UnitedCardists.com - The forum for Cardistry, Magic, Custom Decks and All Things Playing Cards.

guru wrote:A backer from Netherlands also requested me to do a deck on BOSCH. It is in the works and the subject matter is being researched at the moment.

The gauntlet has been thrown down!

Bradius wrote:Time for HAPPY THOUGHTS! Flowers and candy...Yes, HAPPY thoughts!

Candy, you say? Sure, buddy, here you go.

Crickets don’t creep me out so much, but I’ll pass on that candy, thanks.

Bradius wrote:Crickets don’t creep me out so much, but I’ll pass on that candy, thanks.

I tried my best to find a cockroach one, but for some reason I guess they don't make them?

You mentioned earlier that the cockroaches at your previous house were the flying kind, but I thought most of the South referred to those as "palmetto bugs." Do they not call them that in Texas?

I thought most of the South referred to those as "palmetto bugs." Do they not call them that in Texas?

Yep, the same. We generally refer to them as roaches. I can tell you though they tend to live outside on the pine trees. So, around here Pine Trees = Roach Infestation. It doesn't help much to deal with the roaches inside your house because the roaches actually live outside and come inside for a nice warm, dry place with lots of free food and water. Your house kind of becomes a luxury resort and feeding trough for wild roaches (palmetto bugs if you like). I don't like the name palmetto bugs becuase that doesn't sound near as nasty as they really are. At least though they arn't poisonous like most critters are in Australia.

So that is what happens when you try and resurrect a promising thread, lol. How did we manage to go from a discussion of playing cards or Bosch’s art to this?

I don't know. HIERONYMUS's art is wierd to me, but I the way Lotrek is taking it is sort of growng on me.

I feel that transferring an existing artwork (here it means strictly ART) to playing cards is always a risky move considering how the representation works: too alike risks boredom (like those Van Gogh decks) vs. too altered risks sabotaging the original aesthetics. Now Bosch’s type of art is already unsettling in the first place, so to cut a frame from the whole picture would take away the effect IMO.

Decknowledgy wrote:I feel that transferring an existing artwork (here it means strictly ART) to playing cards is always a risky move considering how the representation works: too alike risks boredom (like those Van Gogh decks) vs. too altered risks sabotaging the original aesthetics. Now Bosch’s type of art is already unsettling in the first place, so to cut a frame from the whole picture would take away the effect IMO.

Quite agree about a direct copy being boring - if that's what you want, you can get a deck of reproductions from the museum quite easily. But if the original artwork is strong enough, then a skilful card designer might have enough room to coax something new out of, or offer a different perspective on, any painting. And to see Bosch's original work successfully forced into such a restrictive medium as a deck of cards, well that would be amazing, not just as an end product, but as a feat of creative genius in its own right. The original is so iconic, and its effect on the viewer so visceral, that the skill needed to preserve its essence (or ascertaining what that essence even is) while "chopping" it into 52 pieces would be monumental.

Badly executed, it could be embarrassing, but all the ingredients in this instance appear to be top notch so worth the risk, I think. I am looking forward to seeing how these turn out.

ALR wrote:

Decknowledgy wrote:I feel that transferring an existing artwork (here it means strictly ART) to playing cards is always a risky move considering how the representation works: too alike risks boredom (like those Van Gogh decks) vs. too altered risks sabotaging the original aesthetics. Now Bosch’s type of art is already unsettling in the first place, so to cut a frame from the whole picture would take away the effect IMO.

Quite agree about a direct copy being boring - if that's what you want, you can get a deck of reproductions from the museum quite easily. But if the original artwork is strong enough, then a skilful card designer might have enough room to coax something new out of, or offer a different perspective on, any painting. And to see Bosch's original work successfully forced into such a restrictive medium as a deck of cards, well that would be amazing, not just as an end product, but as a feat of creative genius in its own right. The original is so iconic, and its effect on the viewer so visceral, that the skill needed to preserve its essence (or ascertaining what that essence even is) while "chopping" it into 52 pieces would be monumental.

Badly executed, it could be embarrassing, but all the ingredients in this instance appear to be top notch so worth the risk, I think. I am looking forward to seeing how these turn out.

That I completely agree with but Lotrek is probably one of the very few people in the card world who could do this. I am far from being a fan of Bosch’s art but the sketches above look excellent.

Magic Tapp wrote: That I completely agree with but Lotrek is probably one of the very few people in the card world who could do this. I am far from being a fan of Bosch’s art but the sketches above look excellent.

Sorry, didn't make it clear that by "all the ingredients ... appear to be top notch" I meant including the designer, Lotrek.

The HIERONYMUS deck has still a lot of work. Translating Bosch's imagery into playing cards without copy-pasting but actually altering the original images without betraying the master's art, well... I don't know why I love so much getting in trouble.

The deck will be released this year. I don't believe it can be ready before October and it is definitely my most difficult undertaking so far.

