2014-2015 The Art of Seeing

Professor Patricia Search Abstract Visual poetics in new media design is a dynamic form of communication that integrates diverse media into poetic statements that form a new type of hybrid literacy. Early examples of visual poetics include petroglyphs and other forms of pictorial writing, as well as the pattern poems of Greek poets and Apollinaire. However, contemporary visual poetics now includes works of art and design that are three-dimensional, multimedia, and interactive. This paper includes an historical overview of visual poetry and contemporary new media poetics. The paper also includes an analysis of the complex syntax of this new literacy which includes multimodal semiotics, kinesthetic design, and interactive aesthetics. Examples of art and design ranging from indigenous to contemporary works are included to illustrate these concepts. Understanding the semiotic structure of this complex form of visual literacy will help researchers, educators, artists, designers, and other professional communicators define new ways to use these hybrid designs. Keywords interactive aesthetics, kinesthetic design, multimodal semiotics, visual poetry Introduction In the field of visual poetry, artists create works that integrate text, images, sound, and movement into unique audiovisual languages. Visual poetry also includes animations, performance art, and interaction art which integrate real and virtual spaces. Geof Huth (2008) pointed out that “We are living through what might be the greatest age of visual poetry” (para. 5): The child of both poetry and the visual arts, visual poetry has a double set of interests and its forms are myriad (para 1) … Few visual poems these days function as poems do. Instead, they encompass a wide range of verbo-visual creations that focus on the textual materiality of language. The form includes poems written as mathematical equations, collage poems, xerographic pieces that include no words but concentrate on the meaning that has built up within the shapes of letters, and even asemic writings in invented scripts created to mean through shape rather than word. (para. 3) Examples of visual poetry can be traced to early forms of communication including petroglyphs, Maya glyphs, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Greek poems, and the illuminated manuscripts of the Middle Ages (Kempton, 2010). The technopaegnia of the Greek poets like Simias and the pattern poems of George Herbert and Guillaume Apollinaire are well-known early forms of visual poetry. These poems, which were formatted in the shapes of images that represented ideas in the poems, added visual structure to poetry. Contemporary visual poetry includes two-dimensional and three-dimensional works, as well as interactive media design and performance art. Space, time, and action add layers of meaning to the audiovisual syntax. The discursive and polysemiotic dimensions of these works challenge the viewer to make dynamic connections between the linguistic, visual, and audio elements. These cross-modal forms of visual poetry require a cognitive interpretation of text, as well as an understanding of multimodal semiotics, kinesthetic design, metasyntax, and interactive aesthetics. This paper includes a discussion of each of these dimensions of visual poetry using examples ranging from indigenous art to contemporary work. It also includes a detailed analysis of an interactive installation titled Beyond Time which incorporates all these design elements. Multimedia Semiotics Each medium in multimedia computing has a specific semiotic structure. Visual information, language, and sound communicate cognitive and sensory information in different ways. Images, sound, and text contribute to the semiotic structure of visual poetry. Each medium can expand the meaning of the work and create layers of associations that complement each other, as well as create cognitive or perceptual dissonance. Visual images are spatial and “all-inclusive.” Images create spatial depth with color, line, form, transparency, and perspective. Layers of meaning are defined by perceptual relationships that are defined by Gestalt laws of similarity, closure, proximity, and figure/ground relationships. Repetition and rhythm integrate space and time into a flexible format that encourages diverse viewer interpretations. Agular (1990) noted that “images have a major communicative power because of their intensity, their implicit and explicit movement; the texture, color, and force of forms; the vibration which we feel on seeing them; and above all the instantaneity of reading” (p. 91). Indigenous paintings, weavings, and pottery are excellent examples of visual poetry where lyrical lines and forms, color, rhythm, and figure/ground relationships define strong spatiotemporal languages. Contemporary indigenous artists continue the traditional art forms of their ancestors using visual languages and symbolic narratives to define their heritage, relationships to the environment and spiritual worlds, and a sense of place over time. Northwest Coast Indian art, for example, weaves lines and forms together into lyrical, spatial relationships that define layers of rhythm and diverse planes using positive and negative space. Robert Davidson’s work highlights the visual poetics of this art form (http://www.robertdavidson.ca/new_works.php?main=1). Holm (1965) conducted a thorough analysis of the visual elements