The theme of this week's kit was Dogs and I became interested in the wide variety of ways our illustrators drew a dog, so I thought I'd do a little critique. Of course, nothing is more subjective than taste, so disagree with me if you'd like, but it's a fact that I have better taste than you.
Our first dog comes from a book called Pillow Pup, illustrated by Mireille D'Allance.
This was my least favorite artwork mainly because I enjoy line, and as you can see here, the line is very soft and not distinctive. I'm also not a big fan of cute art, and I'm afraid this puppy is much too cute. However, to the illustrator's credit, the book is about a puppy who steals pillows, so perhaps the soft & cute art works to the story's advantage. Unfortunately, I didn't like the story either.
Our next book is called Sit, Truman! and was illustrated by Cara & Barry Moser.
Here the artwork is vastly different from the last book, but I found it only slightly more enjoyable. Clearly the artists are exceptionally gifted at producing realism via watercolor, but I guess realism isn't important to me when it comes to children's illustration. As I read this book it felt like I was looking at photographs or viewing a "fine artist's" work in a gallery. Once the "wow, this looks real" factor wore off, the illustration was a tad boring. But here again, the artwork may have lent itself to the story: the chronicle of a normal, non-fantastical dog's misbehavior.
Then we have A Dog Needs a Bone, by Audrey Wood.
In this book, unlike the previous two, the dog has human emotions and even the ability to talk (to itself, anyway), therefore giving the character much more personality. Although not a technically skilled artist like Cara & Barry Moser, Audrey Wood's drawings are expressive and have a certain lovable quality reminiscent of naive art. Even the medium is rather unique: crayon on brown paper bags. The children enjoyed this neurotic dog with it's silly expressions.
Next we have Sally Goes to the Vet, by Stephen Huneck.
I enjoyed this artwork a lot. It was clear, concise, strong, and folk-arty. It was made using carved woodblocks pressed in colored ink, and the effect is pretty captivating. If the story was a little more exciting, we'd have a real winner.
Speaking of winners, have you heard of Jules Feiffer? Perhaps not, but he has a long and distinguished career as a cartoonist, noted for his contributions to Playboy Magazine, The New Yorker, and for having illustrated many books including The Phantom Tollbooth. I like him because he is very good with line. Just take a look at his picture book Bark, George.
Next we have Sally Goes to the Vet, by Stephen Huneck.
I enjoyed this artwork a lot. It was clear, concise, strong, and folk-arty. It was made using carved woodblocks pressed in colored ink, and the effect is pretty captivating. If the story was a little more exciting, we'd have a real winner.
Speaking of winners, have you heard of Jules Feiffer? Perhaps not, but he has a long and distinguished career as a cartoonist, noted for his contributions to Playboy Magazine, The New Yorker, and for having illustrated many books including The Phantom Tollbooth. I like him because he is very good with line. Just take a look at his picture book Bark, George.
Even though his drawings are clear, they also have a pleasant amount of messiness and uncertainty to them. I'm also amazed by the amount of movement he is able to capture; even though they are perhaps the most simply drawn, his characters come to life more than any of the previous books. The story was enjoyable and the kids went wild at the downright ridiculousness of it.
My only complaint is probably minor to most folks but kind of a big deal to me. Jules Feiffer is a master of line - he doesn't work in color. The color in this book was done with computer, and even though it doesn't say who did it, I think it's a safe bet to assume Jules didn't. I'll make another assumption and bet the publisher wanted it in color (because it sells), whereas Jules would have been perfectly happy to leave it in black & white. Personally, I think color is a distraction from masterful line work. A single B&W drawing was included on the front of the hardcover, hidden underneath the colorized dust jacket. Compare.
My only complaint is probably minor to most folks but kind of a big deal to me. Jules Feiffer is a master of line - he doesn't work in color. The color in this book was done with computer, and even though it doesn't say who did it, I think it's a safe bet to assume Jules didn't. I'll make another assumption and bet the publisher wanted it in color (because it sells), whereas Jules would have been perfectly happy to leave it in black & white. Personally, I think color is a distraction from masterful line work. A single B&W drawing was included on the front of the hardcover, hidden underneath the colorized dust jacket. Compare.
