CCBC-Net Archives
No, David
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Karen Radtke <Kradtk>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 13:45:07 -0600
Good question. I guess it's similar to when you look at a modern art piece hanging in a museum and think "my kid could do that." I don't have the book in front of me, because it's too popular to sit on the shelf, so these are general comments. Let's start with Shannon's use of object placement, size, and perspective which brilliantly conveys not only a child's view, but the disjointed, awkward angles add to the humor. Although the figures are naive, many of the details are quite realistic, (although maybe a bit skewed colorwise) which makes each page visually interesting--for example the toys in front of the TV. To maintain a child-like quality, the line work is simple, and much of the art uses blocks of intense, complementary colors to form the objects and to elicit emotional responses. I'm running out of specific examples, wish I had the book in front of me, but Shannon's naive, cartoon art style, conveys humor, pathos, and truth. The package may look deceptively simplistic, but the artwork is anything but. Karen Radtke , Milwaukee Public Library I, too, am an admirer of the book "No, David," for all the reasons cited earlier by others, however, I am having difficulty articulating what makes the art truly distinguished. While I can appreciate its obvious child appeal and popularity, this cannot be a major consideration of the Caldecott Committee. So I'm wondering how the committee arrived at this decision, using the criteria they must consider:
1) Excellence of execution in the artistic technique employed. 2) Excellence of pictorial interpretation of story, theme, or concept; of appropriateness of style of illustration to the story, theme, or concept; of delineation of plot, theme, characters, setting, mood, or information through the pictures.
Can someone please speak to these terms, as they relate to "No, David?" I'm not trying to second-guess the committee or play devil's advocate; I'm just trying to understand how people make a case for a faux-naive style and visual humor as distinguished illustration.
Anyone?
Kathleen T. Horning (khorning at facstaff.wisc.edu) Cooperative Children's Book Center School of Education University of Wisconsin-Madison 4290 Helen C. White Hall 600 North Park St. Madison, WI 53706
(608)&3930
Received on Mon 08 Feb 1999 01:45:07 PM CST
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 13:45:07 -0600
Good question. I guess it's similar to when you look at a modern art piece hanging in a museum and think "my kid could do that." I don't have the book in front of me, because it's too popular to sit on the shelf, so these are general comments. Let's start with Shannon's use of object placement, size, and perspective which brilliantly conveys not only a child's view, but the disjointed, awkward angles add to the humor. Although the figures are naive, many of the details are quite realistic, (although maybe a bit skewed colorwise) which makes each page visually interesting--for example the toys in front of the TV. To maintain a child-like quality, the line work is simple, and much of the art uses blocks of intense, complementary colors to form the objects and to elicit emotional responses. I'm running out of specific examples, wish I had the book in front of me, but Shannon's naive, cartoon art style, conveys humor, pathos, and truth. The package may look deceptively simplistic, but the artwork is anything but. Karen Radtke , Milwaukee Public Library I, too, am an admirer of the book "No, David," for all the reasons cited earlier by others, however, I am having difficulty articulating what makes the art truly distinguished. While I can appreciate its obvious child appeal and popularity, this cannot be a major consideration of the Caldecott Committee. So I'm wondering how the committee arrived at this decision, using the criteria they must consider:
1) Excellence of execution in the artistic technique employed. 2) Excellence of pictorial interpretation of story, theme, or concept; of appropriateness of style of illustration to the story, theme, or concept; of delineation of plot, theme, characters, setting, mood, or information through the pictures.
Can someone please speak to these terms, as they relate to "No, David?" I'm not trying to second-guess the committee or play devil's advocate; I'm just trying to understand how people make a case for a faux-naive style and visual humor as distinguished illustration.
Anyone?
Kathleen T. Horning (khorning at facstaff.wisc.edu) Cooperative Children's Book Center School of Education University of Wisconsin-Madison 4290 Helen C. White Hall 600 North Park St. Madison, WI 53706
(608)&3930
Received on Mon 08 Feb 1999 01:45:07 PM CST
