 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And once again we're forced to confront the myth of lefty-righty scissors. So listen up! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LEFTY-RIGHTY SCISSORS. THEY ARE A LIE. THEY DO NOT EXIST.Scissors have inherent handedness. Left-handed scissors are designed with the correct blade on "top". This allows for a more natural movement and it also allows the child (or adult) to see what they're cutting. Compare this picture of left-handed scissors with this picture of right-handed scissors. Do you see the difference? It's not just about handles. And if you still think it's not a big difference, I suggest you go ahead and buy a pair of left-handed scissors anyway. And when you get them, take them out of the box, get an old magazine, and cut out a picture with them. Put yourself in your kid's place for a minute. It won't be as easy as you think. In fact, I suggest this to anybody who may ever be around small children. Try it out. It'll open your eyes, that's for sure. Note to self: I promised the school last year to get lefty scissors for them, I should do that. I think I'll pick a grade a year, stock them, and keep moving up. Tags: left-handedness
I'm feeling:  aggravated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No doubt she'll have to do so again this year, because instead of teaching anything straight out in math, in the US we tend to "spiral" and teach ever advancing versions of the same concepts year after year. I've read that this is an inefficient method of teaching math, but I only read it once. The stated goal of Ana's homework on measurements last year was, repeatedly, basically to learn that standard measurements are "better" than measuring through nonstandard units like thumb-widths or human feet... which of course were in many ways the origins of our standard units today, unless you use metric. This annoyed me at the time, because it made no acknowledgment of the fact that, actually, nonstandard units are, in some ways, superior to standard ones. We're so used to our standardized world that we don't think that way, but I can think of one easy advantage to measuring by hand and thumb instead of by inches - if you're counting out five thumbs of space on your fabric, or two handfuls of pepper in your peppergrinder, or three paces to bury the body, you NEVER have to resort to tools to figure out if you have the right amount. Instead, all the tools you need are right here on your own body. There are definitely disadvantages to this system, sure, but that doesn't mean that the standardized systems are the best. They each have their pluses and minuses, whatever the homework might state. Which leads me to Wikipedia, and to shoe sizes. Listen! barleycorn
Basic Anglo-Saxon unit, the length of a corn of barley. The unit survived after 1066, as the base unit from which the inch was nominally defined. 3 barleycorns comprising 1 inch was the legal definition of the inch in many mediæval laws, both of England and Wales, from the 10th century Laws of Hywel Dda to the 1324 definition of the inch enacted by Edward II. Note the relation to the grain unit of weight. This archaic measure is still the basis for current UK and U.S. shoe sizes, with the largest shoe size taken as thirteen inches (a size 13) and then counting backwards in barleycorn units,[4] although the original derivation was: less than 13 barleycorns: infants with no shoes; 13 to 26 barleycorns: children's sizes 1 to 12; 26 to 39 barleycorns: men's sizes 1 to 13.Yes, you heard it here first. WHY are shoe sizes so weird? Because, unlike anything else on this good green earth, they're based upon a unit that's a third of an inch. Sheesh. (And listen, while we're on the subject. For all the easy math of the metric system, I've always had a real fondness for our system and all its halves and doubles.) Tags: links, school, thoughts
I'm feeling:  pensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now they want me to get more people on their email list, and are bribing me with money For The Kiddies. (Not, mind you, MUCH money, but the idea is that we do it in bulk.) If anybody's willing to be signed up for this, you can post your email here, it's all screened. Also, if anybody routinely shops online at any of these stores, and doesn't have a school for it to go to, I'm glad to volunteer the niece's school - I'll email you about it if you post for that. Incidentally, I have a membership to B&N, but I tend to buy books as impulse buys. You know, in person. I'd love it if the membership card could be linked to the boxtops thing so in-store purchases could have the same small percentage go to the school. When I emailed about this, I was told "your more than welcome to contact our Corporate office at 212-633-3300 with any ideas you may have". I intend to do so, stat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(And I still want to see more examples - charts, I guess - of how script is taught in other countries. Just because.) One thing I keep seeing is the statement that up until the 30s or so, cursive was what was taught in the first grade - not print. (And of course some schools changed over sooner than that, and some later - or not at all!) Many of them also say that that's how writing is taught in other