What I appreciated so much about this reading was its constant emphasis on respect and humanity, this is what I would consider their first claim. When learning environments become too rigid and solely focused on results and efficiency, we tend to lose that sense of humanity. It dulls student-teacher connections and oftentimes leaves students feeling unimportant and disengaged. Without these two key concepts as a base for educating; practicing equity, and making sure every student is having their individual needs met in order to best succeed, becomes more and more difficult. Another one of the claims made in this reading focuses specifically on the concept of the "communitarian" perspective, which states that "—rather than merely compensating for an individual's perceived disability—views all people within a community as interdependent, able to contribute in working toward a common good." (Kraft & Keifer-Boyd, p. 9) This concept seems to be frequently ignored by many; when people see a person with a disability, they often will make assumptions about how that person must live their life, what things they are and aren't able to do and feel as though it is their responsibility to "help" where they are assuming help is needed. To me, what this claim supposes is that every person on this earth has the ability to contribute towards something. And while yes, the degrees to which people are able to contribute may vary, that certainly does not mean that anyone who has a disability will be automatically lacking in their contribution. We all have strengths and weaknesses, and those who have no context of an individual's situation, have no right to assume one person is "weaker" or less able to contribute than another, based solely on the fact that they have a disability. 

Claim 1: Emphasis on respect and humanity.
Claim 2: Communitarian Perspective

This reading did a fantastic job of demystifying and destigmatizing some of the most common assumptions made about the field of art therapy. One of the first things I noted, and feel is definitely one of the main claims the author tries to make abundantly clear, is that "as art therapists, we accept the fragmented, the chaotic, the abortive, the incomplete." (Kramer, p. 37) They're making a statement that, in order to give a client the best chance to work through their problems, we cannot, and must not, get caught up in what we perceive to be "art". Along with this, if the client is too focused on the detail of what they're creating, or is constructing their piece in a certain way to avoid judgment or reticule, then their true feelings are not being expressed and represented in the work they're creating. Kramer details techniques used to induce 'spontaneity' and "encourage chaotic manipulation of art materials." (Kramer, p. 37) Basically, you want your client to feel as free as possible to create whatever it is they're feeling, and sometimes we need to break through natural human defense mechanisms/ barriers to do so. Another claim Kramer makes when debunking assumptions about art therapy is that spontaneous forms of expression, while they may look simple or obscure, are "invaluable in gaining access to the patient's inner life". (Kramer, p. 37) Just because a patient's artwork doesn't look like anything meaningful to one person, that's okay, in fact, that's probably good! Patients put so much of themselves into the work they create; often expressing past traumas or visualizing emotions in abstract ways that only they can decipher. But, just because something doesn't look like "art" doesn't mean that person didn't put real-time, dedication, and love into the end result. Kramer describes it as "At best, this is a labor of love, but all the same, it is arduous, not spontaneous." (Kramer, p. 37)

Claim 1: Art therapists accept art in whatever form it takes.
Claim 2: Spontaneous ≠ Simple