Atelier Playing Cards

[Don Boyer]

When it comes to high-end designer goods, people will drop $15, $20 or even $25 without giving it a second thought - to them, that's a bargain, even if it is a deck of cards, because it's so much cheaper than many of the artist's other works, I would imagine.  They aren't looking at this pack as something to use for cardistry or Saturday night poker with the gang, but as a piece of art.

That's fine and dandy for them, really, if that's what they're seeking - it's just not so great for me.  I see them as a bit boring to look at and terribly impractical for magic as all of the cards will practically look alike!  My spectator wouldn't be able to tell one from another on sight without having to scrutinize what's going on a lot more carefully than most magicians would prefer.  I hold a Bicycle Rider Back 6 of Diamonds from across a small room, people will still see it and identify it.  Do that with this deck and that just won't be the case - it's something I'd have to use while only inches away, not feet.  (Centimeters away, not meters, for the people from all-metric lands!)

[Paul Carpenter]

Reducing a design, taking things out, refining, is a hard and tricky process. The natural inclination is usually to add more, do more, make it fancier. So, from that perspective it is admirable that he worked through so many design iterations.

However, what I personally think he missed here is that playing cards are not and should not be just "designey artwork." They are a functional object, with a rich and long history and a usable purpose. By dismantling the design to this degree, you remove the purpose of the object and I think that creating a pointless product is rather silly. Clearly I'm not hipster enough.

Many people look at projects like this one and try to equate it to Apple products, where things are taken out and focus is tightened, but what they aren't realizing is that the Apple approach to simplification is to make a product that works BETTER for the normal person, not less usable and worse.

Good for him, glad it's a success, but I personally feel it's a pretty poor deck of cards.

[bhong]

Clearly I'm not hipster enough.

Many people look at projects like this one and try to equate it to Apple products, where things are taken out and focus is tightened, but what they aren't realizing is that the Apple approach to simplification is to make a product that works BETTER for the normal person, not less usable and worse.

That first part is probably the best quote ever.

I think you hit the mark with the supposedly comparison to Apple products. I think what Apple tried to do was make things simple so that the masses could accept and use technology without being afraid of it, which a lot of people were pre-2000 with computer stuff. It felt too "technical" or "complex" where a lot of stuff now is simple and self-explanatory and definitely very easy to use.

Playing cards themselves are pretty streamlined and functional as they are after evolving and changing throughout the years.

Best of luck to the guy and I congratulate him on his success.

[Sher143]

Reducing a design, taking things out, refining, is a hard and tricky process. The natural inclination is usually to add more, do more, make it fancier. So, from that perspective it is admirable that he worked through so many design iterations.

However, what I personally think he missed here is that playing cards are not and should not be just "designey artwork." They are a functional object, with a rich and long history and a usable purpose. By dismantling the design to this degree, you remove the purpose of the object and I think that creating a pointless product is rather silly. Clearly I'm not hipster enough.

Many people look at projects like this one and try to equate it to Apple products, where things are taken out and focus is tightened, but what they aren't realizing is that the Apple approach to simplification is to make a product that works BETTER for the normal person, not less usable and worse.

Good for him, glad it's a success, but I personally feel it's a pretty poor deck of cards.

This! Though I think the comparison to Apple just started because somehow someone found out he used to work for Apple.

[Paul Carpenter]

This! Though I think the comparison to Apple just started because somehow someone found out he used to work for Apple.

Interesting. I hadn't really heard anything along those lines, but was working from the general assumption that whenever something is designed "white and simple" people start drawing comparisons.

[Don Boyer]

However, what I personally think he missed here is that playing cards are not and should not be just "designey artwork." They are a functional object, with a rich and long history and a usable purpose. By dismantling the design to this degree, you remove the purpose of the object and I think that creating a pointless product is rather silly. Clearly I'm not hipster enough.