in this art and discovered overarching rules behind the forms, lines, colors, and negative/positive spatial relationships that define a visual and poetic language (see examples in “Formline: An Evolving Art by Bill Holm”). This visual language adds another layer of meaning to the creation and ancestral stories represented by the images of birds, fish, and animals that are integral to their legends and culture. The granularity of audiovisual spatial representation ranges from specific or localized representation, which is achieved with graphics, to infinite or non-localized space, which is achieved with sound (Search, 2002). Audio can be both linear and spatial. Melodic sequences are linear, but sounds can also penetrate space and define psychological relationships with the surrounding environment. In addition, melodies, chords, harmonic progressions, modulation, tonality/atonality, rhythm, accent, synchronicity, and dissonance define patterns and layers of sound that create structured, yet flexible, multidimensional expressions of space and time. These audio elements are demonstrated in an art installation titled Sound Forest which was created by Minori Nagashima, Hideyuki Nakazato, Sho Kamuro, Kouta Minamizawa, and Susumu Tachi from the Graduate School of Media Design at Keio University in Japan. Linear progressions, rhythm, modulation, dissonance, and ambient sounds define multiple layers of spatial depth and structure over time. The audio experience is enhanced by visual sculptures that define

Kate Blake Abstract Since 2011, teaching visual literacy has been one of the strategic objectives of the Toledo Museum of Art (TMA), site of the 2014 International Visual Literacy Conference. In an effort to realize this objective, the museum established an institutional definition and framework for Visual literacy, created a twelve-hour introductory curriculum, and implemented it across the museum. This paper will give an overview of the visual literacy definition and framework employed by TMA, describe the pedagogical approach utilized by TMA educators and docents, and examine implementation of the curriculum through case studies of four of the museums core audiences: schools and teachers; general museum visitors; private sector partners; and museum staff, docents and volunteers. The case studies examined will focus on adaptation strategies employed to meet the unique needs of these distinct audiences. The article will also address ongoing evaluation efforts. Keywords curriculum development, visual literacy framework, pedagogy, museum audiences, Visual Language Introduction Toledo Museum of Art’s (TMA) Visual Literacy Initiative is a combination of curriculum, exhibition strategies, and programs that focus on teaching people how to read and write visual language. In 2011, the museum adopted a new strategic plan which set teaching visual literacy as one of five strategic objectives. This move solidified TMA’s commitment to visual literacy and paved the way for TMA to host the 2014 International Visual Literacy Association Conference. Early projects included the development of Baby and Toddler Tours, the incorporation of neuroscience into the docent training program, an emphasis on teaching the Elements of Art and Principles of Design in all docent-led tours and studio classes, and the creation of Vislit.org, a website dedicated to promoting visual literacy.[i] To provide some context, since 1901 the museum has been dedicated to its purpose of art education. The museum has consistently cultivated innovative programs and curriculum; since its creation, the institution has offered some form of classes and hands-on instruction. By the 1930s the museum had established a comprehensive range of “tours, illustrated lectures, forums on current exhibitions, and talks which relate art to the subject matter of elementary and secondary schools” (1935). The popularity of the museum’s art classes for children reached new heights in the years following the Second World War and have remained a cornerstone of the museum’s offerings ever since. The Studio Glass Movement, originating at TMA in the 1960s, and the museum’s Family Center, established in the 1990s, also served as important milestones in the institution’s educational journey. Most recently, TMA’s Baby and Toddler Tours have expanded the museum’s efforts to bring art education into the lives of the youngest members of the community. Building upon this foundation, TMA’s Visual Literacy Initiative carries on the museum’s legacy of commitment to innovation in the field of art education. This article is an overview of the development, implementation, and evaluation of visual literacy curriculum at TMA. The following pages will outline the visual literacy framework developed at TMA, describe the pedagogical approach employed, and provide case studies of how the curriculum has been implemented for four core audiences: internal audiences (museum staff, docents, and volunteers), the education sector (schools and teachers), the general public, and private sector partners. Ongoing evaluation efforts will also be addressed. The TMA Visual Literacy Curriculum By early 2014 it had become clear that an agreed upon institutional definition of visual literacy and an established intellectual framework were needed in order to build upon early successes and further the shared educational vision of the TMA. To accomplish this, a cross-departmental team convened regularly over the course of a month during the winter of 2014 to discuss related academic texts and refine thinking around key theories related to the field. Using Howells and Negreiros’ Visual Culture (2012) as a starting point, and drawing from canonical scholarship in the fields of art history (Berger, 1972; Frey, 1937; Gombrich, 1989; Panofsky, 1972), semiotics (Barthes, 1970; Peirce, 1991; Saussure, 1959), and hermeneutics (Gadamer, 1976; Geertz, 1973; Whiteley, 1999) the curriculum development team ultimately settled on the following definition of visual literacy and conceptual framework.