countries as well, with the possible exception of Great Britain. Any insight here from people who know what they're talking about would be useful :) If this is true, all of a sudden that scene in To Kill a Mockingbird makes sense! See, it was weird enough that Scout's father was criticized for "teaching" her to read when he'd done no such thing (she picked it up on her own), but I never understood the bit about how she was taught to write. It seemed strange to me that they taught her to write in script but not print (and that this was referred to as writing but print wasn't), but stranger that this should be a problem. But now it makes sense, if teaching print first was somewhat novel - the teacher, new to teaching, felt she'd just had her pedagogy insulted. She's got this idea of how you're nowadays supposed to teach reading and writing, and they did this old-fashioned thing that was ditched to make things easier for kids, this being the newish era of look-say reading as well, I suppose, though technically Scout learned that way anyway. (And it had worked, too!) ~~~~~~~~~~~~Today, as we walked to the library, I noticed some rosemary in another person's yard, and challenged the kids to find "a plant we can eat" in there. (They did!) I also pointed out that person's impatiens. Evangeline: Why are they called that? Me: I don't know. Evangeline: Maybe they don't have patience? Now, you all saw that coming, but listen. I don't think we've ever expressed patience as having or not having it. We tell them to BE patient, sure, but not to have patience. I would have expected her to say "Maybe because they're not patient" or even "Maybe because they're impatient" instead. So now I want to gather up im- words and see what she makes of them. This is probably a bad idea. Tags: 'cdotes, books, daily stuff, education, thoughts
I'm feeling:  cheerful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She's taking a break from learning new letters to review the ones she already knows, because we're (just over) halfway through the alphabet. She has a - l and q, t, u, and w. We're using worksheets from here, although I modified the b so that she curlicues it back instead of just dipping down at the end. It's easier for her. Tomorrow we'll do another bit of review, just the letters she's having trouble with (b, f, k and the ha combination) and move onto the next set of letters - n, m, v, x. And then another week and a half for the last of them and she'll have her lowercase letters down. Then I'm thinking a few more weeks of review before we start on capitals? As a side effect of all this, my *own* handwriting has improved. Ana showed one of her worksheets to her teacher (f - and let me tell you that her fs are beautiful, she just has to think too much to make them) and we got a little note going "Well, we're still working on print letters". For crying out loud! If you were an early elementary teacher, or have been an early elementary teacher, and your kid showed you something extra they did on the side, would you be "Well, we're not doing that" or would you stick a sticker on it anyway? And I'll tell you... I tell Ana that I want her to learn cursive now because it's easier to learn it at 6 than at 8, and that I know it'll be more frustrating for her in two years. And this is true. But the reason I don't tell her is that we only started with cursive learning because after doing print all through kindergarten and September of this year she still had no idea how to hold a pencil properly, nor that it mattered *how* you formed the letters so long as it looked more or less okay. Because you *can* print with your pencil in your fist, and you *can* print if you write your a backwards or if you do a lowercase h and then add the rest of it to make an H. (It took the better part of two weeks to convince her that the tails on letters aren't just decorative, that you can't just do most of the letter and add the tails after the fact!) But you can't print very well or efficiently that way, and it's sure to tire you eventually. Of course, there was no convincing her until she had enough letters in cursive that she could write real words and see and feel the difference doing it right makes. Ana's teacher has 24 students. I don't know how she teaches penmanship, or if she has time to do so in her day, or if she's able (or willing) to correct things like grip when the kids are writing in class, or... any of this. But if I really felt Ana were being taught to write properly, in a comfortable and efficient way (printing is writing! - and while we're on the subject, don't listen to the people who swear your signature isn't legal in print. It most assuredly is, and I've been doing it for years!), I would never have ended up doing cursive with her. (Ana's cursive letters are lovely, btw. Her bs are a bit sloppy, and sometimes her ws or us are a bit looser than I'd like, but she's just learning. If only I could get her to write on the line...! Do you think raised line paper would help?) Tags: education, school
I'm feeling:  busy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, let me explain about the sucky candy. The sucky candy is the stuff I give to the kids with sucky costumes. Not little kids, but teenagers. The ones who didn't even PRETEND to try. YOU know the types.
