The woes of modern illustration within the children's genre

[dragonkin]

Well, Livejournal, here we are again.  I'm settled here at my desk with my friend Sailor Jerry (who, despite being a 92 proof spiced rum, is very acceptable straight from the bottle..... not that I'm drinking from the bottle.  I'm not a lush or anything.  ... STOP JUDGING ME) and I've got a little bit of a rant.  As I've stated before, I'm sort of

Comments

[sparcle_goddess]

I always liked the detailed pictures. They more more realistic and interesting. Kids would spend more time in books if the pictures were more fun to look at, instead of a simple glimpse over. :)

[dragonkin]

I'm glad it's not just me that thinks so. Thanks for the input, ex-roomie. :)

[brazen_heart]

See, here I thought it was going to be some hideous art, like the stuff in this book. Instead, I get three perfectly serviceable art styles.

When I think of the art of children's books I read when I was little, only one really comes to mind as "this art is gorgeous". I can't find any pictures of it, but it was this one. It didn't have 2D art, it had photographs of dolls in it. I really ought to try to find it again, it was awfully pretty. Maybe I just liked the hologram pictures, I don't remember that well

[dragonkin]

You raise some really good points. I didn't mean to convey that the other entries were BAD, at all, just very different. (Please never link to that awful looking King and King book again. Ever). I had a couple of doll/photography illustrated books as a kid. One was an Easter book and the other one was a treasure troll book. I was intrigued by them, but I don't know if I particularly liked them or even thought of them as illustrations then