Caldecott Monday: Animals of the Bible

[osprey_archer]

If the cover is anything to go by, I probably would have enjoyed the illustrations of Animals of the Bible had they only been in color. The animals are charmingly detailed and pretty - maybe a little too pretty, sweet and soft-eyed, but still charming.

But all the illustrations in the book are in black and white, and they lose a lot of their charm and detail that way. I love black and white illustrations when they’ve been planned that way, when the artist is taking care to work within the dramatic possibilities of black and white - I’ve always loved the silhouette illustrations in the first Boxcar Children book - but simply taking all the color out of colored pictures makes them look boring.

Not the most auspicious beginning for the Caldecott project.

Comments

[emma-in-oz.livejournal.com]

You should see the runners up! Even more drab!

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Man, they picked a bad year to start that award. I've sneaked a peek at the next book on the list, and it may have problems, but at least the pictures don't look boring.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

It does make you wonder how they chose the winner. But also, was this back in the 1930s, when full-color printing was really expensive?

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Yes, it was. I suppose maybe they chose it on the basis that the illustrations would be beautiful if only they could have used full-color printing, although I still think it would have been better to choose something that is actually beautiful in black and white.

I also think that maybe they wanted to give the first award to a book with a certain amount of gravitas, set the right tone or something. What could have more gravitas than a book about the Bible?