Ahh I have wasted many many hours agonising about this! And I still don't know what the solution is - I guess it's making worth that's truly, authentically 'you', whatever that means for each individual. And that might be loose or it might be 'stiff', though I think stiff is the wrong word for the opposite of loose in this context. Anyway, your work is so lovely you really don't need to worry about it!
Yes, I’ve been thinking. Maybe “clean” or “neat” instead of “stiff”? I think looseness is closely linked to messiness in many styles. Anyway, I don’t think authenticity or “life” or “energy” or whatever we’re desperate to capture isn’t necessarily in “looseness” or “stiffness” or “polished” or “unfinished”. As you said, the answer might be different from artist to artist.
Children only care about whether a book is good (meaning fun, interesting, informative etc) or not. Good books can have a story or none at all, they can be smart or silly, touching or plain, funny or meditative, weird or straightforward, unexpected or predictable, repetitive or ever-changing, linear or chaotic, characters can be stiff or loose or mixed, and so on. Different children have different tastes, and their taste changes as well over time.
Anyone claiming there is one or more ways of doing it “right”, either forgets how open-minded children are, or forgets the many examples that contradict what they're saying, or just likes to hear themselves speak.
For every rule / statement made that things should be a certain way, we can find an example of a great book that does exactly the opposite. There was a recent newsletter / article that talked at length about crafting compelling picture book opening lines — it all made sense on paper, but I couldn't help smiling, thinking of my little daughter who often dives straight into the middle of a book, and then goes back and forth. Kids don't care much for rules. They just want the book to be “good”, and the reasons can be many.
Regarding “stiffness”, that's just part of an author’s / illustrator's way of working (“style” or “styles”, some have more than one). It doesn't matter at all whether the characters are stiff or not. Is the book good? That's all that matters. For every great author / illustrator with a loose style – Suzy Lee, Felicita Sala, Isabelle Arsenault, Merce Gali, Jean Jullien, Barroux, to name just a few – there are just as many great ones with a “stiff” style – Christian Robinson, Matthew Forsythe, or Jon Klassen, the master of stiff but so-much-fun characters.
I recently read “Robert et Personne” written by Kim Fupz Aakeson and illustrated by Anna Margrethe Kjaergaard. There are a couple of spreads in it where the characters on the left hand page are shown as rough pencil sketches (including erased pencil marks), while the characters on the right hand page are painted beautifully using watercolours. It was so refreshing to see the two different styles together.
I didn't know about the Mac Barnett “controversy”, I had to look it up, especially as I've ordered his Make Believe book and I'm looking forward to reading it. And while I agree that giving percentages regarding how many books are “good” and how many “bad” is a bit careless from his part, especially given his recent “ambassador” position, I have to agree with him that most of the books on the market are of questionable quality. And while I'd be surprised to see a fart-related book winning awards soon, I know for sure my daughter loves one :)
Thanks for writing this, Momoko, good food for thought!
Thank you for reading! And well said! Yes, children just want books to be good. The trickiest part is getting through gatekeepers (I’d say their intentions are good).
I hope I can get hold of a copy of Robert et Personne somehow. I googled it but I couldn’t find the spreads you were talking about. But sounds interesting approach.
As for Mac Barnett controversy, I haven’t read the book so I decided not to join in. There are too many shouting from both sides anyway. One thing I can say is that, although poo/pee/fart books aren’t my cup of tea, kids seem to love it. That’s the hard truth to swallow (for me) 😂
Bravo for writing such an authentic article. I’m in agreement and I can think of many wonderful illustrators who are not loose lined! Julie Flett and Carson Ellis come to mind. As a child I loved beautifully crafted illustrations. They mesmerised me and I do wonder if some illustration styles these days are playing to the adult peers and not the kids! By the way your illustration is beautiful, to me it reflects the mood of your subject. A quiet reflective moment of a child. I love it! And thank you for saying what many of think. I think I need to write my promised substack article called - Is this arty enough? Martin promised to contribute and a few art directors too.
I agree that some illustration styles these days are playing to the adult peers and not the kids. The other day in a bookshop I witnessed a child picked a picture book but her mum was like “No, this one is nicer. Let’s get this one.” (actually it was true) and both of them weren’t having it so the child went full on meltdown… I guess we need to get past gatekeepers before reaching to children. It’s tricky!
And thank you for your kind words on my illustration. I’m curious about your promised article. It sounds interesting. I’ll definitely read it.
I suspect this is another one of those, following trends things. I loved the Clair Ligne of Herge's Tintin as a youngster and the immaculate work of John Buscema in his early days at Marvel. Some people look at things and dismiss them because of their preconceived ideas. I agonised if I should make my own work more commercial or not. After overcoming that, I now worry if it is any good! I think it is, but I have nothing to test it against, hopefully my exhibition will confirm my work is good.
Looking up the Mac Barnett Controversy, it would appear that he has done a Gerald Ratner, (1991, so you might have missed it) who famously told a conference about the products in his jewellery chain stores were 'total crap'. This wipe £500 million of the company, led to him being sacked and the total collapse shortly afterwards. He did make it back in business as a consultant about how to survive such disasters and inspiration speaker!
