Mine was the 21st comment under this discussion.
NOVEMBER 1, 2017 BY 21 COMMENTS
Discussion published on Calling Caldecott, a conversation between Elisa Gall and Jonathan Hunt about photography as a medium. Say cheese. –J.D.
ELISA GALL: So, last I checked with ALSC Youth Media Awards aficionado K.T. Horning, a photographic picture book has yet to receive Caldecott recognition. There have been books with photographic elements, like Knuffle Bunny (2005 Honor) and Smoky Night (1995 Medal), in which photographs are used for backgrounds. There have been books like Trombone Shorty (2016 Honor), which contain photographs as part of mixed-media collage art. There are also books where the illustrations are photographs of 3D art, like Golem (1997 Medal), Viva Frida (2015 Honor), and Radiant Child (2017 Medal). But a picture book illustrated with straight-up photographs has yet to win. Do you have any thoughts on why that might be the case?
JONATHAN HUNT: My Caldecott committee actually picked two books that fall in that last category — Viva Frida (illustrated by Yuyi Morales) and The Right Word (illustrated by Melissa Sweet). Anyway, as to reasons for not having a “pure” photography book, I think there are several. First, there really isn’t a big pool of books that use photography as the exclusive medium. With the advent of digital technology, we are seeing more and more of them, but we are also seeing lines blurred. People are using that digital technology to manipulate images. Peter Brown, Jon Klassen, and Dan Santat, for example, have been known to scan textures and colors as files and then digitally manipulate them to appear as if they used a hand-crafted medium. Second, I think people don’t realize the award isn’t for the best art; it’s for the best picture book — and that means the words are important, too. You may have a small pool of photography books to begin with, and then you have to narrow it down to those which are also good picture books. Finally, I think there is a perception or a bias that photography does not require as much skill; draftsmanship in various mediums is seen as inherently more artistic. So that’s my theory. Does any of that resonate with you?
ELISA: You’re right that there isn’t a big pool of books that use photography as the exclusive medium. The recent example that always comes to mind for me is My People, for which photographer Charles R. Smith Jr. won the Coretta Scott King Illustrator Award in 2010. And we both know that just because a book hasn’t received Caldecott recognition doesn’t mean that it wasn’t part of closed-door deliberations. I’m interested in your idea that draftsmanship in various mediums is seen (even if subconsciously) as inherently more artistic. This is likely true (although I consciously reject the idea that assumed difficulty is a factor necessary for a finished book’s excellence), but I also think part of the reason we haven’t seen a lot of photography books recognized is that many books illustrated with photographs contain “previously published” images and are determined ineligible.
JONATHAN: Meet Cindy Sherman is probably a good book to examine in order to deconstruct the complexity of some of these issues. I think the photography is stunning, but the text-to-picture ratio is such that it doesn’t “feel” like a picture book; it feels like an illustrated book. But here is the Caldecott definition of a picture book:
“A ‘picture book for children’ as distinguished from other books with illustrations, is one that essentially provides the child with a visual experience. A picture book has a collective unity of story-line, theme, or concept, developed through the series of pictures of which the book is comprised.”
Is Meet Cindy Sherman a visual experience? Undoubtedly. Does it have a collective unity of story-line, theme, or concept? Absolutely. The book describes her work as an artist, and the pictures include various portraits of herself in a myriad of guises. If this book were to win — and I don’t think it will; this is more of an intellectual exercise — it would be interesting, because there is no indication that Sherman collaborated on the book with Jordan and Greenberg. I’m not sure that artistic control of the book is explicitly mentioned in the criteria, but isn’t it sort of implied?
I’m also going to push back a bit on your “previously published” comment, because the back of the manual expands on and clarifies this. The intent is to ensure that a book is a new creation and not a re-creation from some other work. This does not mean that some minor portion of the work cannot have appeared elsewhere. It does mean, however, that no significant part of the book under consideration was originally part of another work. Not all cases are clear-cut, and each committee must make its own judgments about originality. Where consensus is not easily reached, the chair should discuss the issue with the priority consultant, who may also consult the ALSC president, the executive director, the board, or previous chairs.
Sherman’s photographs have always been a part of exhibits. They have been published, after the fact, in various books. Some of these photographs may have appeared in other books, but I do think this is essentially a new creation. Others will obviously disagree. This book has so much working against it, but the photography is wonderful, head and shoulders above most of the stuff we’ve seen in children’s books. Perhaps Neal Porter should recruit Cindy Sherman to do an original picture book, so it can become our first “pure” Caldecott photography book?
ELISA: Thanks for sharing those pieces from the manual. It’s fair for you to push back, but I agree with you! I was making an assumption about how some of the roadblocks to photography you mentioned, mixed with stock photography or images that also appear in art books or elsewhere, might lead a committee to determine a book is ineligible. Unless we are on the committee making the decision, we’ll never know for sure. The more I think about it, the more I agree with you that there is a bias against photography. Two big ideas are coming to the surface for me:
- Photos are everywhere. They are part of our everyday life, so we start to view them as ordinary (read: not fine art), and many of us lack practice and training in evaluating photography critically.