And to hear them complaining after they leave! Listen, I've been saying this to you guys every year for the past decade. Or if not you, then your big brothers and older cousins. Get with the program, stick your mask on before you come up the stairs. I'll pretend to be impressed, you'll pretend to care, and we'll all be happy. (Barring that, I'll accept a good excuse. However, as you all ARE students, you can not DRESS UP as students. It's not a disguise if it's real! Make something up that's a little better than that, thanks.)
At my discretion, I give double doses (of the good candy) to kids who are exceptionally polite, exceptionally overburdened (it's hard to be 15 and having to chaperon 4 kidlets under the age of 8 while your mom pushes the 5th in a stroller), or who make their own costumes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, I left this review for a seller of a book on Amazon. The book was listed in good-used condition, but every page was ripped. EVERY page - and most of them, I had to tape up myself. Some of the rips were quite substantial, too. I understand that when you buy used you get what you get, but I felt - and still feel - that the damage should have been disclosed on the information and that it should have been rated as acceptable instead of good. I didn't contact the seller, but when prodded to leave review, I did so. Three stars (it came on time and, like I said, it *is* a used book), but there we go. And today I get this email. ( Read more... )You know, I feel some sympathy, but I don't like being manipulated. All this talk about her sick husband (which I don't even know if it's true) is there to hide the fact that she wants me to, basically, not be honest. The book came with every page ripped. Her husband's health isn't my fault. Her bills aren't my fault. Her problems aren't my problems. This could have been avoided much more easily if she'd just noted in the description when she put the book up that it was ripped on several pages. Then, when it came in the mail, I could have honestly said "Yup, I got what I paid for" and rated it my standard five-stars-no-comment. (And if she'd just emailed and said sorry, whoops, it was an accident instead of all this "everybody is sick and dying and poor" business, true or not, I would have been more likely to just roll my eyes and remove the review. I don't care whether it's true or not, I don't like feeling manipulated.) Tags: rantlings
I'm feeling:  annoyed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judging by the reviews I'm guessing this is the exact same words Helen Bannerman used, but different illustrations. Well, even before recently her words were tied to many different sets of pictures, something people don't often realize today. Here's one review that I'm looking at right now: First of all I think that racism is learned. I found nothing wrong with this story and in fact it was one of my favorites as a kid. Many a time you would find us playing tigers running around a tree and melting into butter. To me, it is a story about a little black boy who has two parents who love him very much and give him gifts. The tigers try to eat him, he gives them his clothes and then, while they're fighting, he gets them back. I loved how the tigers turned to butter and Sambo got to eat 169 pancakes! Wow, a huge stack of pancakes loaded with freshly melted butter. I know my kids would love that. I asked my kids 12 and 10 what they thought of the story. Did they think it was mean to black people. We all agreed that it was a good story and could be written with any race and still be good. As for their names-since we haven't studied the history of how hated dark skinned people across the world have been in such depth, they don't mean a thing to us. Why wait 100 years to read the story just because some people can't get over the past? I hope you'll read the book and enjoy it with your children-that's what it was written for-and when you're done go make some pancakes together:)Her kids are TEN and TWELVE. When on earth did she intend to teach them about racism? Do they know anything about the world around them? (Oh wait - it's all in the past. GOT it. Of course, it still sounds like they're ignorant of any form of recent history....) Tags: books
I'm feeling:  predatory