In theory, it would be great to call this deck and others like it something other than playing cards.  We can call them "art decks", we can call them impractical, but even stripped back this far, they can still be used (with some difficulty) as a deck of cards.  This designer stripped back every single element possible - take one more and they really no longer are playing cards.  (Except perhaps one of the indices, but that would only serve to make them even less practical.)

My personal thoughts on calling them just "designey artwork" (love that phrase, BTW) is that once you start drawing lines, they inevitably get blurred - there's a lot of decks that have come and gone that were horribly ugly and nearly no one here would want to call them cards, but that "nearly no one" is the key.  Someone will still call them cards, love the design, etc. despite any artistic merit, impracticality, etc.

Eh.  I think I need to wake up more.

[BeDoubleYou]

I mean, the tuck box is very nice, I'm even partial to the backs. But I agree $19 is a little steep.

Then again I just bought two decks of the gilded edged PAGAN cards by Uusi so I'm a bit of a hypocrite.

Only thing that matters is that his backers are happy and that he isn't scamming the community. Honestly,  part of the fun of this hobby is that certain people like certain designs and value them as one of the treasures of their collection and others don't like that design and don't add them tp their collection.

Some people don't like the If an Octopus Could Palm deck from D&D because they are essentially just a glorified deck of standard cards, whereas I think they're very cool.

I agree with Don. Just like the decks that you like. We all come here because we have the same hobby generally, but if your opinion differs from anybody elses that's fine. And honestly, despite everyone here not digging it, there's enough people on KS that do, so maybe we're the minority here.

Even though most of us seem to dislike it, it doesnt matter. This guy is making money regardless of whether I think it looks good or not. And if I made that amount of money on a project I dont think id be personally offended if anyone told me they didn't like the deck.

[PurpleIce]

So...i was just back from a long overseas trip to Taiwan and catching up on some topics here, and i get a $51k funded project which really made me go WTF.

Of course, this is just a personal opinion and my 2 cents worth, but those design processes that he put up honestly seems a little like something i used to compile for my final year design project when i was back in school. A day from submission and i lack "design processes" to make my design seem like it has gone through a lot of thought processing? BAM...doodle on a stack of paper.

I won't argue on how much thought processing has been put through this design. Sometimes, a whole lot has been thought through and you end up at your initial start point. It may really be a case for him, and it may be worth $19 a deck if so. But i feel many of the backers are just jumping in not for the design process but because of the sleek tuck and "minimalist" design of no courts and pips. Probably something not done before to such "plain" extent? Either way, i do think this design probably works only once, so i would like to see what he can come up next for his second deck.

[Don Boyer]

So...i was just back from a long overseas trip to Taiwan and catching up on some topics here, and i get a $51k funded project which really made me go WTF.

Of course, this is just a personal opinion and my 2 cents worth, but those design processes that he put up honestly seems a little like something i used to compile for my final year design project when i was back in school. A day from submission and i lack "design processes" to make my design seem like it has gone through a lot of thought processing? BAM...doodle on a stack of paper.

I won't argue on how much thought processing has been put through this design. Sometimes, a whole lot has been thought through and you end up at your initial start point. It may really be a case for him, and it may be worth $19 a deck if so. But i feel many of the backers are just jumping in not for the design process but because of the sleek tuck and "minimalist" design of no courts and pips. Probably something not done before to such "plain" extent? Either way, i do think this design probably works only once, so i would like to see what he can come up next for his second deck.

I'd love to say this would be a one-shot thing, like lightning striking a particular spot.  Unfortunately, it's a myth that lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place, and on Kickstarter, when someone makes a lot of money doing something exceptionally simple to copy, rest assured it will be copied ad nauseum by people both with and without the needed skills to do so.

I'm sorely tempted to "out-minimalist" this guy, make the same EXACT deck minus the goofy circles on the back and sell it for half what he's charging!!  There was more effort put into the making of the video i my opinion, and it's a really pretentious-looking video!