- We all can take photos, and it is possible (even if unlikely) for an unskilled person to fortuitously take an amazing photo. It is much more difficult for someone to accidentally create a genius watercolor.
You joke about Neal Porter recruiting Cindy Sherman to do an original picture book, but I can’t think of a photographic picture book with a stronger “visual experience” than Meet Cindy Sherman. Sherman is the illustrator here (you are right that it is implied). Her name is even on the title page (because it is in the title).
This is the Sherman picture book we need, with stand-out visuals coupled with excellent research that spotlights her work and simultaneously scaffolds readers’ understandings, putting the photographs in context. It’s a picture book about a photographer and her photography which uses said photography. (Excellence of execution in technique employed, check. Excellence of pictorial interpretation of theme or concept, check. Appropriateness of style, check. Delineation of theme, mood, or information, check. Excellence of presentation in recognition of a child audience, check.) What else could we ASK FOR?!
The text-to-picture ratio discussion often perplexes me, especially since we can always find examples of text-heavy Caldecotts. I noticed that in trim size and length, April Pulley Sayre’s Full of Fall, which is also illustrated through photography, looks more like a “traditional” picture book. Have you had a chance to take a look at it?
JONATHAN: Yes, I think Full of Fall is another great book to discuss this bias. I think the assumption is that we could have all clicked the button that took those photos; all you have to do is wander outside in New England in the fall. And while that may be true, can’t we all draw the Pigeon, too? I know, I know: there aren’t many books like Don’t Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus, either. But I definitely think there is an unconscious hierarchy of which mediums require more skill. And this is a poetry book with a light focus on science, neither of which are heavily favored by Caldecott committees over the years, so I think it’s complicated because there are actually multiplebiases that are potentially in play.
But laying all that aside for the moment, here’s what I notice about Full of Fall: there’s a great use of color and light; the various textures of the leaves are captured wonderfully; there is a great sense of composition in the full-page spreads and use of frames to present close-up pictures of leaves in contrast to full landscape views, incorporating the surroundings — birds, sky, animals, other plants, water. This provides nice context. I’d love to share this with children!
But here’s the thing: as much as I can appreciate this book, Wolf in the Snow is the high-water mark for me. That book elicits such a strong emotional response, and while I know photography can do that, we don’t see it in picture books. Nor do we see the same degree of narrative storytelling.
ELISA: I completely agree with your assessment of Full of Fall. Everything you pointed out — from the use of color and light to the alternation between close-ups and views from afar — demonstrates excellence. I love the build-up with smaller frames leading to page turns revealing full-page spreads, not to mention the simple but ever-on-theme orange endpapers. The only downside to this book for me is the typeface, which is light and skinny and can sometimes be hard to find on the page, even when you’re looking for it.
You are right that the triple threat of science, photography, and poetry themes make this book a bit of an oddball. I do think your points about Wolf in the Snow, “strong emotional response,” and “same degree of narrative storytelling” are interesting. This book doesn’t have a strong story per se, and it might feel more workhorse-like than others, but to me that does not make it any less successful in its “collective unity of … concept, developed through the series of pictures of which the book is comprised.” Full of Fall elicits, through its images and to the right reader, a hugeemotional response. What better way to evoke the sights, sounds, feels (to your point of texture), and smells of the season? The last one might be a stretch, but to me, this book is like the scent/flavor of pumpkin spice: It’s not for everyone, but those who love it, LOOOOOOOOOOVE it.
I love Wolf in the Snow too, though!
JONATHAN: While I’m not sure that Full of Fall lives up to that Wolf in the Snow standard (or After the Fall), at least for me, I think it compares more favorably to something like In the Middle of the Fall, which also presents a visual narrative of the changing of the seasons.
ELISA: You’ve included the titles of so many other excellent 2017 picture books! While I’m compelled to echo your cheers for After the Fall and list a few of my not-yet-mentioned favorites, due to space limitations I think our support for additional books will have to continue elsewhere. I’ve enjoyed this conversation on photography and believe it’s a great reminder of the challenge and thrill of comparing each book with the next — and how many different kinds of books there are that fit the definition of “picture book” as presented in the Caldecott manual. I trust this year’s committee will have fun learning from each other as they discuss and decide on this year’s most distinguished. I can’t wait to see what they choose!
Do you have a good title idea for this post, other than one that doesn’t use the low hanging fruit of photography puns?
JONATHAN: What about–
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS—EXCEPT WHEN IT’S A PHOTO
LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPHY THROUGH THE LENS OF THE CALDECOTT
WHY THE HELL HASN’T PHOTOGRAPHY WON THE CALDECOTT?!?
IT’S SO EASY—NOT: PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE CALDECOTT