Although he was writing in an adult essay. It was impolitic or at best unwise. Of course, there might have been a gap between his essay and his appointment, but it is not a good idea to downgrade your industry. The same can be said of Hollywood, but we do debate over how good films or tv shows are. Sturgeon might be surprised to see how 'literary authors' are writing SF but calling it anything else!
Thank you for reading. Good luck with your exhibition!
Re Mac Barnett controversy, what I meant (or failed to mean) in my post is that since I haven’t read his book, I’ve decided not to read what people are saying about his quote and join in the “debate”because some might took the quote out of context or miss nuance (if any). I was neither defending nor criticising him.
Sometimes I think when I see people bemoan stiffness in their character illustration, what they might actually be doing is not pushing poses far enough. I think that gets mixed in with a different group where stiffness is less, I don’t know, “sketchy?” Sometimes an angle can be more “dynamic” but, as you pointed out there’s plenty of style found in stiffness that’s awesome and beautiful.
You raised a good point! Stiffness could come from not pushing poses far enough. I agree! Even if the style is sketchy or the line is wobbly, the character could still look stiff.
It’s interesting to compare early and late books by the same illustrator. I think of Rosemary Wells’ Noisy Nora. The early version has an energy I love. In the late edition she is obviously much more accomplished and expressive, but I like the earlier more, don’t know why? Étienne Delessert once described how difficult he found it to ‘reclaim’ his old style of Ionesco’s Story No 1 when he was, much later in life asked to complete the series with Stories 3 and 4.
I’m not familiar with Rosemary Well’s work but do you think what Martin Salisbury said (naivety or unfinished/unmastered-ness gives life to artwork) is close to what you are thinking about Well’s work?
My reply got too long and I lost it. I’ll try to post about Noisy Nora next week. In the film My Friend Totoro, Miyazaki has both mastery and livliness; although, he is so skilled we may not be aware of his mastery
Ahh I have wasted many many hours agonising about this! And I still don't know what the solution is - I guess it's making worth that's truly, authentically 'you', whatever that means for each individual. And that might be loose or it might be 'stiff', though I think stiff is the wrong word for the opposite of loose in this context. Anyway, your work is so lovely you really don't need to worry about it!
Yes, I’ve been thinking. Maybe “clean” or “neat” instead of “stiff”? I think looseness is closely linked to messiness in many styles. Anyway, I don’t think authenticity or “life” or “energy” or whatever we’re desperate to capture isn’t necessarily in “looseness” or “stiffness” or “polished” or “unfinished”. As you said, the answer might be different from artist to artist.
‘Neat’ is a much better word!
But I wouldn’t describe Miroslav Sasek’s work “neat”. It’s so difficult to describe art, isn’t it? Words usually fail to capture what we see!
I’ll see if I can think of a better one!
Children only care about whether a book is good (meaning fun, interesting, informative etc) or not. Good books can have a story or none at all, they can be smart or silly, touching or plain, funny or meditative, weird or straightforward, unexpected or predictable, repetitive or ever-changing, linear or chaotic, characters can be stiff or loose or mixed, and so on. Different children have different tastes, and their taste changes as well over time.
Anyone claiming there is one or more ways of doing it “right”, either forgets how open-minded children are, or forgets the many examples that contradict what they're saying, or just likes to hear themselves speak.
For every rule / statement made that things should be a certain way, we can find an example of a great book that does exactly the opposite. There was a recent newsletter / article that talked at length about crafting compelling picture book opening lines — it all made sense on paper, but I couldn't help smiling, thinking of my little daughter who often dives straight into the middle of a book, and then goes back and forth. Kids don't care much for rules. They just want the book to be “good”, and the reasons can be many.
Regarding “stiffness”, that's just part of an author’s / illustrator's way of working (“style” or “styles”, some have more than one). It doesn't matter at all whether the characters are stiff or not. Is the book good? That's all that matters. For every great author / illustrator with a loose style – Suzy Lee, Felicita Sala, Isabelle Arsenault, Merce Gali, Jean Jullien, Barroux, to name just a few – there are just as many great ones with a “stiff” style – Christian Robinson, Matthew Forsythe, or Jon Klassen, the master of stiff but so-much-fun characters.
I recently read “Robert et Personne” written by Kim Fupz Aakeson and illustrated by Anna Margrethe Kjaergaard. There are a couple of spreads in it where the characters on the left hand page are shown as rough pencil sketches (including erased pencil marks), while the characters on the right hand page are painted beautifully using watercolours. It was so refreshing to see the two different styles together.
I didn't know about the Mac Barnett “controversy”, I had to look it up, especially as I've ordered his Make Believe book and I'm looking forward to reading it. And while I agree that giving percentages regarding how many books are “good” and how many “bad” is a bit careless from his part, especially given his recent “ambassador” position, I have to agree with him that most of the books on the market are of questionable quality. And while I'd be surprised to see a fart-related book winning awards soon, I know for sure my daughter loves one :)
Thanks for writing this, Momoko, good food for thought!