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The entry is here.At the time, I mentioned Pancakes for Supper, which I hadn't yet read. As I recall, I noted that the protagonist in *this* version is a blonde-haired white girl, and... to tell you the truth, I'm quite uncomfortable with the concept of erasing racism by erasing race (and yes, erasing race *does* mean everybody looks like me but with still more blond, how could you tell?) I actually got a chance to read the book today at the bookstore, though, so I did - eagerly! (It's on sale at B&N, just $6 for hardcover.) And I have something more to be annoyed at. The review at Amazon points out clearly that it's a rewrite of Little Black Sambo. The other rewrites I've seen make this point clear in forewords, explaining that the authors liked the story but that they felt it wasn't going to be shared in its older format, so they rewrote this and that aspect of it. This book? Doesn't actually say anywhere on it that it's a rewrite, not that I saw. No foreword. No afterword. Nothing on the bookflap, or on the front or back cover. And it's not *much* of a rewrite either. The setting (and race!) change, but the story hews pretty closely to the original. Look, I get the fact that a little black Indian non-white boy was changed into a white girl. I'm not happy about it, but apparently we're living in this brave new color-blind postracial world that coincidentally puts white kids into protagonist roles where black kids used to be and we're not supposed to notice that because it's racist to see race. Fine, whatever, I'm sure the author and illustrator had no malicious intent. But copying another person's work - even work in the public domain! - without explicitly crediting them? NOT COOL. At all. I mean, sheesh, people sometimes add dissertations to their reimaged versions of Cinderella, and these guys can't manage to put a little line "Based upon the book..." under the title? Unless you can stick it to the man by buying it used, I wouldn't get a copy. For my rewritten needs, I stick with Sam and the Tigers. It's funny; it doesn't have creepy race issues in the old, racist way or the new, postracial way; and both the author and illustrator thought it was appropriate to, gosh, credit the source. Tags: books, race, rantlings
I'm feeling: aggravated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't read TV Tropes. Seriously, that's a bad idea. But I was reading TV Tropes, and I read the most *astounding* news. Apparently Stephanie Meyer is coming out with a new book series? About time-traveling cannibal mermaids? Why has nobody told me about this??? Okay, okay, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking: "We didn't tell you because it's gonna suck and we hope it's not true". But think a little harder. Really envision the concept of time-traveling! cannibal! mermaids! Think about it. Isn't that just the most awesomest thing you ever heard? It is! It's fantastic! They're mermaids... that travel through time... and are cannibals. No word yet on whether they sparkle, but I'm betting yes. Sparkly time traveling cannibal mermaids! OMG! There's only one teensy tiny little PROBLEM. And that's kinda Stephanie Meyers. But not to worry. She can be replaced. For example, we can have this series written by that one who ghostwrites the V. C. Andrews books. Then we could have sparkly incestuous time-traveling cannibal mermaids! Maybe they can be their own grandpas. Or we could get Lurlene McDaniels to write it. Then they'll be meaningful sparkly incestuous time-traveling cannibal mermaids, which is bound to be an improvement. Or we could ask Ann M. Martin. Now, stop for a minute and picture this: Sparkly incestuous time-traveling cannibal mermaids who babysit (in a meaningful way). C'mon. TELL me that's not awesome. Because me? I think it's pretty awesome. Jenn thinks I ought to do this for NaNoWriMo. And the more I think about it, the more awesome I think it is. Except I don't do NaNoWriMo... and good thing too, because this concept needs a special touch. No hack writing for me. No, for my own little version of sparkly incestuous time-traveling cannibal mermaid babysitters I'm going to have to break out... the haiku. Oh yeah. All that awesome, condensed into 30 brief (and meaningful!) haikus. There's absolutely no way this can go wrong. C'mon. Tell me I'm awesome. I'm so excited. This is the bestest idea I've had all year! Tags: books, nahawrimo, thoughts
I'm feeling: cheerful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here I am, in the B&N the other day, and I urgently had to run in, pee, run out and go home to pick up the nieces. I was on a Very. Tight. Schedule. And as I was going up the escalator I saw a woman on the first floor with her baby in a sling. Something about how she was holding the sling made me notice her. Soooo... I turned around and went down the *down* escalator to confirm she had no idea what she was doing and to fix her sling for her. *sighs* Two things: 1. When you're adjusting your ring sling, pull the tail *out*, not *down*. If you pull the tail down you increase the risk of your sling twisting, you move the rings from their ideal spot, and you shove the sling up into your neck. Not comfy. 2. If the sling moves away from you when you bend over or walk, it's not tight enough. People are always reluctant to tighten their slings at first, but the tighter it is (more or less), the more secure the baby is - and the happier you'll both be! The baby just spent nine months INSIDE you (or inside SOMEbody, anyway), they don't want to be free and easy just yet! After the first few minutes using a new sling (when you feel awkward and weird and it's expected) you shouldn't feel like you have to constantly put your hand there to keep your kid safe. The whole point is that your hand doesn't have to be there. Also? Keep the kiddo's head where you can kiss it. If you can't kiss the top of the sweet little head, the baby is too low. I explained all this to her and managed to make it to the toilet before peeing on myself, but really, no matter how much she thanked me I know the truth: I am, in fact, kinda a buttinsky. Tags: babywearing, thoughts
