¿HACIA DONDE IR?

Modernist art is easily historicized as a special kind of modern fine art which acquired increasing status during the twentieth century. British art critics Clive Bell and Roger Fry, both regarded as early advocates of modernist ideals, were among those who stressed the importance of the expressive properties of art and an objectified, but still identifiably empathetic, experience of the work of art by the outside viewer. In his “An Essay in Aesthetics” (¡909), Fry made one of the first important summaries of the modernist aesthetic, arguing that a disinterested objectivity was necessary for the proper observation of aesthetic quality and aes- thetic quality could be found in the artistic presentation of order and variety in a unity indicative of “consciousness of purpose.”114_{Both Fry and Bell elaborated} on the importance of such formal elements as rhythm, mass, space, light, shade, and color in art, but Bell (¡9¡4) particularly emphasized what he called “significant form” as “the one quality common to all works of visual art.”115_{The exact definition} of significant form remained somewhat vague, but Bell said that it was evident in great works of art:

In each, lines and colours combined in a particular way, certain forms and rela- tions of forms stir our aesthetic emotions. These relations and combinations of lines and colours, these aesthetically moving forms, I call “Significant Form”; and “Significant Form” is the one quality common to all works of visual art.116

a work of art. Since art exists in a world apart from human interests and life, he said, “we need bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and a›airs, no familiarity with its emotions” in order to experience it fully. He believed that this full experience was quite di›erent from that of those who merely read their own experiences and emotions into the forms of the work, who add noth- ing new to their lives when they experience a work of art. Emotions have no place in the world of art, because, he said, art “is a world with emotions of its own.”117 Like Bell, Fry understood the aesthetic experience as one in which the art viewer responds fully to the artist’s creative experience. However, in his conclu- sion to Vision and Design (¡920), Fry wrote “those who experience [aesthetic emo- tion] feel it to have a peculiar quality of ‘reality’ which makes it a matter of infinite importance in their lives. Any attempt I might make to explain this would prob- ably land me in the depths of mysticism. On the edge of that gulf I stop.”118_Such quasi-mystical aesthetic experiences, which go well beyond conventional empa- thy to the animation of the images themselves, is the extreme some contempo- rary Tarot artists and readers celebrate and seek. They often attribute at least some of their creative work to an Other quasi-metaphysical inspirational source that they feel comes from beyond themselves, and they tend to closely associate their motivations and creative method as they frequently attribute both to some sort of visionary, meditative, or other spiritual experience or quest; thus the deck is said to be both initiated and created through the guidance provided by that experience. The Tarot artist’s artistic expression is often derived from his or her experience of the self in mediation or empathetic communion with a creative source understood as external to, or at least beyond, the normal conscious aware- ness of that self.

Modernist aesthetics did not, however, remain so compatible with those of Tarot, turning instead, by the ¡940s and ¡950s, toward an intensification of self- referentiality, self-containment, and formal and hierarchical commitments, such that modernist art was defined in opposition to all forms of popular culture and low art. This emphasis on categorical boundaries was rationalized by the asser- tion that all elements other than the formal properties determined by media are superfluous to art.119_{Clement Greenberg (¡960) specifically identified one of the} primary features of modernist art as its extension of enlightenment criticism, that applied externally, to a more internal “self-criticism” intended to demonstrate what was most unique and valuable about it:

It quickly emerged that the unique and proper area of competence of each art coincided with all that was unique in the nature of its medium. The task of self- criticism became to eliminate from the specific e›ects of each art any and every e›ect that might conceivably be borrowed from or by the medium of any other art. Thus would each art be rendered “pure,” and in its “purity” find the guar- antee of its standards of quality as well as of its independence. “Purity” meant self- definition, and the enterprise of self-criticism in the arts became one of self-definition with a vengeance.120

“Literary” and “theatrical” concerns such as those demonstrated in natural- istic representation and most sculpture were deemed superfluous and detrimen- tal to the quality of modernist art.121

decks as the Haindl and Dalí Tarot are di‡cult to consider as modernist, given the overriding pop culture quality and theatrical involvements of the genre. The qual- ity of their artistic expression places most Tarot decks among the low art forms, such as folk art, mass-produced art, kitsch, and camp. While this fact also places them outside the modernist frame, these associations are not inconsistent with the artists’ intentions and purposes and, indeed, demonstrate that Tarot has the same qualitative adaptability as more conventional forms such as easel painting. Some commercial decks, such as Vicki Noble and Karen Vogel’s Motherpeace

Round Tarot (¡98¡) (Plate ¡5.4), have the appeal of folk art. Traditional folk or

naïve art, like all aspects of folk culture, is associated with small, local producers and audiences who know each other, and is typically found on functional objects such as rugs, quilts, clothes, storage boxes, jars, game boards, hunting decoys, weather vanes, and so forth. Folk artists often draw on memories, fantasies and dreams for the subject matter of their art, and, because they are generally unfa- miliar with art history and have no academic training, they tend to use styles and forms that do not conform to those previously established within the academic tradition.122 _{They do not use academy-taught techniques associated with artistic} expression such as chiaroscuro, correct scale, perspective, or the placement of all elements in a unified and coherent space, but rather strive for a high degree of craftsmanship and artistic merit through the incorporation of as much detail as possible into each work.123_{Blake McKendry (¡983) finds extensive detail to be a} criterion of quality for work of this type that provides

an insight into how a work is undertaken. With few exceptions, the folk artist cre- ates and finishes one detail, and then goes on to the next. The completed com- position is a chain of additions, but the overall e›ect is not considered—if the details are right, then the whole is right, or at least to the folk artist. The work is finished when no empty spaces remain.124

