework.

    You guys think that you’re justified in coming in here and clearing up misconceptions or proving how I’m wrong because you believe that I’m trying to convert people through proselytizing. This is my guess, at least. But that’s not the case.

    I could give a shit about converting folks. I’m just trying to explain how I see it. Folks can take it or leave it.

    But back to you, more specifically, jk, aside from some huge errors in assumption on your part, the main problem with your approach is that we clearly belong to two different critical schools. You believe that the intent of the artist should be given primacy and that the meaning of a piece of art is derived in large part from what the artist meant, as best as it can be discerned by studying his biography and social context.

    I believe that all that stuff is interesting and certainly adds to the meaning of a piece of art, but that art often has meaning and tells us things far beyond what the author could have intended.

    And folks far smarter than you and I have been arguing over which approach is correct for generations. Trying to use one critical school to trump another critical school is ridiculous. It doesn’t prove you’re right. It just proves you have an interpretive framework.

  23. Glad the People Who Know showed up to tell the rest of us who “think,” speculate, debate, question, wonder, and work at difficult things just why we are ignorant mouth-breathers. Don’t step in the drool — that’s just what I do when I’m “thinking.”

    jk, persuasion comes from the Latin words per suare — with sugar. The rhetoric of aggression and condescension isn’t helping your argument, such as it is.

  24. I would have to agree that the way Tarot is often presented in this country badly needs some revision. There are three interesting facts about Tarot cards which sadly escape the attention of the popular media.
    1) Tarot is not only about card reading. Occult/divinatory Tarot, although it receives the most media attention in the US, is only one branch of Tarot. Tarot is also a family of trick taking card games mostly played in Europe which use a fixed trump suit. The English word “trump” is derived from the Italian “trionfi” the earliest name for these cards. The Tarot family of card games has existed for about 300 years prior to the first known use of the cards for divination.
    2) There are no really no suit signs unique to Tarot cards. The suits of the Minor Arcana; coins, cups, batons, and swords are the same ones as the earliest Western playing cards and they also appear in standard playing cards today of Italy and Latin America. There are also Tarot cards using the same suits signs as the modern Poker deck. Such Tarot or Tarock cards, although unknown to most Americans, are used in France and in central Europe mostly for card games.
    3) The Tarot is the first card deck to contain female court cards. The standard playing card deck prior to Tarot featured only the male court cards, king, knight, and jack. It was Tarot which added queens to playing cards. One early variant of Tarot contained 6 court cards in each suit by adding a female counterpart to each of the standard male courts.
    By ignoring these facts, the media sell the Tarot short.

  25. In response to Jim:

    Inventions get adapted all the time to new uses, many of which supersede the original application or continue with their own independent history. There is nothing unusual about this. Certainly, when the history of an invention is discussed, it is historically imperative to describe its first use. However when discussing a later specific use it is not always necessary to go off-topic and give a history lesson—not everything is about origins. It is possible to talk about a “branch,” without having to discuss the whole tree. I agree that when history IS mentioned it should be accurate. It is also equally correct to discuss the myths and legends that have accrued around a subject, as long as the difference between myth and history is clear.

    On the other hand, those who use tarot cards solely for gaming are equally reluctant to talk about the early uses of the cards in magic and for ‘tarocchi appropriati’ – poems that ascribe personality characteristics to people based on common allegorical associations to the Triumphs. This was part of a Medieval and Renaissance convention of “talking images”—pictures whose meanings spoke clearly to everyone.

    Furthermore, most contemporary players of the game of tarot, tarocchi or tarock (except perhaps in Italy) don’t even use decks that would be recognizable to Renaissance players other than in the number of cards involved. The images used for the trumps are now entirely different—there’s no more Justice, Strength or Wheel of Fortune, and the suits use French pips, yet this change to the trumps is rarely mentioned by gamers.

    What I don’t understand is why a discussion of a late 19th/early 20th century use of cards for fortune-telling would be perceived as threatening to those who play the game of Tarot? Bridge and poker players don’t protest every discussion of playing card divination. Tarot readers don’t protest the elimination of the historical trump images in contemporary Tarok packs—although some protest changes made to ‘occultize’ decks.

    I agree that this article might better have been entitled “Reading Cards” rather than “Reading Tarot,” but that is a relatively minor issue.

    Why try to hi-jack an examination of the social conditions surrounding card reading in the late 19th century and turn it into something else—a discussion about how cards were made for games and gambling—unless there is something more than historical considerations that these tarot players fear? I wouldn’t mind hi-jacking this discussion if anyone has a really good answer for that. In fact, it might speak directly as to why card reading is such a marginalized practice.

  26. For most Americans, fortune telling is considered the conventional use of Tarot cards. This is why I believe some game players are attacking the divinatory Tarot. It’s being attacked for its relative position of dominance in our culture; for being mainstream in comparison to Tarot game playing. Players of German style board games often attack the Monopoly board game for similar reasons.

    I was inspired to become a Tarot game advocate from reading this interview with Ron Decker on the Tarot Passages website. “Ron is still trying to build up tarot in the collection, as curators of the collection had previously neglected fortune telling decks. Now, with the understanding that tarot was once played as a card game, he is able to add to these decks. The theme of the collection has always been ‘playing cards’. Decker here is speaking of The United States Playing Card Company Museum. I believe that awareness of Tarot as a card game would lead to these cards becoming more accepted in places such as our public school system. I also believe such awareness could also expand the role that Tarot could play in our leisure activities.

    Is the perception of Tarot as a divination tool harmful? If works and artifacts pertaining to Tarot game playing cannot be correctly categorized because folks have not been given any other context in which to view Tarot, then I think there is a problem here that needs correcting. I recall, for example, that one reason Michael Dummett’s book “Game of Tarot” sold poorly is because retailers kept putting it in the occult categories.

Comments are currently closed.