Thank you for reading! And well said! Yes, children just want books to be good. The trickiest part is getting through gatekeepers (I’d say their intentions are good).
I hope I can get hold of a copy of Robert et Personne somehow. I googled it but I couldn’t find the spreads you were talking about. But sounds interesting approach.
As for Mac Barnett controversy, I haven’t read the book so I decided not to join in. There are too many shouting from both sides anyway. One thing I can say is that, although poo/pee/fart books aren’t my cup of tea, kids seem to love it. That’s the hard truth to swallow (for me) 😂
You can see one of those charming “pencil vs watercolours” spreads on Anna's website here: https://www.amkjaergaard.dk/ingen and also in the Italian version of the book here https://www.amazon.it/mio-amico-invisibile-Ediz-colori/dp/8876095780/ref=sr_1_2 — there are two more similar spreads in the book. I very much recommend it, all the drawings are wonderful.
Speaking of poo/pee/fart books, yes, most of them are on the silly side (for lack of a better word), but even the great Taro Gomi did one :)
Thank you!
Bravo for writing such an authentic article. I’m in agreement and I can think of many wonderful illustrators who are not loose lined! Julie Flett and Carson Ellis come to mind. As a child I loved beautifully crafted illustrations. They mesmerised me and I do wonder if some illustration styles these days are playing to the adult peers and not the kids! By the way your illustration is beautiful, to me it reflects the mood of your subject. A quiet reflective moment of a child. I love it! And thank you for saying what many of think. I think I need to write my promised substack article called - Is this arty enough? Martin promised to contribute and a few art directors too.
I agree that some illustration styles these days are playing to the adult peers and not the kids. The other day in a bookshop I witnessed a child picked a picture book but her mum was like “No, this one is nicer. Let’s get this one.” (actually it was true) and both of them weren’t having it so the child went full on meltdown… I guess we need to get past gatekeepers before reaching to children. It’s tricky!
And thank you for your kind words on my illustration. I’m curious about your promised article. It sounds interesting. I’ll definitely read it.
Thank you for this post. It resonates with thoughts on my mind since ever. I am still thinking. 🙂
A great read, Momoko.
I suspect this is another one of those, following trends things. I loved the Clair Ligne of Herge's Tintin as a youngster and the immaculate work of John Buscema in his early days at Marvel. Some people look at things and dismiss them because of their preconceived ideas. I agonised if I should make my own work more commercial or not. After overcoming that, I now worry if it is any good! I think it is, but I have nothing to test it against, hopefully my exhibition will confirm my work is good.
Looking up the Mac Barnett Controversy, it would appear that he has done a Gerald Ratner, (1991, so you might have missed it) who famously told a conference about the products in his jewellery chain stores were 'total crap'. This wipe £500 million of the company, led to him being sacked and the total collapse shortly afterwards. He did make it back in business as a consultant about how to survive such disasters and inspiration speaker!
Although he was writing in an adult essay. It was impolitic or at best unwise. Of course, there might have been a gap between his essay and his appointment, but it is not a good idea to downgrade your industry. The same can be said of Hollywood, but we do debate over how good films or tv shows are. Sturgeon might be surprised to see how 'literary authors' are writing SF but calling it anything else!
Thank you for reading. Good luck with your exhibition!
Re Mac Barnett controversy, what I meant (or failed to mean) in my post is that since I haven’t read his book, I’ve decided not to read what people are saying about his quote and join in the “debate”because some might took the quote out of context or miss nuance (if any). I was neither defending nor criticising him.
Sometimes I think when I see people bemoan stiffness in their character illustration, what they might actually be doing is not pushing poses far enough. I think that gets mixed in with a different group where stiffness is less, I don’t know, “sketchy?” Sometimes an angle can be more “dynamic” but, as you pointed out there’s plenty of style found in stiffness that’s awesome and beautiful.
You raised a good point! Stiffness could come from not pushing poses far enough. I agree! Even if the style is sketchy or the line is wobbly, the character could still look stiff.
lol my sketchbooks from high school taught me that one!
It’s interesting to compare early and late books by the same illustrator. I think of Rosemary Wells’ Noisy Nora. The early version has an energy I love. In the late edition she is obviously much more accomplished and expressive, but I like the earlier more, don’t know why? Étienne Delessert once described how difficult he found it to ‘reclaim’ his old style of Ionesco’s Story No 1 when he was, much later in life asked to complete the series with Stories 3 and 4.
I’m not familiar with Rosemary Well’s work but do you think what Martin Salisbury said (naivety or unfinished/unmastered-ness gives life to artwork) is close to what you are thinking about Well’s work?
My reply got too long and I lost it. I’ll try to post about Noisy Nora next week. In the film My Friend Totoro, Miyazaki has both mastery and livliness; although, he is so skilled we may not be aware of his mastery