AMHERST, Mass. -- They're not the
Mona Lisa or Whistler's Mother, but images such as the Cat in the Hat,
the Very Hungry Caterpillar and other icons of illustrated children's
books are gaining respect in highbrow art circles.
Once seen as fun but forgettable, the genre is now being featured in mainstream museums and dissected in college art courses.
And
as respect for children's book art grows, the money follows: Buyers are
purchasing the illustrations as investments and philanthropists are
stepping up, as in the case of the Eric Carle Museum of Picture Book
Art in Amherst, which recently received a $1 million gift, its largest
donation since it opened in 2002.
Some experts say the reason is simple: More art lovers are recognizing that whimsy and significance aren't mutually exclusive.
"It's
undervalued as an art form. The great children's book artists are
drawing from art history and the trends of their times," said H.
Nichols B. Clark, director of the Carle Museum, which features numerous
artists and houses pieces from Carle's decades-long career, including
his signature Hungry Caterpillar.
"What is especially wonderful
about these illustrations is that in this art form, the playing field
is leveled. Sometimes the child has more to say about the image than
the adult," he said.
Money can be a touchy subject among art
enthusiasts, some of whom question whether inspiration can be tarnished
by commercialization.
But some experts say a sure sign of a
genre's acceptance is when museums, collectors and philanthropists
willingly open their wallets for it -- and that's increasingly the case
with picture book art.
"You can quibble about the critical side
of the art, but the market is bearing out that yes, original children's
book artwork is getting out there and increasingly in demand," said
Timothy Young, an author on the topic and curator of Yale's Betsy
Beinecke Shirley Collection of American Children's Literature.
Illustrated
children's books have long filled the bookshelves of American homes,
ranging from Dorothy Kunhardt's simple "Pat the Bunny" touch-and-feel
books to the "wild things" of Maurice Sendak's imagination or Leo
Lionni's fanciful "Alexander and the Wind-Up Mouse."
The advent
of modernism in the early 1900s caused some to started viewing picture
book illustrations as money-making frivolity, not serious art that
could stir the soul. Art that was realistic became viewed as less
important, Clark said.
Yet even as they were excluded from the
mainstream, children's book illustrators often embraced the same trends
as other artists, from art deco to surrealism to Warhol-style pop art.
"These
artists were in touch with their peers and influenced by them, even if
person 'A' was doing kids' books and person 'B' was doing adult stuff,"
said Young, the Yale curator. "You can often see the common influences
if you compare pieces from the same period."
to read the rest of the article click here
Recent Comments