September 4, 2007 § 4 Comments
As someone who rates the Haindl Tarot very highly, I’m clearly contradicting myself when I say that I prefer decks that don’t beat around the bush. We see images everyday – in roadsigns, adverts, photographs, films – which can convey a message, idea, or emotion in the blink of an eye. So why is it that so many tarot decks (which by necessity must communicate their messages through images alone) insist on being ambiguous?
The reason for this post is that I’ve just finished doing a little housekeeping at the store (yes, more housekeeping….what next, baking??) and for the first time in ages, I stumbled across the images for the Phantasmagoric Theater Tarot. Although I’ve always found the idea of this deck intriguing, I haven’t really paid it that much attention (dismissing it as the ‘Rugrats’ tarot). Yet, tonight, the 2 of Cups card caught my eye:
Now, I suppose if you wanted to, you could try and read all sorts of things into the strange mouth apparatus, the ‘noughts and crosses’ eyes, the nudity, the separate shapes of the cups. But, really, there’s no need to do all that. When I saw this image, the thought that popped into my head was ‘two peas in a pod’. There. Simple as that. That’s the 2 of Cups in a nutshell. Does it really need explaining further?
Then there are cards like this:
That card is from the Tarot of the Spirit. Don’t get me wrong – it’s a perfectly fine card. It’s quite attractive, very watery, and – given a few moments contemplation – probably quite meaningful. But it just doesn’t get the message across like the previous card. Reading tarot doesn’t have to be difficult (I say this a lot; I’m thinking about getting a t-shirt printed). Remember: a picture is worth a thousand words.
Anyway, that’s my little rant of the day. Guess who’s seriously thinking about getting the Phantasmagoric Theater now? 🙂