Bina Williams

When I was on the Caldecott Committee, I did a lot of brushing up on art, art history and art technique. In fact, I was chair of our state library association children's division so I planned a day long pre-conference all about art in picture books. (I wanted to learn all about picture book art and figured the assoc. would not pay for all these people to visit me at my house...) A number of our committee members were artists as well as teachers or librarians. We all worked hard to be as well versed on the art of these books. In response to Barry Moser's comments, why don't illustrators make up their own awards...oh, wait, the Society of Illustrators has Dilys Evans's wonderful Original Art show every year with the gold medal and silver medals. I also have been on the Newbery Committee which had me reading out of my comfort zone....not that the books made me uncomfortable...it was more outside of my same old/same old zone of reading the types of books I know I would like. I read genres that I didn't care for or didn't understand as well as others. And I came to adore the non-fiction being written for children....as a child, I was not so keen on non-fiction.... The hope of any nominating committee and the ALSC president who appoints the rest of a committee is that each person brings a different set of skills, tastes, and intelligences to the table to discuss the books. It is lots of fun!!!! And it is fun to have the "What WERE They Thinking" discussions around afterwards!

Posted : Jan 07, 2014 08:13

Sheila Welch

This discussion has been fun to read. I always thought the Caldecott was intended to acknowledge that the art in picture books has tremendous value. Illustrations can extend as well as enhance the text, and quite often, the text by itself would have no meaning. So I'm content with the award being for the illustrator alone. I think almost any author of a picture book (text only) would be thrilled to have the illustrator of his book win the Caldecott. As far as the judging by committee, I have muttered a few complaints over the years. It does seem important that some members of the committee have an understanding of how the art work in books is done. I don't think a librarian who has never written a review or discussed the books she's read would be chosen for the Newbery committee. Yet , how many members of the Caldecott committee have ever drawn from a model, made a dummy book, or know what's opposite green on the color wheel. (Don't cheat and look above.) One time, I read a review of a picture book that described the "pen and ink" drawings. But the illustrations were done as etchings. There's a huge difference between a pen and ink drawing and an etching -- not just in the way they appear in a book, but in the process. I'm sure there are librarians with art training and experience, and I would hope that each year one of them is invited to serve on the Caldecott committee. For some sense of the process, try this link: https://www.hbook.com/2012/11/authors-illustrators/studio-views-the-sculptural-quality/

Posted : Oct 29, 2013 03:47

MR

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to accuse you of being cavalier (or anything else)! I just meant that while every award has the right to be given out as the creators of the award choose, this is a highly influential award with odd parameters that puzzle many people in the children's book community,. So it would be reasonable for the ALSC's website (for instance) to explain.

Posted : Oct 19, 2013 11:29

MR

"That's just the way this award is given" doesn't really seem adequate, considering the importance of the award. It probably seemed sensible initially (Newbery for writers, Caldecott for illustrators) but basically it means a picture book writer can never win either of the two biggest and best-known American awards for children's books. It also means that an award for "the most distinguished picture book" gives all the credit for that distinction to the illustrator. There may be good reasons not to make a change, but "we don't know why we're doing it this way, it's just the way we've always done it" makes me think of the old story about cutting the ends off the ham.

Posted : Oct 19, 2013 11:13

:paula

A wordless picture book that wins the Caldecott, for example The Lion and the Mouse, is more than a portfolio of terrific illustrations - it must work as a book and tell its story. Jerry pinkney's book did not win an art award, it won a book award.

Posted : Oct 19, 2013 11:49

Roger Sutton

Remember, though, the award is for "the most distinguished picture book," not "the most distinguished pictures in a picture book." So, nominally anyway, it is an award for the most outstanding picture book overall.

Posted : Oct 17, 2013 03:55

MR

On the topic of who should receive the Caldecott and what it should be for: I do wish the ALSC would reconsider, because it is absolutely true that parents, teachers, booksellers, and even librarians assume that Caldecott winners are the most outstanding picture books overall. There are a number of wonderful awards specifically for picture book text (such as the Golden Kite, the Ezra Jack Keats, and the Charlotte Zolotow) but none are as high-profile as the Caldecott. For writers winning these awards, it's discouraging to know that virtually everybody will assume that if a book was REALLY good, it would have won a Caldecott.

Posted : Oct 17, 2013 03:35

laura

I always think it odd when the same person receives the Caldecott multiple years when the art they create is the same style and process year after year after year. I love to see a new technique, an unusual palette, a medium used successfully or in a new way. I do not understand that repetition is noteworthy or award worthy. Sometimes clever? yes. But are those books being judged on the art or the book in it's entirety? I think that line is blurred. I would like to see technique and innovation noticed and I do not think it takes an artist to know that. Surely librarians see enough art to understand when someone's work is new. Or executed wonderfully!

Posted : Oct 16, 2013 10:13

melanie hope greenberg

Melanie or Melanie Hope or mermel are fine. My love of a sport is not the same as judging the team so that only one member becomes the MVP. I remember sitting in on a committee and the critique was how "stiff" the art was. I did not think so. I was empathetic to the book's illustrator (not there in person) knowing how much they broke their back to create that art which was dismissed so easily by an opinion. Even if the committee's dummies stink it could be an exercise to understand the mastery of paint and paper or how that mastery can transcend a mediocre text. It is an art award after all.