I'm feeling:  bored
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't get a chance to pick it up until Saturday. Well, you know, it was raining. All day. I grabbed my mom's unlimited and headed into the city. First I went up to Union Square. The B&N there was sure to have my book... right? Not in the kid's section... not in new fiction... not in new kid's... not in YA. I ask for help. "Nope, none of our stores have it, do you want to order it?" Well, the *last* time I ordered a book at the store (another Hilari Bell book, funnily enough - it's lonely being a fandom of one. *sniff*) I ended up picking it up somewhere else the next day and feeling really guilty, so I said no and ran off to the Borders instead. Borders by the boat - I should've stopped there first! On the way, I turn to avoid a puddle and step in a much BIGGER puddle instead... and my shoes having holes in the heels means I'm stuck with soggy socks. So I go to payless and get new shoes, same type. I'll wear the holey ones most of the time so as to make the new ones last longer. Go to Borders - that's where I got the book last time, they're sure to have it this time! Not in new fiction, not in kids... not in new kids... not in YA... not in fantasy... I ask for help. "Nope, we don't have it, not in any of our stores, wanna order it?" At this I was really annoyed, because I WANTED to read the book NOW NOW NOW, but it's not the poor help person's fault. Luckily, she took pity on me and looked it up... at the Strand! I can go to the Strand! Which is... way back... up... at Union Square. God DAMN it. So I go back UP to the Strand, and it's half price. Do I remember that I bought new shoes and save the money? No, of course not! I'm in a fucking big bookstore! There are REASONS I never go to the Strand. 18 miles of books isn't a promise, it's a trap - I'm lucky to get out with any cash left on me! I leave the Strand after the thunder stops. The rain isn't THAT bad, so I head to the store to get my favorite potato chips. Middle of the street - MIDDLE OF THE STREET! - with the train station so far behind me, it starts pouring pouring POURING down on my head. I can't see through my glasses, but that's all right - the rain is so strong I can't open my eyes anyway. No way I can turn back now, I'm in the middle of the street! And I can't see! Nothing for it but to struggle on and hope I make it to the store before I drown. My shoes? My new shoes and socks? Soaking - even lacking holes, NOTHING could survive that downpour without making my feet wet. And then I was stuck 15 minutes in the door of the store poking my head out to ask "Is the rain dying down yet?" And you know, it's a good book, and I sure looked forward to it... but... I don't think it was so good it was worth getting soaking wet for. Tags: books, daily stuff
I'm feeling:  wet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, did anybody NOT see that coming? You'll notice I didn't even bother with a spoiler warning. Here's a hint. If the big reveal is going to revolve around somebody's baby not being their biological kid, stop doing that "light-haired parents, dark-haired kid" thing. Everybody does that when doing adoption or switched at birth or whatever, and it's cool, except that it ruins the twist ending. So if we're not intended to figure out the plot of the episode 10 minutes in, sacrifice convention and have everybody running around with the same color hair for a change! Also? Everybody and their dog knows that two blond parents don't have brunet kids. Of course, everybody knows a lot of things that don't turn out to be true, granted*, but all the same - with that bit of knowledge firmly implanted in the cultural consciousness, how can these people be so! shocked! to find out that their kid isn't genetically their kid? Why isn't this up on TVTropes on their entry on "Switched at birth"? *I don't even know if it's true or not anymore. Sorry. Tags: television, thoughts
I'm feeling: bored