[ii] Definition and Framework What is Visual Literacy? At TMA visual literacy is defined as the ability to read, comprehend, and write visual language. Reading visual language is fundamentally concerned with vision. Comprehending visual language is fundamentally concerned with cognition, in other words the interpretation of what is seen. And writing visual language is fundamentally concerned with action. Because the process of ‘writing’ is bound up with cognition, visual literacy can be thought of as a form of critical thinking. Visual literacy is more than what we see, it also investigates the way that we see, that is the biases and preconceptions that color our individual interpretations of images, and in that way can be thought of as a form of metacognition. What Does it Mean to be able to Read and Write Visual Language? As an institution, TMA teaches visual literacy through three core components: the Language of Art; the Art of Seeing Art: Learning to Look; and the Four Visual Languages: Form, Symbols, Ideas, and Meaning. The first, and most fundamental component is the Language of Art, which is the development of visual vocabulary as a means of objectively describing an image. As a fine arts organization, it is logical to draw on the established visual vocabulary, the Elements of Art and Principles of Design. There are five Elements of Art and eight Principles of Design, defined in Figure 1 below.[iii] Using this vocabulary to describe images allows an observer to work toward an impartial and subjective description what is being seen. The second component is a six-step process called the Art of Seeing Art, developed in collaboration by TMA educators and curators for interpreting images (see Figure 2). By following this process, an individual will become equipped with the tools necessary to comprehend the significance of the forms, ideas, symbols, and meanings that inhere or arise from any given image. There are six steps in the ‘Learning to Look’ process: Look, Observe, See,

Rhonda Robinson Abstract Educators from four museums collaborated with artists, scholars, educators, and activists to craft socially engaged teacher Professional Development. Activities and resources encouraged the integration of history, culture, and identity through art into the classroom experiences of Chicago students. Museum Educators introduced a variety of visual literacy and critical viewing frameworks, shared a wide variety of artworks and community art projects, provided links to curricular redesign, and explored active engagement of teachers in this themed learning experience. Teachers engaged in arts creation and analysis created a sense of community for themselves and their students, and developed skills in arts integration into their classroom activities. In addition, teachers felt empowered to introduce social justice issues around the idea of space and community and integrated these into classroom projects with their students. Keywords arts integration, social/spatial justice, intersectionality critique exchange, visual literacy, professional development Background and Introduction Arts education helps provide a sense of identity to learners, along with a better understanding of cultural heritage. Activities in the arts enable students to “create their own artistic language and contribute to their emotional and cognitive development” (Bamford, 2009, p. 4). In addition, many believe that arts education can improve motivational as well as content-based learning. Research published in the past decade has linked arts education to improved literacy and critical thinking skills (CTS); students learning valuable critical thinking skills while talking about art could improve their understanding and analyzing of literary materials (as reported in NYT: R. Kennedy, July 27, 2006; original program called Learning Through Art). But arts education has also been under attack from budgetary and curricular reform for the past two decades. Most recently, the impact of increased standardized testing and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) with their required PARC tests on learners and on school curricula has been widely discussed. Many detractors, especially school district personnel, have concerns regarding the CCSS and the accompanying requirements. But those of us interested in visual literacy know that the critical viewing skills developed by arts education activities designed to increase visual literacy abilities are essential to 21st century learners. This article shares the collaboration between museum and teacher educators, artists, community organizers, and scholars to design, create, and facilitate impactful and sustainable teacher programming that foregrounds the role of art as an agent of social change. Participants in the development of this professional development