Does CGI Get Enough Respect?
Eisha had a hard day yesterday. Over at Seven Impossible Things Before Breakfast she spent the, "afternoon at work going through a preview box of books, of which roughly 2/3 were cgi, and all of those were on the lower end of the spectrum." Unsurprisingly she vented her frustration over badly CGIed picture books with an Open Letter to Those Who Illustrate Picture Books Digitally.
Her posting got me to thinking. What are the great picture books utilizing computers with their art these days? My first thoughts leapt to Andre Carrilho’s work on Porch Lies by Patricia McKissack (whose work looks a little something like this) alongside the simplified beauty of Antoinette Portis’s Not a Box.
But it's a far more complicated field nowandays, isn't it? Recently New York Public Library choose the 100 Books For Reading and Sharing and usually the art from those books is displayed at the beginning of the next year in my library. However, we've discovered all kinds of titles that we thought were hand-drawn are actually created on computers and have no physical object to display. It gets frustrating.
Take also into account the artists that draw and then put those drawings into computers so as to muck with them. Lane Smith does it all the time. Ditto Audrey Wood. Does that make them computer illustrators? Or when we say "computer illustrated books" are we talking only of those books that try to look as if they're little bits of Pixar? And will there someday be a future award for Best Computer Generated Picture Book? Or will I have to create that category myself? Hrm.