For no particular reason, other than that I feel it fits here:
"He used continually a method won by long and hard work in a language, today studied by few, but which is intrinsically valid and weill, therefore, outlast the ignorance of time. Truths so vital, so intrinsic to our very nature, cannot with impunity be denied. Jung wrote that 'consciousness torn from its roots and no longer able to appeal to the authority of the primordial images, possesses a Promethean freedom, it is true, but also partakes of the nature of godless hybris'"
from Yeats, the Tarot and the Golden Dawn.
We are beginning by thinking about the formatting. The size we propose is very large (a bit smaller than Jane Lyle's "Tarot of Love" - if that gives some rough idea). What we're thinking of is 165mm high by 100mm wide. The accompanying little hardback book (assuming we do this) would be slightly bigger.
Of course, shuffling will be hard. But there will be a lot of area for picture. What do you think?
This is the first entry for the See of Logos community, and, as expected for an Oracle, is a quote from a leading financial and business publication - actually last Saturday's Financial Times:
"I was left concluding that sometimes big shows need to ask the big questions, and risk being ridiculed. The culture of instance significance has its place, but we occasionally crave a longer and broader view."
Peter Aspden, on Daniel Libeskind et al.
This article was interesting for a number of questions that it raised. One was whether deconstruction can ever be "playful" - as Aspden says, the "least playful figures in the world [were] French deconstructionist philosophers." But it's also interesting for the whole call for "big" issues to be addressed. Although, only, seemingly, in "big" art. But then, this is the Financial Times after all. Nothing flirty allowed.
The See of Logos does deconstruct our suppositions about Oracles. In that way, it's definitely a deconstructionist work. It is also very playful, although the play is often quite rough. It's funny, unlike (in my experience) anything written by Derrida. It addresses questions that we need to ask - especially now, in this odd cusp of time. But does this make it "big" art? Or should it stay small in any case? Is that a meaningful question for a deck of Oracle cards? Does it matter that Oracles have gone from a presence at a frightening centre of consciousness to being mere parlour games?
Should I stop asking and get on with the pictures?
I suppose what this comes down to is the question I ask myself at the start of each project we've done as baba studio. Will this make a difference? (God knows, the world needs something that will) And if so, in what way?