Loud Voice, No Words: An Open Letter to the Pulitzer Prize Board
Hello,
I'll start by apologizing for any frank or familiar language, as I am a visual artist and not much with words.
Cable news is often the background noise to my day, and when a host introduces a guest as “Pulitzer Prize Winner…”, my ears perk up, and I tend to stop what I’m doing. For at least a glance. It carries weight, the name Pulitzer. It’s one of the few commonly known awards. Nobel. Oscar. Pulitzer. Others, but you get the point.
As an illustrator, I have often thought about how great it would be to be able to win a prize like the Pulitzer. Sure, we have awards like the Communication Arts Annuals and the Society of Illustrators awards, but those do nothing to elevate illustration in the eyes of the general public like the Pulitzer would.
Then I discovered there is an award for illustration that carries the recognition level of the Pulitzer… and it’s the Pulitzer.
For a very thin segment of illustration: cartoons.
But cartoons use words, right?
Typically. I would say that the term “cartoon” itself is largely open to interpretation, and your entry rules do very little to define it: an award-winning cartoon is "characterized by originality, editorial effectiveness, quality of drawing and pictorial effect, published as a still drawing, animation or both.” If there is a more detailed definition available, I could not find it on your website. But by that definition, it seems the only requirement is for an artist to submit their work as a cartoon and let you decide if it even IS a cartoon, much less a good one.
But cartoons use WORDS, right? Fine. Let’s just say that.
There are TWO categories for PHOTOGRAPHY: one for “breaking news” and other entitled “feature photography.”
Photographs do not use words. They are usually accompanied by them. They’re worth a thousand of ‘em. Yes, it’s “pictures,” not “photos,” but again, you get the point.
You give a LITERARY award to a strictly visual, albeit sometimes journalistic, medium.
I have attached 3 images from the 2020 Communication Arts Illustration Annual. I am familiar with none of the artists, other than these inclusions in this publication. However, just in viewing the editorial impact of these 3 pieces, I find it hard to argue against the value of illustration as being just as valid to the pursuit of public discourse as either cartoons or photography.
I propose that you establish a category of the Pulitzer Prize dedicated to recognition of excellence in Journalistic Illustration. The structure is already set up in the Photography category. “Illustration" can be to “Cartooning” what “Feature Photography” is to “Breaking News Photography.”
Illustration and Journalism have a long, long relationship. Frankly, I am shocked that there has never been a NON-cartoon illustration category. That’s not accurate. I was shocked to discover that there is a Pulitzer for cartooning, but I am gobsmacked by the fact that cartooning is the only form of illustration recognized. Before there were photographs, there were illustrations. Before the technology existed to transfer visual information to film and then reproduce that image, people were reliant upon illustrators to depict a reliable scene or likeness. With the rise of political cartoons, visual editorial joined the mix, but realism wasn’t quite as necessary. Cartoons use words, right? Once photography was ubiquitous, it further eliminated the need for hand-rendered accuracy in all but matters of choice. So yes, while cartoonists remained married to journalism, many illustrators had to find work in advertising or packaging or any of the other industries that pay journalism’s bills. But we never lost our voice just because we lost our words.
Look at the 3 examples attached and honestly tell me that they are not informed or timely or controversial or compelling. Tell me they are not "characterized by originality, editorial effectiveness, quality of drawing and pictorial effect.” Then make a compelling argument against the inclusion of illustration in a program that recognizes excellence in journalism.
In 1943, Jay Norwood Darling won a Pulitzer for his cartoon "What a Place For a Waste Paper Salvage Campaign.” There is no image of it on your website, but judging by the title, during the height of World War II, it seems like Mr. Darling and the Pulitzer Board were ON-POINT. Meanwhile, Norman Rockwell published the attached Saturday Evening Post cover, which doesn’t really need any words. Rockwell is an icon, the beloved creator of so much of the living history of 20th century America. Not only did Norman Rockwell never win a Pulitzer, but he never had the opportunity. Could he have submitted his covers as cartoons? Would they have been accepted and judged fairly as cartoons? Would anyone ever call a Rockwell painting a cartoon?
I want to be very clear at this point on two issues. First, I am in no way arguing for the discontinuation of the Cartooning prize, nor either of the Photography awards. New excellence isn’t created by recognizing less of it. I am only arguing FOR the creation of a non-cartoon illustration category. Secondly, although I am an illustrator attempting to spark the creation of a Pulitzer Prize for Illustration, I am under no delusion that I could win such an award or even have the nerve to enter it. I am 100% not writing this letter for me.
I’d like to thank you for your time and your consideration. I trust that after weighing the argument, we can anticipate the long-deserved elevation of an illustrator to the status of Pulitzer Prize Winner.
Best - wes rowell
Illustration credits:
1: "Death Row: The New Washington Monument" by Robert Hunt
2: "#MeToo" by Anna Balbusso/Elena Balbusso
3: "Boris Johnson" by Marco Ventura
4: "Rosie the Riveter" by Norman Rockwell
*These images are reproduce with the permission of none of the artists, nor their commissioning clients. As I am using their work to justify creating a Pulitzer for Illustration, I thought they wouldn't mind. But I'm wrong a lot too.