opportunity, a Summer Teacher Institute, were from the Jane Addams Hull-House Museum, Smart Museum of Art, National Museum of Mexican Art, and DuSable Museum of African American History in Chicago, Illinois, USA. The Institute—now in its third iteration—engaged teachers with museum collections, scholars, local artists, and activists to develop skills for supporting their students in making meaningful connections with art to address relevant social justice issues and support learning in core subjects. Professional learning outcomes for all involved included the opportunity to gain strategies for working across institutions and within communities, to guide teachers to integrate art into their practice, and to consider art integration as a lens for discussing vital social justice issues. Participants were involved in art creation activities as well as learning art interpretation strategies that support reflection and activism. In this report, we share the strategies employed and the experiences shared by participants in Whose Streets? Our Streets! Art and Spatial Justice in the Urban Environment, the institute’s 2015 iteration. We also discuss how these experiences helped teachers learn to engage pressing social justice issues in their communities through the study and making of art. Resources used to support the presentation content included information on Intersectionality Critique Experience (ICE), Facilitated Dialogue, and Visual Thinking Strategies, along with critical art education and curriculum integration strategies. The Jane Addams Hull-House Museum (JAHHM), in partnership with the Smart Museum of Art, the DuSable Museum of African American History, and the National Museum of Mexican Art (NMMA), implemented the program in August of 2015. The program served 19 educators through a five-day professional development institute and an ongoing series of subsequent classroom and museum engagements. The program was developed by a planning committee composed of museum professionals and K-12 educators who participated in Museum and Migration: Summer Teacher Institute 2013 and Activating Art for Peace and Justice: Summer Teacher Institute 2014, both developed by JAHHM, Smart, NMMA and DuSable museum educators after their participation in the Terra Foundation’s “Art at the Core of Learning” program. Building on the insights of the previous two years, Whose Streets? Our Streets! fused American art, art critique and creation, the Common Core State Standards and lesson planning activities, engaged learning activities, and community building. Whose Streets? Our Streets! utilized American art and artifacts from four museum collections to explore issues of migration, gentrification, urban planning, and access to public space from the turn of the 20th century to the present. Responding to qualitative and quantitative data gathered from the 2014 and 2013 Summer Teacher Institutes, Whose Streets? Our Streets! built a focused approach that centered around the following: Interpretation: Teachers from the previous institutes expressed a desire to center the work around the voices and experience of their students. As such, the Institute invited Rashayla Marie Brown, Director of Diversity and Inclusion at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, to train teachers on the method of Intersectionality Critique Exchange (ICE). This method helps diverse student populations to engage with fine art, literature, and historical artifacts through the intersectional lens of race, class, gender, and sexuality. Common Core: In response to teachers’ interest in bridging the gap between Common Core State Standards and the arts, the Institute featured Dr. Rhonda S. Robinson of Northern Illinois University who is a national leader in combining Critical Visual Literacy with the structure of the CCSS to deepen visual learning. Daily workshops focused on curriculum development, assessment and CCSS arts integration. Evaluation: Finally, in response to teachers’ requests for a more transparent evaluation process, the evaluation this year was focused heavily on formative feedback loops and daily reflections. Participants had opportunities

Frank A. Cerreto, Jung Lee, and Wondi Geremew Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate what, if any relationship exists between graph construction ability and interpretation ability. Sixty-seven college students completed two graphing tasks, one involving construction and the other interpretation of graphs, both based on actual data. Statistical analysis of the scores showed no significant correlation between total scores on the two tasks and no significant relationships between specific components of graph construction ability and graph interpretation ability. These results suggest that the two abilities are distinct from one another. The study’s findings add to our understanding of graph construction ability and have practical implications for teaching and learning. Keywords graph construction, graph interpretation, graphing data, graphical literacy Introduction Graphs are ubiquitous in textbooks, scholarly journals, popular magazines, and newspapers, as well as on the Web (Lewandowsky and Behrens, 1999; Shah, Mayer, & Hegarty, 1999), due to their potential to help viewers understand numerical information (Winn, 1987). Graphs provide a visual medium for identifying patterns and relationships in numerical data and are used extensively when people make