This sort of attention to detail, a simplistic approach to composition as the filling in of space, a lack of concern for sophisticated rendering and color schemes, and the extensive use of memory and familiar cultural forms and images are all descriptive of the Motherpeace Round Tarot, as well as numerous other decks.

Tarot, however, is most widely recognized today as a popular art form, with decks published commercially for marketing to a mass audience. Popular culture, unlike folk culture, particularly that of the twentieth century, frequently involves producers who are not named and an audience which is large and in search of entertainment or amusement, not moral or ethical edification, as is sometimes the objective of high art or the cozy domestic context of folk culture. Popular arts are often mass-produced and often derided as kitsch. Martin Lindauer (¡99¡), who has done extensive studies on mass-produced art, particularly on paintings sold in mall aisles, maintains that whatever form it takes, all mass-produced art pos- sesses the same general characteristics and reasons for popularity. It is always sim- ple in form and design. It is stereotyped, but each artist generally has a signature of some kind which distinguishes his or her work from that of other artists. The works produced by the individual artist may di›er little from one another, but each is a little di›erent and is therefore an “original.”125

Mass-produced art is purchased, according to Lindauer, because it is inex- pensive, peaceful, evokes nostalgic thoughts of other, more restful, times and

places, and because it suits the existing home decor and so further beautifies the home. Owners of mass-produced art like it and find it easy to live with. In his test- ing of the aesthetic preferences of audiences of mass-produced paintings, Lin- dauer found that mass-produced art is held in high regard and that there is a general preference for landscapes and seascapes over urban scenes. Factors such as age, sex, and art education make little or no di›erence to this assessment or preference.126

In spite of the general aversion to this type of art among artists of all other kinds, mass-produced art, like the art in museums, depends on the viewer’s pos- itive reaction to its aesthetic properties, and has “educational, propagandistic, and moralistic functions.” Museum or fine art does possess qualities usually lack- ing in mass-produced art, however. Lindauer explains these di›erences in terms comparable to those used by Gowans with reference to the general di›erences between high and low art:

Despite their many parallels, mass-produced and museum art are not the same. Museum art is original, requires a higher degree of craftsmanship, skill and tech- nique, and has a long history of expert commentary. It evokes complex layers of multiple meanings that require sustained and repeated viewings by educated view- ers. Consequently, museum art is a greater challenge than mass-produced art, given the latter’s technical inferiority, conventionality, overfamiliarity, and com- mercialization. But many of the ways in which mass-produced art works—aes- thetically, decoratively, cathartically, educationally—also works with museum art, but with simpler forms. These simplifications give mass-produced art certain advantages over museum art.127

Mass-produced art tends to present its message in a more direct and sim- plified manner, and the message itself tends to be consistently associated with peace, tranquillity, conventional social values and perhaps sensuality. It is for these reasons that it is considered by its owners to be easier to live with and to enjoy than the kind of art associated with museums.128

Tarot decks certainly have all of the appeal associated with other forms of mass-produced art. The images are familiar, simple, and usually easy to under- stand, at least on a basic interpretive level. In addition, Tarot is portable and is thus accessible, intimate, privately owned, and flexible of function. All of these reasons for valuing portable art may be enhanced by the same animistic, shaman- istic or spiritual associations attached to amulets or charms, whether they are used in some formal ritual or kept purely for luck. Also, Tarot decks may be easily and cheaply reinvented, as the increasing numbers of available decks and the sets of blank cards sold by U.S. Games Systems indicates; the value placed on such per- sonalized artistic creativity may be a factor in the popularity of Tarot as a spe- cialized art form, as well as that of the Tarot reading as a kind of prompted fantasy or storytelling.

Kitsch, another type of mass-produced art descriptive of numerous examples of Tarot decks, is often applied, as Tomas Kulka notes (¡988), “as a synonym for worthless art, artistic rubbish, or simply bad art.”129_{Kitsch is something that peo-} ple like and are willing to pay for, but it is condemned by the world of fine art. It was also condemned by Greenberg for being the o‡cial carrier of ideology in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.130_{Greenberg observed that kitsch appears his-} torically as a product of the industrial revolution; the urbanized proletariat and

petty bourgeois gained literacy as a marketable skill, but they never acquired the leisure and sense of patronage associated with the aristocratic class which once fostered genuine culture. Folk art, seemingly perfect for a rural life style, became less appealing and, Greenberg believes, kitsch appeared as a deliberately debased, diluted form of high culture—that is, nevertheless, a satisfactory alternative for those

insensible to the values of genuine culture…. Kitsch, using for raw material the debased and academicized simulacra of genuine culture, welcomes and cultivates this insensibility. It is the source of its profits. Kitsch is mechanical and operates by formulas. Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations. Kitsch changes according to style, but remains always the same. Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our times. Kitsch pretends to demand nothing of its cus- tomers except their money—not even their time.131