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We were reading The Talking Eggs the other day. Great story. The first girl (the nice one) goes and follows the instructions that the old woman (kinda like Baba Yaga, but without the chickenfooted house) gives her, and is rewarded both then and later. And the second girl, predictably, doesn't and isn't. As we were reading, and we got to the second girl entering the hen house after stealing the old woman's head (she really isn't very nice, this girl), I asked if the old woman had told her the truth. I wasn't paying much attention, and assumed she had - if the girl had just taken the plain eggs like her sister, she would have been rewarded just the same, even though she WAS a nasty piece of work. And Ana said "No, because last time she said to throw them over your right shoulder, and this time she said to throw them over your left!" I knew as soon as she said it that she was correct. In all these old stories, nobody says to do anything on the left side unless the RIGHT side is the correct one. I know this because I've read many fairy tales and also because I'm a lefty and as a kid that sort of detail irked me a lot more than it does today. (Of course, it's very hard to throw anything over your right shoulder unless you use your left hand. Try it!) But Ana hasn't read nearly as many fairy tales as I have, or even as I had at her age, and she's never had any reason to notice handedness at all except that I occasionally sit on the wrong side of her when writing or eating and have to move so we don't bump elbows. She only noticed because she paid attention to this one detail in a book she was reading with me for the second time ever. As for Evangeline, she said something yesterday that made me think "LOL, like on BSG", but for the life of me I can't remember what on earth she said! VERY annoying. But it was cute. Tags: 'cdotes, books, daily stuff, fairy tales
I'm feeling: cheerful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's one on the intelligence of fishiesNow, we all hear a lot about goldfish. People get goldfish for their kids because "they're easy to take care of, and die soon anyway". They put them in bare bowls because "well, they don't need more, and they die soon anyway, and they're not that bright". They don't do anything about stimulation because "well, they're not that bright, and they die soon anyway". These statements would be troubling, except that the premises are totally flawed to begin with! When properly cared for, goldfish live decades - so all those fish that "died soon anyway" did so because they were killed by incompetent owners. And given that you can teach a goldfish to do a variety of tricks, I'm not so sure they're as unintelligent as all that. It's cruelty to have an animal and not give it any form of stimulation at all, it's like locking them in solitary for their whole life! ( Read more... )Two articles on two different kindergartens. One on a charter school that "justifies" its trip to the farm by calling it "test prep".Some of the comments are disgusting, blaming parents for kids not going "to the zoo". When are they supposed to go to the zoo? On a weekday, when it closes at 5? On the weekend, when it costs $12 per person and is crowded besides and you have to do your shopping and your cleaning and visit family and go to church? Uncool, guys. ( Read more... )And one about an absurdly expensive private school for gifted kids( Read more... )An article on zero waste facilities and communities( Read more... )And finally, one on problems faced by African immigrants in the Bronx( Read more... )Tags: animal welfare, articles, early education, education, environment, science
I'm feeling:  bouncy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back when I was sitting in Ana's class, her teacher mentioned that she at times illustrates concepts with drawings, and she showed us an example with the caveat that "I'm not an artist, so...." and said she says that when she draws for the kids. Funny thing, Ana's teacher last year said the same thing. This kinda bugged me, but I couldn't work out why so I kept my mouth shut. (Given the conversation on competition that transpired later, that's probably just as well.) Now, after a lot of thought, I think I've worked out why. I'm sure that people saying this to kids are trying to convey a message along the lines of "It doesn't have to be perfect, see? You can make mistakes!" This isn't exactly the same as the same words spoken in normal life, which self-consciously mean more like "Don't make fun of me", but the idea that people might make fun of you is there, isn't it? But anyway, they want to tell kids not to beat themselves up if it's not perfect, and on the face of it that's a fine message, but I think they're going about it the wrong way, because there's two - well, three if you count "don't make fun of me" - messages there. And the underlying one is... Well, let's tangent a second. You all know sometimes I like to hang out on Amazon and make fun of the more thuddingly dull reviewers, right? The ones who want their children to be ignorant of the word "ain't" or "hate" or "stupid" or "butt", the ones who more or less outright state that a book without an explicit moral or educational meaning is worthless, the ones who think that showing bad behavior is the same as endorsing bad behavior? (Some of these people? I think they just don't like books. But that's a post for another day.) Well, if possible, they also dislike the artwork. Or, as they say, the "art". "My kid could draw this picture!" or "Everybody knows pigeons don't have long necks!" for Mo Willems becomes "A five year old could do this picture!" for "The Hello Goodbye Window". (Incidentally? Happening to have an interracial family != propaganda. Thanks.) Jan Brett doesn't get this criticism, which gives me a good basis of comparison. And it took me some time, but I think I have "the rules of art" for us all. (These aren't the rules that involve naked ladies and plinths, they're the rules that involve art and "I'm not an artist". Don't get your hopes too far up!) 1. Art is HARD. If it doesn't look hard, it's not art. If I could put tracing paper over it and copy it, it's not art. If I think I've ever seen anything remotely similar to it made by my own hand, it's not art. 2. Art is representational. Period. 