Question about Lo Scarabeo decks and collaboration between authors & artists

[Annabelle]

I've been going back through a cabinet of my Lo Scarabeo decks recently, and I've noticed something regarding the attributions on the boxes and LWBs -- there is frequently an author or writer who receives "top" or first billing/crediting -- then (sometimes in smaller print, or further down the page) there's an artist listed. And in some instances, there's also a "designer" or someone credited with graphics in addition to the artist.

 

I'm very curious about how the Lo Scarabeo deck-creation process works, or has worked (as most of my LS decks are at least ten years old). Does one person create a script for the cards, essentially writing out what should take place in each scene? And then an artist works from that script? Is there one-on-one collaboration between the author and artist? If a third person is credited with graphic design, is that primarily a matter of designing a border and title layout for the cards, and designing the deck box?

 

If anyone has insight to share, I'd love to hear it!

[gregory]

Basically - in many cases, exactly that. There was a very interesting post by Barbara Moore a while ago about how she worked with Lola Airaghi on the Pagan Cats. She would have said more but a member of AT went for her so unpleasantly that she decided not to bother. I'll see if I can find it.

 

Graphic design - I don't know; I will ask.

 

Oh - foudn part of it:

 

Quote

Hi all,

I felt like I needed to jump in here. I usually don't like to, as I know how most of the contributors here feel about my work. It's okay...I know not everyone will like everything.

If you are interested in the story behind the Pagan Cats Tarot, I actually just wrote about it today on my blog.

Here is a snippet:
This project had very humble beginnings. Ric from Lo Scarabeo asked me if I was interested in writing the script for a light, fluffy, novelty deck. Because I love light, fluffy, and novel, I said yes.

Once I began, though, I found that the Cats had different ideas. While the deck is truly cute, it really isn’t light and fluffy. As I began writing ideas and descriptions, I kept reminding myself, this is a deck of Pagan Cats. Not just cats, but Pagan cats. What did that mean? How did that translate into tarot? How did it affect tarot? In short, I began feeling very serious about this.

Luckily, the cats themselves were quite vocal (in my mind, anyhow) and were clear about how they wanted to be depicted. In a way, the images felt as if they were from me but also more than me. And the result is a deck that is more than anyone originally expected.

As for why the pen name...the catalog this was originally meant to go when had another project by me and Lo Scarabeo didn't want two by the same author in one catalog. Unfortunately, the second project has been delayed so the pen name was unnecessary.

I wish this had my name on it, as it is the first deck that I completely wrote the script for and directed the art. This deck is "me" more than any other I've ever worked on. And it is what I am most proud of so far (next to Tarot for Beginners).

As for the companion book...there is such a tight word limit that I could give general meanings or talk about the cats. I wanted it to be useful to a complete beginning, so I opted for general knowing most advanced users would toss it.

I hope that answers some of your questions.

PS regarding, for example, the Vampires book, I relied in part on the artists' notes and on bouncing ideas and concepts around with Lo Scarabeo. Many times the artists (for decks) are not writers. Because I have a knack for getting what the artist is trying to convey, I do get selected for this work. All the artists (well, all the English-speaking artists) read and approve the text.

PPS yes, Llewellyn and Lo Scarabeo are independent. Llewellyn is the North American distributor for LS.

I think that is all.

There was something she linked to on her old blog but I can't find it just now.

[Annabelle]

This is helpful, gregory, thank you. Also, I didn't realize that the Pagan Cats tarot was one of Barbara's -- how interesting!

[gregory]

That was what started the nasty stuff that drove her from AT - someone thought it deceitful of her to use a pseudonym - but LoS had asked her to as she had another out with them in the same year. It was a horrible horrible thread. So nasty that while it was cleaned up, and while I did find it, I will PM you the link !

[Flaxen]

I didn’t know she’d worked on the Pagan Cats either. It’s such a great deck! That’s really interesting information on the creation process. 

[Little Fang]

It's my favorite deck, so thank you for sharing this tidbit! 

 

[gregory]

I just found the original script example from Barbara's blog in some stuff I had saved (I KNEW I had it somewhere...) - it gives you a flavour.
 