Posted : Oct 16, 2013 03:51

Rachael Stein

Put me in the "whole book" camp. I had some of the same doubts as Moser about whether librarians were qualified to evaluate art, but those doubts have been put to rest several times over (at the Morris Seminar, hearing Dilys Evans speak to the 2010 committee, etc.) I think we know how to evaluate illustrations. What we're even better at, though, is evaluating picture books as a whole - effective page turns, the way text and illustration play off each other, and so on. Since an effective picture book depends on both pieces, I say both creators should receive the medal.

Posted : Oct 16, 2013 03:16

Roger Sutton

Moser here sounds like the movie stars who get up at the SAG awards and proclaim that THIS is the award they secretly wanted all along because "it's given by the ACTORS." There are plenty of awards for illustration given by illustrators; the reason they don't have the impact of the Caldecott is because they are given purely for aesthetic craft, which is a different charge from the Caldecott's "most distinguished." I've served as a judge for the NYT Best Illustrated Books several times, and there's always an illustrator on that jury of three. I noticed each time that the illustrator judge focused on the pictures as discrete images divorced from the text and frequently from each other. That's why that list usually contains oddball books that look sensational but aren't always the best examples of what a great picture book can be. P.S. What IS a double-split complementary color scheme?

Posted : Oct 16, 2013 02:57

melanie hope greenberg

The committee could take time to actually paint a picture book dummy and see what they learn. Thinking about illustration and actually illustrating are two very different things.

Posted : Oct 16, 2013 12:44

Sam Bloom

Nicely said, Thom. I think Mr. Moser may have been on a bit of a role when he said, "So people are giving awards for subject matter, not for illustrations." Um, I don't think that's quite accurate - in fact, it's pretty insulting. I see his point, I just don't agree. I do think it would be interesting to involve the WHOLE book somehow, just as I think it would be interesting for the opposite to hold true in the Newbery criteria. Not that any of that will ever happen, mind you.

Posted : Oct 16, 2013 12:01

Peter McCleery

I think an important question that needs to be asked, especially by the judges, is: Why is the award given out? What is the point? What is the mission statement of each award? Some awards make this intention more clear than others. For many people, especially the average consumer at the bookstore, it's not totally clear what the Caldecott award is acknowledging. I would bet that most think it's for the book as a whole, not just for the illustration. So then the question is: is this fair to the author of the book if it's written by someone other than the illustrator? A related question is: what kind of award is the Caldecott? To borrow examples from the entertainment world, is the award intended to be peer- peer acknowledgment, like the Oscars? In this case Illustrators should be judging illustrators. Is it a popular vote like The People's Choice Awards? Or is it like The Golden Globes, where critics or journalists judge the works? Since the Caldecott is judged by librarians I think it puts it more into the Golden Globes category. Librarians are book selectors and advocates which in many ways makes them critics. I believe this nuanced difference is lost on many of the average book browsers in the store. They see the sticker on the cover and assume it's an endorsement of the book as a whole, not just the illustrations. Is it a matter of the committee changing the criteria to meet perception or should they do a better job explaining or marketing what the award is given for?

Posted : Oct 15, 2013 06:46

:paula

I'm on the Cybils Picture Book judging panel this year and we recognize all contributors too. Caldecott is so strange that way.

Posted : Oct 15, 2013 05:28

Thom Barthelmess

I think that Mr Moser makes a number of reasonable points, but I'm not sure that I agree with his conclusion. Indeed, I'm not sure that I agree that we're asking the right question. There are lots of different ways to structure an awards decision process. There can be different numbers of folks on the committee. The Boston Globe Horn Book Award jury is three. The Caldecott is 15. Children's Choice awards can be thousands. Each comes up with a different result, sure, but I don't think we can say that any one is better than another. They're just different. The same holds true for the committee membership. The Society of Illustrators has its own picture book illustration award, chosen by a jury of picture book professionals, most of them illustrators. Will illustrators examine and consider and choose differently from librarians? Probably. But, again, for me that's different, not better. So, I think the real question is why is the award with arguably the most prestige and economic benefit the one chosen by librarians? And I think the answer is that we thought of it first and have been doing it the longest. Librarians have a legitimate stake in picture book celebration. We can claim to have made a contribution to a vibrant and sustained market for picture books. We can claim some picture book expertise. Many constituencies have valuable opinions about picture book illustration. Librarians shouldn't have to apologize for theirs. The Caldecott Medal is the picture book award chosen by librarians (or at least by members of the Association for Library Service to Children, which is a semantic distinction perhaps best left for another day). I see no problem qualifying it as such. Indeed, I would hope that our expertise as librarians would play a fundamental role in the process and the outcome. As far as a committee diluting the decision, I'm not sure I totally agree. Committee decision making is not perfect, to be sure. But the very point is to collect perspective in the aggregate to shine as bright and broad a light as possible on the books in contention. That kind of work takes some real and powerful listening. In my experience experts are not always the best listeners. But a strong chair can minimize competition and work to establish comprehensive understanding of each book built of the many members' disparate opinions. When you do that right, it's a pretty powerful approach. And the only alternatives, as far as I can see, are to have an individual do the choosing, which is already happening on blogs all over the place, or have everyone do the choosing, which seems difficult to manage. So, we're left with 15 librarians, just where we started, which works for me.

Posted : Oct 15, 2013 04:05

:paula

It makes sense for librarians to judge picture books, just as it makes sense for illustrators to judge illustration. What doesn't make sense, to me, is that the Caldecott is an award for illustrators. If the committee is judging the book as a whole, both the writer and the illustrator (if they are different) should be able to claim the honor. Also, I would like to think that one criteria for appointment to the committee is some degree of fluency in the language and processes of art.

Posted : Oct 15, 2013 03:39