Growth

It was very interesting how many things that this chapter tied together for me. I have done conference projects on both children's art and schema. I had heard before that 'dogishness' is perceived earlier than the characteristics of dogs, and that children often over or under assume characteristics. They may, for example, think only their own pet is a dog, or that all four legged animals are dogs.

It was good the way that Arnheim tied this fact back into art, and how artistic representations can be expected to be concerned with generalities. I have been, for a conference project in another class, been studying 'schematas' (and the way that they and nonverbal cues can help children learning English as a second language).

I had not heard the term used in a way meaning that the child is bound by rigid conventions that bind them to primitive templates that must be broken for the child to be able to gain freedom of expression. The reading that I have done about schemata has desribed them as a necessary thing for a child's development, and a way for the child to organize the world around them and make sense of events that happen more than one time. This is close to what Arnheim himself says, but I almost would like to know where he was reading so many of these harmful discussions of schemata, so that I would be able to see how they differ from both what I have said and what Arnheim has to say. I thought his analogy of the stairs was very helpful, and I had not heard it before! It makes much more sense to think of them not as obstacles, but a prerequisite that is indispensable.

I found the second half of the Arnheim chapter a little bit more difficult to get through, but loved the part about the 'misnamed tadpoles' on page 197. I have, while working at the ECC, seen drawings just like these! I had been wondering why the whole central part of the body is left out, and had never thought of the possibility that it only looked like something was 'left out' to me, while to the child it is perfectly complete.