Every Malofiej has its polemic award. Every year, not everybody agree with the judges, the same happens with the Oscars, the spanish national soccer team or the elections. The infographics blogs discuss now about the Peter Sullivan award to The New York Times. Does 'The Ebb and the flow of Movies' deserve the recognition?
Xocas, infographics editor at The New York Times says about it that "betting for new ways to visualize information works. It's funny. It impacts because shows the evidence of the data on a different way. And it plays with the reader. Faces him, smiles him and makes him smile".
On other hand, Alberto Cairo thinks it is "an ostentation. Maybe it deserves the recognition because of it. Or not" (As clear as just galician people as Alberto can be [ironic]). Gert K. Nielsen on his re-born Visual Journalism makes a similar appreciation, using the adjective 'sexy', but also saying that it could be confusing once you try to understand the precise data.
Myself, as Alberto Cairo remembers, said that the graphic was 'great'. And I'll say the same again. I think is a very good graphic, with big amounts of good data, that allows the user not just to see which were the movies with the best numbers, but also how they got them: with a great first weekend, going step by step, being born again by an award... I have to say that it was not my favourite for Peter Sullivan de este año. But anyone has his own opinion on which should be the one.
My reasons? The difficulty to find the exact data, and a visualization maybe too complicated for the average reader.
I must agree with Cairo on his idea about the change of fashion at infographics criteria: big spectacular double-spreads have lost their space, now occupied by statistical cartography and original database visualizations. Maybe the future is a mix between both. Who could dare to say what will the future has to show?
Many say that this new wave is not infography anymore. That tis is just inforamtion processing, work of developers and creation of software. I do not agree. Infographics are not 'what infographics journalists-artists do'. Infographics are not defined by the creator, but by the result. If it's a visual explanation, with some weird exceptions, for me, it's an infographic: it could be shown as a photo, as an illlustration or even text (as the Word Train by nytimes.com, the one I had on mind for the Peter Sullivan this year).
There will be no Malofiej edition with everybody happy with the judges. So congratulations to all the awarded!