How does one recognize today’s kitsch? According to Kulka, kitsch is char- acterized by it subjects and its style: (¡) Kitsch depicts a subject which is gener- ally considered beautiful or highly emotionally charged; (2) The subject depicted by kitsch is instantly and e›ortlessly identifiable; (3) Kitsch does not substantially enrich our associations related to the depicted subject.132

Examples of kitschy subjects include, according to Kulka, anything “highly charged with stock emotions which spontaneously elicit a ready response” such as cute, fuzzy animals, babies, and picturesque landscapes. The usual style for rendering such subjects as kitsch is naturalistic or realistic, sometimes excessively so and to the point of sentimental artificiality, and the artist makes no attempt to be innovative in any way.133

Sometime after kitsch was made infamous by Greenberg’s condemnation of it, some kitsch gained notoriety as camp, a sort of chic kitsch. Camp, as critic Susan Sontag (¡982) sees it, demonstrates an excess of aestheticism, an excess of style at the expense of content. Her list of examples explains what no explanation does very well. This list includes: “ti›any lamps,” “The Enquirer, headlines and stores,” “Aubrey Beardsley drawings,” “old Flash Gordon comics,” “women’s clothes of the twenties (feather boas, fringed and bearded dresses, etc.)” and “stag movies seen without lust.”134 _{Erotic paintings by nineteenth century academicians, such} as Ingres, showing naked ladies looking like they have been dipped in wax, fit this category rather well also, from a contemporary point of view. Sometimes works of art shift from one category to another, with or without the artist’s par- ticipation: Ingres certainly thought of his work as the highest form of art, while post-modernist Je› Koons just as certainly made his already-canonized Michael

Jackson and Bubbles (¡988) as deliberate camp.

Karen Marie Sweikhardt’s Tarot of a Moon Garden (¡993) (Plate ¡9.2), with its soft fuzzy shapes and pastel colors and the thoroughly harlequinized David and Jyoti McKie’s Healing Earth Tarot (¡994) (Plate 6.4) may be considered kitsch by the art critically-minded. The reliance on obviously fantastic and exotic imagery, as in Terry Donaldson and artist Peter Pracownik’s Dragon Tarot (¡995) (Plate ¡0.3), on the other hand, is stylishly camp. Pracownik, obviously a trained artist, is most certainly aware of his style, as is Brian Williams, creator of the camp Pomo

Tarot (¡994) deck (Plate ¡¡.4).

In spite of its marginality relative to the modernist hierarchy of art, Tarot does have at least one significant modernist feature—its analogousness to the grid. Art

historically, the grid originates in Renaissance mathematical or scientific per- spective, a method of systematically organizing elements within a painting so that they relate consistently to each other and to the frame and also assert an ideal position from which the viewer may best observe this e›ect.

The rectangle is the conventional shape of easel paintings which became ubiquitous shortly after the introduction of scientific perspective, and, as in easel paintings, this shape may be emphasized to great e›ect in Tarot cards by the frame. Frames assert containment and emphasize the compositional center, both marking and mediating between the image within and the world without. Graphic representations of frames on prints, such as characterize some Tarot cards, first developed in the fifteenth century at the same time that portable painting began to supplant two dimensional art forms integrated with architectural settings, such as murals and altarpieces. At this point, as Rudolf Arnheim puts it in The Power of

the Center (¡982),

the work of art becomes a proposition…. The frame indicates that the viewer is asked to look at what he sees in the picture not as a part of the world in which he lives and acts, but as a statement about that world, at which he looks from the outside—a representation of the viewer’s world. This implies that the matter seen in a picture is not to be taken as a part of the world’s inventory but as a carrier of symbolic meaning.135

Arnheim further notes that the tondo provides the most radical separation from the environment because it defies the gravity indicated by the right angles of the interior. The square frame acknowledges gravity by mimicking these lines, “but ignores the qualitative di›erence between horizontal and vertical” which the rectangular frame alone recognizes and a‡rms:

The four sides of a rectangular frame have a characteristically ambiguous func- tion. On the one hand they can ignore gravity and be equally oriented toward the center of the rectangular space. As the top border presses downward toward the center, the bottom border presses upward symmetrically, and the two lateral borders press inward. There is a centrifugal expansion in all four directions as well. Ornamental frames promote this centrically symmetrical version when their design is the same on all four sides. Conceived in this fashion, the frame under- plays the importance of the vertical and horizontal coordinates and stresses the center.136

Arnheim observes that the frame, conceived as two posts which emphasize verticality, set on a base and topped by a lintel, either flat or arched, more often surrounds windows and doors than pictures “because the former are more directly committed to the surrounding building than the latter.”137

The Rider-Waite treatment of the Tarot frame is by far the most common in contemporary decks. The central decorated section of each rectangular card is surrounded by a narrow, black border and a white outer edge. Further dramati-