decisions (Raschke & Steinbart, 2008). At the same time, if graphs are wrongly designed or interpreted, they could affect our perception of the actual situation and our resulting judgments. Tufte (1983) presented many examples of graphs that lead to data misinterpretations. Tractinsky and Meyer (1999) argued that misleading graphs may sometimes be created deliberately, and Beattie and Jones (2002a, 2002b) also added that such graphs could reduce decision quality. Especially, these days when creation of graphs is as easy as a couple of clicks, people often produce incomplete, biased, or wrong graphs. In school, students are often involved in interpreting graphs and constructing graphs. For example, teachers often present results from science lab graphically to ease the complexity and to allow patterns and relationships between scientific variables to be understood (Hardy, Schneider, Jonen, Stern, & Möller, 2005), and students are also expected to make graphs (Shah & Hoeffner, 2002). Thus, graphs are considered a strong communication tools for teachers and students, and graphical interpretation and representation of information are important quantitative literacy skills. There is a wealth of research on the difficulties viewers have comprehending graphs (Carpenter & Shah, 1998; Cleveland & McGill, 1985; Gattis & Holyoak, 1996; Guthrie, Weber, & Kimmerly, 1993; Leinhardt, Zaslavsky, & Stein, 1990; Maichle, 1994; Shah & Carpenter, 1995; Shah, Mayer, & Hegarty, 1999, Wang, Wei, Ding, Chen, Wang, & Hu, 2012), as well as their implications for the classroom (Friel & Curcio, 2001; Glazer, 2011; Sharma, 2006). However, as Amodeo & Wizner (2012) and Leinhardt and her associates (1990) pointed out, few studies focused on graph construction. Yet, research studies have found some differences between graph interpretation and construction ability. Leinhardt and her associates (1990) stated, “Construction is quite different from interpretation. Whereas interpretation relies on and requires reaction to a given piece of data, construction requires generating new parts that are not given (p.12)”. Berg and Smith (1994) found widespread lack of graph interpretation and construction abilities of high school science students. Tairab and Al-Naqbi (2004) found that high school students’ interpretation of graphs was much better than their ability to construct graphs. However, there is a lack of study focusing on the relationship between the specific skills and understandings underlying these two abilities. Cerreto and Lee (2012) focused on college students’ graph construction ability, and showed that graph construction ability is a well-defined construct that is separate from general mathematics and verbal ability. In that study, moderate to strong correlations were found between all pairs of five graphing task components, establishing the validity of the graph creation construct. Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study is to investigate possible relationships between graph interpretation ability and graph construction ability. We tried to answer the following two research questions: To what extent is general graph construction ability related to graph interpretation ability? To what extent are specific components of graph construction ability related to corresponding components of graph interpretation ability? Participants and Method The participants in this study are 67 students who were enrolled a four-year, public, comprehensive university in New Jersey. The students were enrolled in one of three classes: a precalculus course, an intermediate algebra course, and a freshman seminar that was not related to mathematics. The students were given two tasks: graph construction (see Appendix A) and graph (Appendix B) interpretation. Students took the graph construction test first in order to avoid a chance to see any graphs in the interpretation test. In the construction test, they were given numerical data about the populations and land areas of three countries. Provided with rulers, protractors, calculators and pencils, they were asked to create graphs that could be used to answer three questions about these countries. The first question asked them to make a comparison, the second, express parts of a whole, and the third, describe a trend. After constructing each of the three graphs, the students were asked to describe their findings. The graphing task was untimed; most students finished within 45 minutes. After submitting the first test, the second, interpretation, test was given to the student. The graph interpretation test consisted of 12 multiple-choice questions based on given bar graphs, line graphs, and pie charts. It was also untimed; most students finished in 15 minutes. In order to rate the graph construction, we used rubrics for each of five components: the appropriateness of the created graph to the question (Type), the quality and completeness of the labeling of the graph (Labels), the correctness of the axis scales (Scales), the accuracy of the drawing (Accuracy), as well as the correctness and thoroughness of the written response to the question (Explanation). For each of the three questions, two raters independently assigned a score. Scores of four, three, two, or one, represent excellent, good, fair, or poor, performance, respectively. Off-topic or blank responses received a score of zero. Sum scores, ranging from zero to eight, were used for all subsequent analysis.