Decknowledgy wrote:I feel that transferring an existing artwork (here it means strictly ART) to playing cards is always a risky move considering how the representation works: too alike risks boredom (like those Van Gogh decks) vs. too altered risks sabotaging the original aesthetics. Now Bosch’s type of art is already unsettling in the first place, so to cut a frame from the whole picture would take away the effect IMO.

You're right. It is very easy to reproduce something as-is or even cut a frame and transfer to a court card. Understand that playing card collectors are not art critics, so even a transfer might work for them but will be blasted by art critics.

Lotrek - I recommend this book by Larry Silver, Professor @ UPenn. Larry gets into his subject’s cultural milieu, belief system and artistic intentions.

https://www.amazon.com/Hieronymus-Bosch ... 0789209012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

guru wrote:...playing card collectors are not art critics...

Many of them think they are though

Then again, what makes someone an "art critic" anyway?

I think of myself as an art critic, but I sure as heck have no talent or training. I am just another one of those goobers that buys playing cards. Just understand some of your customers are distinctly low-brow in the realm of art expertise (that should come as little surprise). On the plus side, at least I don't think a NOC should be nominated for anything in DotY. At least I have that going for me.

While not a professional critic by any means, I am an artist myself, and criticize art with that knowledge and experience.

It's why I'm such a necessary pessimistic skeptic here.

TwoPiece wrote:While not a professional critic by any means, I am an artist myself, and criticize art with that knowledge and experience.

It's why I'm such a necessary pessimistic skeptic here.

Given the number of morons produced in the world every day, a pessimist is actually a well informed realist.

Lotrek wrote:

TwoPiece wrote:It's why I'm such a necessary pessimistic skeptic here.

Given the number of morons produced in the world every day, a pessimist is actually a well informed realist.

Infinite bromance detected

MagikFingerz wrote:

guru wrote:...playing card collectors are not art critics...

Many of them think they are though

Then again, what makes someone an "art critic" anyway?

Wasted years of college. Same as philosophy.

Lotrek wrote:

TwoPiece wrote:While not a professional critic by any means, I am an artist myself, and criticize art with that knowledge and experience.

It's why I'm such a necessary pessimistic skeptic here.

Given the number of morons produced in the world every day, a pessimist is actually a well informed realist.

TwoPiece wrote:

Lotrek wrote:

TwoPiece wrote:While not a professional critic by any means, I am an artist myself, and criticize art with that knowledge and experience.

It's why I'm such a necessary pessimistic skeptic here.

Given the number of morons produced in the world every day, a pessimist is actually a well informed realist.

Even including the quote in your signature?

MagikFingerz wrote:

TwoPiece wrote:

Lotrek wrote: Given the number of morons produced in the world every day, a pessimist is actually a well informed realist.

Even including the quote in your signature?

Lotrek > Rousselle

Sorry, Rousselle.

The problem is that you can be a genius in an area and fairly well informed in several others. That leaves about 99.9% of everything in which you are a complete moron. It is hard to be anything but a moron at most everything. I guess the moral is to stick to your lane and shut up when out of it lest you reveal yourself, or learn some catch phrases and phake it.

TwoPiece wrote:Lotrek > Rousselle

Sorry, Rousselle.

(he's not actually sorry tho)

Bradius wrote:The problem is that you can be a genius in an area and fairly well informed in several others. That leaves about 99.9% of everything in which you are a complete moron. It is hard to be anything but a moron at most everything. I guess the moral is to stick to your lane and shut up when out of it lest you reveal yourself, or learn some catch phrases and phake it.

You're completely misusing the word "moron" here, Brad.

A "moron" is a stupid person. A moron, or stupid person, would likely try to debate a topic that they're uninformed on. Someone who isn't a moron (or stupid person) would likely refrain from comment, or research prior to commenting.

An intellectual will research and learn what they don't know. A moron won't. Don't confuse the two. There's also the people in between intellectuals and morons. The mediocre, if you will.

Merlebird wrote:

TwoPiece wrote:Lotrek > Rousselle

Sorry, Rousselle.

(he's not actually sorry tho)

Dude, I laughed so hard at this entire exchange.

I also like the way Lotrek's comment is framed as a response to mine. Couldn't ask for better company in TwoPiece's sig. Hi, Lotrek!

rousselle wrote:

Merlebird wrote:

TwoPiece wrote:Lotrek > Rousselle

Sorry, Rousselle.

(he's not actually sorry tho)

Dude, I laughed so hard at this entire exchange.

I also like the way Lotrek's comment is framed as a response to mine. Couldn't ask for better company in TwoPiece's sig. Hi, Lotrek!

So, how about showing how I do the courts of this deck? Here are some pics of the 1st Joker so far.

So cool! Can't wait to see what the whole thing looks like

Thank you Lotrek for sharing, such a great piece of work.

Will there be a version with white cards aswell? I’m not a fan of black cards at all (will have to buy it most certainly anyways ^^). Even worse if they aren’t black stock and just printed black.