Quote

If I remember correctly from Barbara Moore's blog. She specifically told the artist what she wanted in a particular card. I just found her entry on the scripted card for the Moon - I quote from Barbara Moore's blog:

 

Quote

The Moon
(from the script for the artist)

"A scene very similar to the RWS Moon. A dog on one side of the path, howling at the moon in the sky. On the other side, a cat, rather regal, as if she were indeed drawing down the moon/channeling the goddess, wearing a collar that has a pendant of the moon (a circle with a crescent in it). A lobster is crawling up from the water. The cat has her paw on it…not hurting it, just touching it, as if getting to know it, but her attention is on the moon; she is gazing at the moon. The moon does not have to have a face on it, only if it looks good.

Message: The Moon cat says that she, and hence the deck as a whole, is a channel, a connection between your higher self or concept of the Divine and your lower self. Both aspects of you and experience exist in her. She helps find the sacred in the mundane and brings the scared to everyday experience."

Does that help, Annabelle ?
 

[Annabelle]

Yes, that helps a lot, gregory! I hadn't realized how detailed the scripting could be. Such a fascinating collaborative process.

[Rodney]

A friend of mine wrote the LWB for an upcoming LoS deck. All they were given was a file with the card images and some contradictory instructions around making the interpretations not RWS but keeping the keywords still RWS. This is an artist-driven deck in that the art was created without following any author's script. Judging by a number of the cards, it was pre-existing art being shoehorned into a tarot format. There was no contact with the artist and a very short turnaround time (like 2 weeks) to complete the LWB. Gave me a lot of insight into why LoS LWBs often seem disconnected from the imagery on the cards themselves.

 

The deck itself does nothing for me, but I'll probably still buy it just to support my friend.

[fire cat pickles]

23 minutes ago, Rodney said:

... All they were given was a file with the card images and some contradictory instructions around making the interpretations not RWS but keeping the keywords still RWS....

 

😶

How is this supposed to work. (Note the absence of a question mark.)

 

Now I'm curious what deck this is.

[Rodney]

Right? The LWB has descriptive/interpretive text which LoS didn't want to be RWS-based and then keywords which they did want to be RWS-based. I saw some of the in-progress LWB text but not the completed LWB. So I don't know how successfully my friend was able to walk that fine line.

[Annabelle]

On 2/8/2020 at 6:12 PM, Rodney said:

A friend of mine wrote the LWB for an upcoming LoS deck. All they were given was a file with the card images and some contradictory instructions around making the interpretations not RWS but keeping the keywords still RWS. This is an artist-driven deck in that the art was created without following any author's script. Judging by a number of the cards, it was pre-existing art being shoehorned into a tarot format. There was no contact with the artist and a very short turnaround time (like 2 weeks) to complete the LWB. Gave me a lot of insight into why LoS LWBs often seem disconnected from the imagery on the cards themselves.

Fascinating, Rodney -- thanks for sharing this information! 

 

That explains a lot. I've been reading through many of the LWBs with my Lo Scarabeo decks in recent weeks, and have noticed how vague and disconnected the information often is from the actual cards. A number of times I've caught instances in which the LWB with a deck doesn't even use the same titles as the cards (for example, using generic suit names when the cards themselves bear different names). 

 

And I've long been curious about why so many Lo Scarabeo decks have art that clearly isn't RWS-aligned, yet have RWS keywords in the LWB. I'd rather they pick a system and stick with it -- or don't, and state outright that a deck has its own unique structure.

[Rodney]

For a long time whenever I got a new LoS deck, I would look through it with RWS keywords in mind, find the art didn't match the keywords and put the deck aside never to be used. (More precisely I added to my sub-collection of "78 pieces of art that I'll never use to read with.") I finally realized I have to accept each LoS deck for itself with applying the lens of any particular system towards it and let the imagery guide my interpretations. Unless it's for a laugh, I almost never look at LoS LWBs any longer cause I know I'll just be disappointed.

 

An acquaintance of mine wrote the booklet for a LoS deck that was released last year. I didn't even get halfway through the Majors before I had to put the booklet away because it just wasn't jibing with the imagery on the cards. And this was before I had my insight into the process through my friend. As this person is only an acquaintance, I couldn't be as frank with them as I could with my friend about making sure that what they wrote was based on the imagery on the cards!

[katrinka]

1 hour ago, Rodney said:

For a long time whenever I got a new LoS deck, I would look through it with RWS keywords in mind, find the art didn't match the keywords and put the deck aside never to be used. (More precisely I added to my sub-collection of "78 pieces of art that I'll never use to read with.") I finally realized I have to accept each LoS deck for itself with applying the lens of any particular system towards it and let the imagery guide my interpretations. Unless it's for a laugh, I almost never look at LoS LWBs any longer cause I know I'll just be disappointed.

