Hat which best displays its important structural or invariant features” (Cox

Hat which best displays its important structural or invariant features” (Cox, 2005, p. 73). Thus, a human figure would face the viewer, whereas a horse would be drawn side-on (Freeman, 1980; Gibson, 1979). The front-on depiction of human figures, like the dominance of the head discussed above, is due to the importance ofPage 7 ofThorpe, Cogent Arts Humanities (2016), 3: 1196864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2016.face-to-face interaction for the socialisation of the child (Huntley, 2011, p. 75; Waksler, 1991, p. 13). This orientation can be seen in all three of the human get Chaetocin figures in LJS 361 (Figures 1?). This contrasts with the side-on depiction of several human figures in the eighth- or ninth-century Inchmarnock “Hostage Stone” inscriptions, thought to have been made at the Scottish island’s monastery (see Lowe, 2007; pp. 53?8). Though these “cartoonish” inscribed figures have a childlike aspect, their orientation depicts the walking motion with more visual realism than is typical of a very young child. In addition, they do not reduce features as is conventional in young children’s drawings–rather, they have considerable detail in their attire and bodily features. They have, for example, cross hatching on the legs and, in the case of the “Viking” figure, a moustache and whiskers. Lowe has discussed the stone in relation to the practice of fostering children from the age of 7 within the monastery, and it is possible that this inscription was made by an older child (Lowe, 2008, p. 262). Similarly, the animal in Figure 1 is not depicted in its side-on canonical orientation, but instead is shown from the front. This indicates that it may have been contributed by an older child, who–like the artist of the Inchmarnock “hostage stone”–was able to explore more visually realistic ways of depicting their subject.4.3.2. Stiff posesHuman figures drawn by young children are notable for their stiff poses (Cox, 1993, p. 5). Huntley observed this rigidity in the graffiti from Pompeii, commenting that children “may draw a human figure reaching for something by adjusting the arms whilst the body remains upright, facing forward” (Huntley, 2011, p. 75). For example, in the graffito from the Casa dell’Criptoportico, the figure itself appears not to move, but its arms bend to reach something (Goodnow, 1977, p. 65; Huntley, 2011, p. 74 Figure 4.1b). The drawings in LJS 361 display similar rigidity, with the humans of Figures 2 and 3 in a static pose, with just one arm reaching out and slightly bent, and both human and animal in Figure 1 depicted standing still.4.3.3. Boundary preservationBoundaries are important to the young child artist, so the different components of the human body rarely overlap. Huntley (2011) observes that children may add hair or ears to a circular head, but that these elements will not come in contact with the limbs (pp. 75?6). Cox (1992) points out that where children depict both head and trunk, these two areas will be represented by separate bounded regions, sharing a single boundary at the “neck” (p. 49). We see this feature in each of the drawings in LJS 361. The head and torso in Figures 2 and 3 are represented by separate shapes, which share one side at the “neck”. In Figure 1, the head and tubular legs are distinct areas. In contrast, the animal in Figure 1 has overlapping regions around the legs and back of the animal, again suggesting that a different, older, child may have been responsible.4.3.4. Vadadustat cost Intellectual realism.Hat which best displays its important structural or invariant features” (Cox, 2005, p. 73). Thus, a human figure would face the viewer, whereas a horse would be drawn side-on (Freeman, 1980; Gibson, 1979). The front-on depiction of human figures, like the dominance of the head discussed above, is due to the importance ofPage 7 ofThorpe, Cogent Arts Humanities (2016), 3: 1196864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2016.face-to-face interaction for the socialisation of the child (Huntley, 2011, p. 75; Waksler, 1991, p. 13). This orientation can be seen in all three of the human figures in LJS 361 (Figures 1?). This contrasts with the side-on depiction of several human figures in the eighth- or ninth-century Inchmarnock “Hostage Stone” inscriptions, thought to have been made at the Scottish island’s monastery (see Lowe, 2007; pp. 53?8). Though these “cartoonish” inscribed figures have a childlike aspect, their orientation depicts the walking motion with more visual realism than is typical of a very young child. In addition, they do not reduce features as is conventional in young children’s drawings–rather, they have considerable detail in their attire and bodily features. They have, for example, cross hatching on the legs and, in the case of the “Viking” figure, a moustache and whiskers. Lowe has discussed the stone in relation to the practice of fostering children from the age of 7 within the monastery, and it is possible that this inscription was made by an older child (Lowe, 2008, p. 262). Similarly, the animal in Figure 1 is not depicted in its side-on canonical orientation, but instead is shown from the front. This indicates that it may have been contributed by an older child, who–like the artist of the Inchmarnock “hostage stone”–was able to explore more visually realistic ways of depicting their subject.4.3.2. Stiff posesHuman figures drawn by young children are notable for their stiff poses (Cox, 1993, p. 5). Huntley observed this rigidity in the graffiti from Pompeii, commenting that children “may draw a human figure reaching for something by adjusting the arms whilst the body remains upright, facing forward” (Huntley, 2011, p. 75). For example, in the graffito from the Casa dell’Criptoportico, the figure itself appears not to move, but its arms bend to reach something (Goodnow, 1977, p. 65; Huntley, 2011, p. 74 Figure 4.1b). The drawings in LJS 361 display similar rigidity, with the humans of Figures 2 and 3 in a static pose, with just one arm reaching out and slightly bent, and both human and animal in Figure 1 depicted standing still.4.3.3. Boundary preservationBoundaries are important to the young child artist, so the different components of the human body rarely overlap. Huntley (2011) observes that children may add hair or ears to a circular head, but that these elements will not come in contact with the limbs (pp. 75?6). Cox (1992) points out that where children depict both head and trunk, these two areas will be represented by separate bounded regions, sharing a single boundary at the “neck” (p. 49). We see this feature in each of the drawings in LJS 361. The head and torso in Figures 2 and 3 are represented by separate shapes, which share one side at the “neck”. In Figure 1, the head and tubular legs are distinct areas. In contrast, the animal in Figure 1 has overlapping regions around the legs and back of the animal, again suggesting that a different, older, child may have been responsible.4.3.4. Intellectual realism.