Photographs Better Than Cartoons?

[oaktree]

I once read an article (sorry no reference available) that "A B C books" with photographs are better for kids than ones with cartoons, because they are more real.

The skeptic in mean thinks that both are equally fine. A mix of both might be best.

Any thoughts?

[knuckles]

Interesting question. I suppose one could make the case that photos show kids concretes and that is a good way to start. On the other hand, one could also make the case that kids need an essentialized representation (a "cartoon" --- actually, a simple sketch -- is one such form).

[oaktree]

Moderators: Sorry, I meant to post this in the Miscellaneous sub-forum, not in Current Events. If it can be modev there, I'd be grateful. If there is a way I can do it as I was the original author I'd like to learn how. Thank you.

[wishbone]

I suppose one could make the case... ... On the other hand, one could also make the case ... ...

With all due respect, one does not "make a case" like this. One makes a case by observing reality.

This is similar to arguments about whether stories about knights slaying dragons are bad for kids. There is an aspect of reality in such stories. Similarly, there is reality in a cartoon or sketch of a horse. (Else, how do you know it is a horse.)

Unless I see a formal or informal study showing children understand more and are confused less with one approach or the other, I would not draw any conclusions.

[stephen_speicher]

I once read an article (sorry no reference available) that "A B C books" with photographs are better for kids than ones with cartoons, because they are more real

But then, by extension, real life is "better for kids" than books with photographs, because real life is "more real." The truth of the matter has more to do with purpose than anything else; there are a multiplicity of ways to educate children, and each has its appropriate context. I have noticed in recent years that there exists a (small, hopefully) group of Objectivists who are against fantasy and against teaching children anything outside of some supposed hierarchy. I see such an "issue" as being not too different, and, just as wrong, as the subject posed in the question on this thread.

[tommyedison]

A great advantage of cartoons is that they can be so caricatured and eye-catching that they stay in the memory longer that real life photographs.

[AndrewSternberg]

...

I have noticed in recent years that there exists a (small, hopefully) group of Objectivists who are against fantasy ...

But where would that leave Tolkien? How dare they.

[ramKatori]

Ayn Rand, quoted in "The Art of Fiction", says:

"Stories like The Magic Carpet and Cinderella are justified even though the events are metaphysically impossible, because those events are used to project some idea which is rationally applicable to human beings."

That's the Objectivist position. For a few more pages on the subject, consult "The Art of Fiction", Chapter 11 Special Forms of Literature".

[Godless Capitalist]

I think it depends somewhat on the age of the child and the nature of the "cartoons." If you are talking about the type of book for 2-yr-olds that has, for example, an animal for each letter, I think realism would be preferable so the child can learn what the animal actualy looks like. But a good drawing or painting would be just as good as a photo. It might even be better, since good art can focus on the essential characteristics of each animal (that's why bird books, for example, use illustrations not photos).

That said, I think kids are pretty adaptable. My 16-month-old son learned the word "duck" from seeing actual waterfowl, but quickly learned that the term also applies to yellow cartoon ducks that are not really that similar.

edit: My wife just reminded me that the very earliest flashcards and books we used were all simple cartoons. The reason for this is that babies cannot understand anything as visually complex as a photo; they need simple colors and patterns.

[AndrewSternberg]

My general standard for 'acceptable' fantasy is that the basic axioms are upheld.

If there is magic, it must be limited in some form. The characters should't be allowed to just snap their fingers and do whatever they want. Usually magic as portrayed in fantasy must be learned (Harry Potter goes to magic School).

If they are gonna engange in time travel, they must at least attempt a semi-scientific explanation of why it works.

etc.

[Godless Capitalist]

But then, by extension, real life is "better for kids" than books with photographs, because real life is "more real." The truth of the matter has more to do with purpose than anything else; there are a multiplicity of ways to educate children, and each has its appropriate context. I have noticed in recent years that there exists a (small, hopefully) group of Objectivists who are against fantasy and against teaching children anything outside of some supposed hierarchy. I see such an "issue" as being not too different, and, just as wrong, as the subject posed in the question on this thread.

You don't think it's better for kids to experience something directly than to just see it in a book? I'm not opposed to cartoons completely, but I would certainly prefer direct experience first, then photos or good art if direct experience is not practical.

[stephen_speicher]

You don't think it's better for kids to experience something directly than to just see it in a book?

That is a false alternative; the choice is not either/or, nor is the choice limited to just these two. As I indicated in my post, there exists a multiplicity of ways to educate children, and different contexts afford different benefits. For instance, to directly respond to your specific question, in books you can capture the essence of a thing, which itself can afford a better opportunity for a child to discriminate. You can also have objects do what you want them to purposefully do in order to communicate a higher-level concept, which you may not so easily control with direct experience. But, again, it is not an either/or choice, and a child will benefit from a rich array of experiences from real life, books, cartoons, etc., in a manner more beneficial then restricting experience to just one.

[Godless Capitalist]

Stephen: OK, that makes sense. I misunderstood you.

[Betsy]

We have been discussing fantasy for children over on Susan Crawford's Rational Parenting List and all the things a child at any age can learn from fanciful drawings, Dr. Seuss nonsense books, and stories about talking animals.

Prior to the age of one year they learn physical properties and object permanence. They learn that the book is a solid object and the pictures are always the same when they open the book. Later they learn to recognize the sounds Mommy makes when she reads the book and they learn what the sounds mean. They learn the difference between the two-dimensional illustrations in the book and objects in the three-dimensional world and the relationship between the two. They learn the difference between fact and fiction and between "real" and "pretend."

Those books are VERY educational.

[jfortun]

Just to pile on:

I was amazed at how quickly my first child (the second one is still under a year) was able to form and utilize an abstraction. He could see a real table, a picture of a table and a highly stylized (or crude) drawing of a table and properly indentify them all. Physical manipulation of the world is the only way a child can learn some of the fundementals Besty describes above. I believe it continues to be the best way for a child to grasp an abstract concept for the the first few years of life, but even within that timeframe the power of the human mind is such that the child can abstract well enough to not be hindered by real vs. photo vs. drawing.