So they generally don't adhere RWS, or Thoth, or Etteilla, or anything people think of when they hear "Tarot". The buyer is expected to "read off the pictures."
This raises the question: why market them as Tarots at all? Granted, the definition of Tarot is broad - a Tarot is 78 cards (except when it's not), etc. - but these decks are essentially functioning as oracle decks. The fact that people are buying these is proof that oracle decks can be something other than vague captions ("Believe", "Music", that kind of thing) and glowy angels/goddesses/fairies. Some people prefer scenic, graphic novel style art.

 

The opposition comes in when you call them Tarots. People who are not yet familiar with LS decks buy, expecting something they can read according to RWS, and they get:

On 1/22/2020 at 10:03 AM, gregory said:

The Moon
(from the script for the artist)

"A scene very similar to the RWS Moon. A dog on one side of the path, howling at the moon in the sky. On the other side, a cat, rather regal, as if she were indeed drawing down the moon/channeling the goddess, wearing a collar that has a pendant of the moon (a circle with a crescent in it). A lobster is crawling up from the water. The cat has her paw on it…not hurting it, just touching it, as if getting to know it, but her attention is on the moon; she is gazing at the moon. The moon does not have to have a face on it, only if it looks good.

Message: The Moon cat says that she, and hence the deck as a whole, is a channel, a connection between your higher self or concept of the Divine and your lower self. Both aspects of you and experience exist in her. She helps find the sacred in the mundane and brings the scared to everyday experience."

So the wolf has been excised, there's a cat practicing Wicca, and it's not about Moon meanings anymore - it's about finding the sacred in the mundane. It's not a functioning Moon card any more, it's an oracle card.

"Tarot-inspired oracle" would be a much more honest description than "Tarot".

[Rodney]

Personally I think they're hedging their bets. I don't think that any other "big player" in the tarot market pushes the envelope on "what's tarot" as much as LoS does. And I give them lots of props for that. But at the same time, they want to keep a foot firmly planted in the RWS market. Hence why I think they give LWB writers latitude on interpretations but still insist on RWS keywords.

 

The Visconte Modrone is exquisite. And then they use RWS interpretations in the companion book! (Head meet wall. Bang until you have a headache.)

[katrinka]

1 hour ago, Rodney said:

Personally I think they're hedging their bets. I don't think that any other "big player" in the tarot market pushes the envelope on "what's tarot" as much as LoS does. And I give them lots of props for that. But at the same time, they want to keep a foot firmly planted in the RWS market. Hence why I think they give LWB writers latitude on interpretations but still insist on RWS keywords.

 

The Visconte Modrone is exquisite. And then they use RWS interpretations in the companion book! (Head meet wall. Bang until you have a headache.)

Yes. It comes off as disrespect to me, not giving their customer base credit for knowing some pretty basic things. YMMV.
Of course they're not the only ones to do things like that. It's just that they do it a LOT.

Edited February 11, 2020 by katrinka

[Annabelle]

18 hours ago, Rodney said:

Personally I think they're hedging their bets. I don't think that any other "big player" in the tarot market pushes the envelope on "what's tarot" as much as LoS does. And I give them lots of props for that. But at the same time, they want to keep a foot firmly planted in the RWS market. Hence why I think they give LWB writers latitude on interpretations but still insist on RWS keywords.

Agreed on both counts. I do suspect they are hedging their bets and doing all they can to appeal to a wide range of buyers. And I respect and admire LoS for pushing the envelope--though in my opinion, only about 1 in every 20 of their decks stands out as something successful all the way around (creative, consistent, unique, artistically-pleasing, and usable for divination).

 

Truthfully, I think much of their best tarot output is in their historical reproductions. I love their historical decks! And I have a soft spot for the goil foil decks of Atanas A. Atanassov. 

[Czenzi]

43 minutes ago, Annabelle said:

Agreed on both counts. I do suspect they are hedging their bets and doing all they can to appeal to a wide range of buyers. And I respect and admire LoS for pushing the envelope--though in my opinion, only about 1 in every 20 of their decks stands out as something successful all the way around (creative, consistent, unique, artistically-pleasing, and usable for divination).

 

Truthfully, I think much of their best tarot output is in their historical reproductions. I love their historical decks! And I have a soft spot for the goil foil decks of Atanas A. Atanassov. 

