I must totally disagree with you, Marcel. "Art" must be appreciated on a
pre-discussion level, an emotional level, an abstract level, a sensual
level---call it what you will. There's gotta be a pleasure, a thrill a
recognition, a connection--even if it can not be put into words.
"Understanding" as you appear to be using it, cannot substitute for this
immediate connection, although it can provide a different kind of (I would
say secondary) pleasure.
I believe a child, or anyone else, responds when a work fills a need ('though
the perceiver probably would not use the word "need" to explain why he/she is
turned on).
I can't think of a less helpful way of introducing a child to art than one
which implicitly tells the child that appreciation is unsatisfactory if the
child is unaware of the "facts" surrounding the work.
Yours in collegial (but total)
disagreement DL
