A Is for Art: A Is for Art Hardcover – Picture Book, September 9, 2008

I think this book is terrific. It challenges the reader whether child or adult and that's okay. If you want to spend some quality time with your child helping them learn, go for it. If you yourself learn something along the way, bonus. Take the letter E for example. Earthworm, egg, eagle, ear and exclamation point are easy but when you get to enigmatic or elongated get the dictionary. And what a great way to illustrate what the word elongated means by referencing an earthworm. When you get to the Eiffel tower show them how to find France on the map and talk about architecture. Egg and dart is an architectural term. Show them why it's called that.I am a docent at a significant art museum. You would be surprised what kids can comprehend. Kudos to Mr. Johnson for not being afraid to share complex art concepts with children. Believe me, they can handle it. I can see a grade school teacher or home school teacher using each letter as a lesson plan. This book not only illustrates art concepts and techniques but also shows how math (letter Q and G, golden ratio), science (the letter I), language skills and geography (letter E) find their way into art.

Stephen's colorful book of original Art is safe for little ones to enjoy as an introduction to a modern artistic style while the text is stimulating to a slightly older audience.

At ALA, I discovered Stephen T. Johnson's soon-to-be-released A is for Art: An Abstract Alphabet. No stranger to the alphabet book as a unique medium of expression, Stephen won a Caldecott Honor for his spectacular Alphabet City in 1996.Six years in the making, A is for Art is a monumental achievement. To help illustrate the point, I will admit a false assumption my lazy brain made when I first saw the book: "Oh, how cool! He's exhaustingly searched through thousands of pieces of contemporary art to discover connections with the alphabet."Not quite. It's even more amazing than that. Imagine if a letter had the power to dictate an artist's creation. "X" instructs the artist to use "x-rays and xerographs of xylophones," and, of course, the x-rayed and xerographed xylophone images must themselves form the letter "x."What is so fresh about Stephen's set of alliterated constraints is that they are not restricted to subjects (nouns) alone. Descriptors (adjectives) and action words (verbs) also inform the creation of his pieces. For example, in "Ice Cream Floats," the "imitation" ice cream cones are "individually illuminated, isolated, immobilized, immersed, inverted, identical, and insoluble."In his own words, Stephen had been, "exploring the English dictionary, selectively choosing and organizing particular words from each letter of the alphabet and, based solely on the meanings of the words, developing a visual work of art."Back to my lazy brain. Where I had originally thought that Stephen searched for these alphabet connections in pre-existing art, he, instead, created all of the art pieces after having worked within a set of self-imposed, alphabet-based constraints.The results reveal startling symmetries, that to a casual observer remain hidden. I use "symmetries" in the broadest sense of the word. Stephen's compositions display a harmony and order that invoke an almost mathematical beauty."Golden Sections" is a painting based on the letter "G" that depicts a visual representation of the "golden ratio" (think nautilus shell chambers). The letter "G" can be clearly discerned as we follow the fractal through several recursions.In its color palette and use of media, "gradations of green, gray, and gold...rendered with gouache, graphite, glitter, granulated gunpowder, and glue," "Golden Sections" creates such a harmonic effect that one better understands Soviet scientist's V. Vernadsky's assertion that "a new element in science is not the revelation of the principle of symmetry, but the revelation of its universal nature."Finally, I must comment upon Stephen's observation that "the self-imposed limitations and restrictive nature of using only words from each letter of the alphabet to generate an original creation have turned out to be truly liberating."As someone who works with constraints myself (I'm currently working on a 32-page picture book that tells a story using only words that begin with the letters "qu"), I am in complete agreement with Stephen on the power of constraints to unleash creativity. It's a paradox, but that is probably why it works.I encourage other writers and artists to play with constraints and then get ready to get the heck out of the way as they witness works create themselves. There is much inspiration on this path to be taken from the Oulipo, the French group of writers and mathematicians who undertook serious work in this direction starting in the 1960's.Stephen's work is concept art at its most meaningful and accessible, ready to tickle the brains and eyes of children of all ages. His work truly exemplifies the notion of "ideart," in which the concept (idea) and its artistic expression are one and the same.A Is for Art will provide plenty of eye candy, even literally (one needs only to look at the book's cover); but it will also provide a richness of layered symmetries, like a set of nesting Russian dolls, on each page. I applaud Stephen on his genius creation and the bold support he received from Paula Wiseman and Rubin Pfeffer to help make it happen.

Upon first opening this book, the sheer self-consciousness of it hits you like a slap in the face.I like to think I have an understanding of art and how it works. Any formal education I've had in the subject ended with Cubism or Dadaism. But I get Pop Art: Warhol soup cans, Marilyn Monroe montages. I'll admit I don't wholly know the language of abstract expressionism. Given this, what I can say about the works in this book is that they are grossly self-referential. That may appeal to kids. Afterall, Big Bird, Sponge Bob, Blue are all grossly self-referential. But I imagine most kids, if they care to try at all, will only find frustration trying to figure this stuff out.The watercolor of the elephant painted by the author when he was three is brillant. But it's the kind of brilliance you can only see as an adult. Similarly many of the pieces in this book may work for adults. _Evidence_ is one of my favorites, as is _Triptych_. _Ice cream Floats_ is cool; so is _Landscape_. But will the target audience of 4 to 8 year olds get it? I'd love to meet the child who does.The pictures are supposed to be puzzles for the kids to figure out and, this, I think, is the biggest failing of the book. Art is not a puzzle. Yes, it should make you think, but, mostly, and this applies especially to abstract art, it should evoke emotion. Sure, you can hone your cognitive understanding of a work of art and look for clues that will show you some "meaning" or "answer". But if the piece doesn't transport you emotionally in some way, it ultimately fails. That's an important part of art education. Making art into puzzles belittles the mission of art educators. (Would anyone call the "Magic Eye" pictures, where you were supposed to squint your eyes and see a 3-D image under the 2-D image, real Art; I don't think so)And for the text? What can I say. It takes more than stringing consonants together to make alliterative prose. Yes, that is the definition of alliteration. But the use of the technique is supposed to lead to poetry, not labored exposition. _Fox in Socks_ this is not!