I also like the gold foil decks and historical decks, but I can take or leave many of the others. That said, I really appreciate how many different decks they have put out for different types of readers and collectors. They really are a blessing for that.

[katrinka]

7 minutes ago, Annabelle said:

Agreed on both counts. I do suspect they are hedging their bets and doing all they can to appeal to a wide range of buyers. And I respect and admire LoS for pushing the envelope--though in my opinion, only about 1 in every 20 of their decks stands out as something successful all the way around (creative, consistent, unique, artistically-pleasing, and usable for divination)
T

I'm not throwing down the gauntlet at you or anyone else ITT, but I do have to disagree about the WAY they push the envelope.
The Vamp resurrected an old reading method. It pushed the envelope. https://fennario.wordpress.com/2019/04/12/vamp-the-theda-bara-tarot-from-jook-art/

 

Likewise, the Pharos takes the Thoth Majors and relates them to a lighthouse. http://www.tabulamundi.com/pharos-tarot-faq/

 

Now, for those of you who are reading off of pictures alone, the lack of a method may not present a problem. Bur the rest of us require a system of some sort. 

I am reminded of LS's forays into Lenormand, which is very much a system, a method, much more than it is a deck. So first LS came out with the French Cartomancy deck (actually a copy of the Donforf, which is VERY German.) (OK, good, I bought it and wore it out! Props.) And then there was a book available by Laura Tuan that had **** all to do with Lenormand. She totally pulled it out of her wazoo, it was useless.

Later, they did it as a deck and book set. IOW, they forced the book on people who wanted the deck (which was, IIRC, oversized at that point.) And let's not forget their glittery, manhole-cover sized Blue Owl. 

Nice pictures are enjoyable, but a major concern re: decks with me is CAN I READ IT? Don't get me wrong, I love art. But simply for art's sake, I would by a painting, a poster, a coffee table book, a t shirt, you name it. 

7 minutes ago, Annabelle said:

 

Truthfully, I think much of their best tarot output is in their historical reproductions. I love their historical decks! And I have a soft spot for the goil foil decks of Atanas A. Atanassov. 

I have a couple of their Sibillas, the Everyday Oracle (which is the best Sibilla available, bar none) and the 2001 edition of the Sibilla Della Zingara, which is a copy of the wonderful Faustino deck. (Later, they put black title bars with poorly translated Italian on it. I suspect there were copyright issues.)

 

LS, on (very) rare occasions, is wonderful. But for the most part, I ignore them.

[Arania]

I love a lot of their decks.

[Styx]

I love many of their decks but I am sometimes baffled by the absence of a proper guidebook or even worse, a guidebook which seems to have nothing to do with the cards themselves. If you take the Tarot of the Sweet Twilight, for example, you will recognize most of the RWS staples, but with a different spin and atmosphere, which is something I love; in the Tarot of Metamorphosis, which I love for very different reasons, not only is it difficult to recognize anything (scenes, the energy of the different suits, etc), but the little white book will absolutely not help you. Add to that the fact that those "metamorphosis" are sometimes taken from mythology, sometimes from folk tales, and sometimes from the creators' imagination, and you get something that is wonderful to look at and get inspiration from, but that does not exactly embody the system of tarot. How wonderful would it be to have a proper guidebook, or at least three sentences that would explain clearly how the original story was linked to the tarot card in the creators' mind?

Edited February 15, 2020 by Styx

[Arania]

Yeah true that. As an intuitive reader it matters less to me but I would still love a bit more information about the creative process behind it.

[Rodney]

12 hours ago, Styx said:

How wonderful would it be to have a proper guidebook, or at least three sentences that would explain clearly how the original story was linked to the tarot card in the creators' mind?

Even if LoS just made the script from which the deck was created available as a PDF, even for a nominal fee, I'd be happy with that! So many LoS decks are missed opportunities because the way they're released LoS comes across as saying, "Here. Figure it out for yourself!" I don't need to be handed a fish, but at least give me the tools I need to catch my own fish!

 

The Mona Lisa Tarot has beautiful art and an interesting concept of the cards being part of a puzzle (that Riccardo finally admitted had no solution). But the deck was released with no instructions on how to even BEGIN to assemble the pieces of the puzzle. ARGH!!!!! And there are many more examples of decks like that from the LoS catalog.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Rodney

[Arania]

Yeah... we should start a petition lol

[Styx]

The whole thing is even more frustrating as I actually love Lo Scarabeo. Love their cardstock, love their format, love how creative they are...