2a. Since art is representational, anybody choosing to do a picture with people or things in it that isn't exactly like what I pictured in my head has to have done it because of lack of skill, rather than through stylistic choice. There are few, if any, valid options for making art less representational, and those options are probably ugly. 3. Art is USUALLY better when it has details. Otherwise, I can't tell if you chose to have empty space to make a point, or if you just were too lazy to draw anymore. It's possible for a picture with space to be good. It's never possible for a picture to look too cluttered. Less is not more. 4. Comics aren't art, and they sure ain't literature. But that goes without saying. Also? Don't say ain't. EVER. I think there's some rules for being an artist as well: 1. If you aren't trying to make a living on your art, you're not an artist. 2. Then again, if you're trying AND FAILING, you may be an artist. Unless you just suck. 3. If you draw (or whatever) something and it's not PERFECT, you're not an artist. 4. Art is a talent, and there's no way to improve it, see rule 3. Of course this is all a load of unmitigated crap. Stinky, disgusting, barely-solid crap on your shoe. All those people saying "My five year old could have done this!!" may be right - maybe if you gave them some tracing paper and a pencil they could copy the image. Maybe with time they could do it EVERY time, sure, why not? I doubt they really could be consistent in whatever style we're talking about, but let's run with that. Who cares? There's more to art than just having accurate drawings to scale. Mo Willems got his Caldecotts not through having accurate, detailed, "beautiful" pictures; but through having pictures that are funny and that accurately capture the *mood* of his characters. (And I've heard that he's made a conscious decision to have his artwork look like a kid could do it in order to make his audience relate to it more easily. If true, that argument is blown right out of the water anyway.) Kevin Henkes got a Caldecott for The Hello Goodbye Window because his pictures, though "messy", reflect the genuine warmth between grandrelations. David Shannon's illustrations strike me as appallingly ugly, but a lot of kids really dig them; and Jazz Baby? Dude, I love that book and I think the people have incredibly misshapen heads. I ignore it, though, because I also think that the pictures sing and dance on their own when the book is shut. They're not even remotely "accurate"... but they are. They're accurate to the words and the feelings. It's like a quote I read on metaphors: "There's true, and there's true. I've never seen the wind run, but the horse still ran like the wind". And how this all relates to the teachers who "aren't artists"? Well, when they say that they think they just mean "It's okay not to be perfect", but what they're SAYing is that there's some form of "perfect" to begin with. They're reinforcing all that nonsense I just said up above, that art is a talent, that it all depends on doing pictures that look the same as the outside reality and have some appropriate level of detail (stick figures don't count), that most people aren't gonna be able to do that. And that's just not an accurate representation of the world as we know it. Tags: school, thoughts
I'm feeling:  contemplative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(It's a short book! It's easy to read it several hundred times in rapid succession!) When Gerald first sneezes, he sniffs and rubs under his trunk, presumably wiping away his snot. But when he sneezes the THIRD time, his tissue goes all the way to the bottom of his trunk. OMG CONTINUITY ERROR!!! Which all raises an interesting question. Do real elephants sneeze? The answer is apparently yes. Incidentally, I love looking at pictures of elephant family groups, they resemble ours with older siblings and whatnot. I don't know of many animals that can do that. Also? Videos of elephants painting. You don't see people teaching dolphins to paint! Tags: books, questions, videos
I'm feeling:  curious
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
retreat.... 
pissed off
angry![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
shocked
excited
chipper
bitchy
amazed
happy
numb