i’m thinking about how much the style of illustrations can define any book, for children everywhere… and our perceptions of the mood of a ‘style’ are so culturally ingrained; taught to us subtly from everything. for example:
brett helquist’s illustrations for a series of unfortunate events by lemony snicket looked like this:
they were evocative in a grim sort of way. they were really good, of course, but there was an undeniable twinge of gloom, of sorrow to them, which meant that as illustrations they added so much to the experience of reading the books, and we don’t give it enough credit for that!
whereas take tove jansson’s moomin books’ illustrations, by herself– so warm and nostalgic:
her work was stylistically memorable and recognisable. even with the monochromatic illustrations, you’d never confuse her art with brett helquist’s art. the moomin books and the a series of unfortunate events books could never have been successful if they had switched to each other’s art styles.
and another famous children’s book illustrator that comes to mind– quentin blake, who illustrated roald dahl’s books, such as matilda and charlie and the chocolate factory. you’d be hard pressed to get yourself a version of the texts without his illustrations, which look like this:
his illustrations captured the whimsicality, the fun, the slight enticingly rude sort of edge to roald dahl’s writing so well for children–in a way that meant that they’d get the feeling of the book from the images, too.
honestly, i can’t help thinking that 1. illustrations often make or break children’s literature.; 2. they definitely contribute to the collective memory and love of a text; and 3. illustrators are underappreciated.
2087
vaporwave
stormborns
kianamaiart
yousharknotpass
izzy806
germansingergirl
