CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] Newbery vs. Caldecott
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Maia Cheli-Colando <maia>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:40:06 -0800
Meghan,
This is just my sense, not a well-developed analysis, but I think that the Newberys are less likely to go to popular books because they are searching for something broader and deeper than your average book. The Newbery and Printz awards can shine a light on texts that might otherwise be hidden in the library because they aren't instantly consumable. I would guess that the selection committees feel empowered to make bolder choices, having some sense of the "noble clause" in the Newberys.
But for the Caldecott there are two "reducing" (I don't mean this as a slight) elements: first, that the books are (perceived to be) for very young children*, and second, that it is the illustrations that are examined. I think that most folks have a harder time evaluating the ineffabale in art -- literature (for all that many argue against it) has a built-in didactic guide: you can assess "what happened." Most art, by its nature, doesn't reflect a flow of time. Without that didactic guide (even one unconsciously recognized), and with the cultural uptightness about "good" art and "bad" art and the shame/cultural standing associated with being able to "judge" art (or wine!), I am not surprised that folks would choose illustrators whose work was already acknowledged. Illustrators whose work they have already seen. Visions they have grown accustomed to...
I have always found it extremely strange to give an award only for the illustrations of a picture book. It would be equally strange to me to give an award just for authorship of a picture book. On the other hand, an illustrators award makes great sense to me -- recognizing a body of work, or a singular artistic vision. But that doesn't get stamped so easily on glossy covers, thus is wouldn't serve the same marketing purpose, thus... Well, we have those awards now, but the public largely isn't aware of them!
* I think that art is subconsciously perceived by many people as a more seductive, maverick, activist, uncontrollable creation than word-smithing. ("But what does it /mean/?") Put that energy together with picture books, and folks are bound to get uncomfortable. On that shifting moral sand, they look for visuals that bear the cultural stamp of "child-friendly." (Whether or not it really is. In America, visuals made for children are often garish, over-gendered and cartoonish, e.g. Disney -- so it doesn't necessary make sense. But I think that art enters the consciousness at such a deep level that most folks never get near to the place where it is defines and is defined by their own psyche.)
Sorry to ramble, but I hope that made some sense, or at least, gives room for argument! :)
Maia
www.sequoppy.com www.littlefolktales.org
Meghan McCarthy wrote:
>I'm wondering why this is. My point, to some degree,
>can be proven by going to a large chain such as B&N.
>At the B&N I work at, we never seem to have the
>Newbery winners when they're announced but always
>have at least a few copies of the Caldecotts on hand.
>Do the Caldecott winners usually have a bit more
>marketing muscle? It seems that many of the Newberys
>never have that same popularity prior to being picked.
>
>
Received on Wed 25 Jan 2006 02:40:06 PM CST
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:40:06 -0800
Meghan,
This is just my sense, not a well-developed analysis, but I think that the Newberys are less likely to go to popular books because they are searching for something broader and deeper than your average book. The Newbery and Printz awards can shine a light on texts that might otherwise be hidden in the library because they aren't instantly consumable. I would guess that the selection committees feel empowered to make bolder choices, having some sense of the "noble clause" in the Newberys.
But for the Caldecott there are two "reducing" (I don't mean this as a slight) elements: first, that the books are (perceived to be) for very young children*, and second, that it is the illustrations that are examined. I think that most folks have a harder time evaluating the ineffabale in art -- literature (for all that many argue against it) has a built-in didactic guide: you can assess "what happened." Most art, by its nature, doesn't reflect a flow of time. Without that didactic guide (even one unconsciously recognized), and with the cultural uptightness about "good" art and "bad" art and the shame/cultural standing associated with being able to "judge" art (or wine!), I am not surprised that folks would choose illustrators whose work was already acknowledged. Illustrators whose work they have already seen. Visions they have grown accustomed to...
I have always found it extremely strange to give an award only for the illustrations of a picture book. It would be equally strange to me to give an award just for authorship of a picture book. On the other hand, an illustrators award makes great sense to me -- recognizing a body of work, or a singular artistic vision. But that doesn't get stamped so easily on glossy covers, thus is wouldn't serve the same marketing purpose, thus... Well, we have those awards now, but the public largely isn't aware of them!
* I think that art is subconsciously perceived by many people as a more seductive, maverick, activist, uncontrollable creation than word-smithing. ("But what does it /mean/?") Put that energy together with picture books, and folks are bound to get uncomfortable. On that shifting moral sand, they look for visuals that bear the cultural stamp of "child-friendly." (Whether or not it really is. In America, visuals made for children are often garish, over-gendered and cartoonish, e.g. Disney -- so it doesn't necessary make sense. But I think that art enters the consciousness at such a deep level that most folks never get near to the place where it is defines and is defined by their own psyche.)
Sorry to ramble, but I hope that made some sense, or at least, gives room for argument! :)
Maia
www.sequoppy.com www.littlefolktales.org
Meghan McCarthy wrote:
>I'm wondering why this is. My point, to some degree,
>can be proven by going to a large chain such as B&N.
>At the B&N I work at, we never seem to have the
>Newbery winners when they're announced but always
>have at least a few copies of the Caldecotts on hand.
>Do the Caldecott winners usually have a bit more
>marketing muscle? It seems that many of the Newberys
>never have that same popularity prior to being picked.
>
>
Received on Wed 25 Jan 2006 02:40:06 PM CST