Rachel Shalita Hamidrasha, Art and Education Faculty, Beit-Berl College, Israel Introduction The “Dialogical Model” for reading contemporary art has many antecedents. It can be found in the thought and writings of Plato who, in 5th B.C.E. Athens, described the centrality of the dialogical form as “Socratic dialogue,” employed as an educational tool by his teacher Socrates. Centuries later, Martin Buber’s canonical book I and Thou (1923), enormously influenced pedagogical worth of dialogue, and Carl Rogers in his best known contribution to humanistic psychology and the facilitation of learning, speaks of congruence, acceptance and empathy — three main tenets for dialogue. Paulo Freire (1970) believed that human nature is dialogic, and that communication plays the most important role in our lives. “Actually” he says, “dialogue is a claim in favor of the democratic choice of educators. Dialogical actions promote understanding, cultural creation, and liberation.” Jurgen Habermas’s Theory of communicative action (1984) is important to our discussion, with its well-known distinction between “power claims” as opposed to “validity claims,” that are the basis of dialogic learning. While in “power claims” the argument of force is applied, in “validity claims” the force of an argument prevails. We should not impose our arguments by means of force, but by being ready to enter into a dialogue in which other people’s arguments may lead us to alter our initial positions. Another meaningful point of view is Mikael Bakhtin’s (1981) who, in his The dialogic imagination states that “individual speech” cannot be separated from “collective speech,” and that whenever we express our individual views on a specific issue, we cannot separate them from those of others. Our personal ways of giving meaning reflect dialogues that we have had with others, and reveal meanings that we have created in previous dialogues with others. In the field of Museum Education the dialogue, as it is conceived by Rika Burnham and Elliotte Kai-Kee (2011), is one of three modes of engaging in a collective-talk in front of a work of art in an art gallery: conversation, discussion and dialogue (Teaching in the art museum: Interpretation as experience, pp. 79-93). Conversation, they propose, is the most loosely structured of these modes of talk. It occurs constantly whenever teachers and visitors join to face a work of art in museum galleries; they enter a world of creative speculation and together construct “a conversation.” Conversation seeks equilibrium and furthers inclusiveness. The teacher’s role during a conversation is mainly to promote a sufficiently constructive atmosphere in which every participant is comfortable expressing his or her views. During a “discussion” the role of the teacher changes. The discussion derives from a classroom practice that seeks to promote critical and creative thinking and problem solving skills. The instructor’s responsibility is to raise a subject according to his or her educational goals and, through questions, to lead the discussion. “Dialogue” is defined mainly by being located in that middle space between conversation and discussion, as is very clearly defined by its “four-sided model”:  the mover, the follower, the bystander and the opposer[MOU2] . Participants in the dialogue are free to choose a role and to change that role during the session. Dialogue shares the open improvisatory quality of conversation but it is imbued from the outset with a stronger sense of purpose and is more tightly focused on artworks (p. 86). Professionals working with Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) have their own model for talking with both children and adults in front of works of art. Through the constant question “What do you see?” they move the participants towards using their thinking and speaking faculties. Philip Yenawine (2013) describes a goal of “improving class participation and students’ engagement while deepening the thinking, language ability, writing skills, and visual literacy of their students.” Although the word “dialogue” is not frequently employed in VTS writing, VTS teachers actually perform dialogue or engage in it. Their goals, however, are directed not only towards the deeper understanding and interpreting of the work of art, but at providing their students (especially those who hang back), with the skills to level the field: to introduce language skills as a vehicle for collective meaning-making that extends across disciplines, and to establish a clear means of raising students’ abilities through peer learning. Reading Contemporary Art with a Broad Public and Children The model which I named “The Dialogical Model for Reading Contemporary Art,” was developed through many years of working with children and adults in art galleries in the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, by watching museum teachers engaging in this process, and by teaching art students how to talk with children about art in my “Museum Education” course at the Art and Education Faculty, Beit-Berl College, Israel. The photos above depict how a dialogical talk with children looks. It is informal in nature and the adult who leads the talk sits among the children. They are invited to look at a work of art (usually of their own choice) as well as to relate to their friends in an animated discussion among themselves. The dialogic process was created mainly for encounters between a broad public: a non-professional public of adults as well as children, and contemporary art. “Broad public” describes persons who are not necessarily professionals such as arts students, arts teachers, artists, museum and gallery professionals, art dealers, art critics, etc. “Contemporary art works” refers to works created by artists in the current time, art works that adults as well as children can read well enough without being provided with (at the beginning of the process) additional contextual information. This assumption is based on the work of Bosch (1998) who states “contemporary art is for contemporary people” (p. 150). Bosch is speaking out against an often endorsed agreement that meeting with contemporary art is more difficult than encounters with art of earlier periods. “Children are necessarily contemporary. They cannot be otherwise. Their absolute lack of knowledge about the world, which for an adult would be disastrous, is an unmistakable sign of the future