Part 29

These samples may serve to show that in the stories of by no means highly-gifted children we come face to face with interesting traits of the young mind, and can study some of the characteristic tendencies of early and primitive art.[226] Of the later efforts to imitate older art, as verse writing, the same cannot, I think, be said. Children’s verses so far as I have come across them are poor and stilted, showing all the signs of the cramping effect of models and rules to which the child-mind cannot easily accommodate itself, and wanting all true childish inspiration. No doubt, even in these choking circumstances, childish feeling may now and again peep out. The first prose compositions, letters before all if they may be counted art, give more scope for the expression of a child’s feeling and the characteristic movements of his thought, and might well repay study.[227]

Footnote 226:

The child’s feeling for climax shown in these is further illustrated in a charming story taken down by Miss Shinn, but unfortunately too long to quote here. See _Overland Monthly_, vol. xxiii., p. 19.

Footnote 227:

Perez deals with children’s literary compositions in the work already quoted (chap. ix.). Cf. Paola Lombroso, _op. cit._, cap. viii. and ix.

There is one other department of this child-art which clearly does deserve to be studied with some care—drawing. And this for the very good reason that it is not wholly a product of our influence and education, but shows itself in its essential characteristics as a spontaneous self-taught activity of childhood which takes its rise, indeed, in the play-impulse. This will be the subject of the next essay.

X. THE YOUNG DRAUGHTSMAN.

_First Attempts to Draw._

A child’s first attempts at drawing are pre-artistic and a kind of play, an outcome of the instinctive love of finding and producing semblances of things illustrated in the last essay. Sitting at the table and covering a sheet of paper with line-scribble he is wholly self-centred, ‘amusing himself,’ as we say, and caring nothing about the production of “objective values”.

Yet even in the early stages of infantile drawing the social element of art is suggested in the impulse of the small draughtsman to make his lines indicative of something to others’ eyes, as when he bids his mother look at the ‘man,’ ‘gee-gee,’ or what else he fancies that he has delineated.[228] And this, though crude enough and apt to shock the æsthetic sense of the matured artist by its unsightliness, is closely related to art, forming, indeed, in a manner a preliminary stage of pictorial design.

Footnote 228:

This indicative or communicative function of drawing has, we know, played a great part in the early stages of human history. Modern savages employ drawings in sand as a means of imparting information to others, _e.g._, of the presence of fish in a lake, see Von den Steinen, _Unter den Naturvölkern Braziliens_, kap. x., s. 243 f.

We shall therefore study children’s drawings as a kind of rude embryonic art. In doing this our special aim will be to describe and explain childish characteristics. This, again, will compel us to go to some extent into the early forms of observation and imagination. It will be found, I think, that the first crude drawings are valuable as throwing light on the workings of children’s minds. Perhaps, indeed, it may turn out that these spontaneous efforts of the childish hand to figure objects are for the psychologist a medium of expression of the whole of child-nature, hardly less instructive than that of early speech.

In carrying out our investigation of children’s drawings we shall need to make a somewhat full reference to the related phenomena, the drawings of modern savages and those of early art. While important points of difference will disclose themselves the resemblances are important enough to make a comparison not only profitable but almost indispensable.

I have thought it best to narrow the range of the inquiry by keeping to delineations of the human figure and of animals, especially the horse. These are the favourite topics of the child’s pencil, and examples of them are easily obtainable.

As far as possible I have sought spontaneous drawings of quite young children, _viz._, from between two and three to about six.[229] In a strict sense of course no child’s drawing is absolutely spontaneous and independent of external stimulus and guidance. The first attempts to manage the pencil are commonly aided by the mother, who, moreover, is wont to present a model drawing, and, what is even more important at this early stage, to supply model-movements of the arm and hand. In most cases, too, there is some slight amount of critical inspection, as when she asks, ‘Where is papa’s nose?’ ‘Where is doggie’s tail?’ Yet perfect spontaneity, even if obtainable, is not necessary here. The drawings of men and quadrupeds of a child of five and later disclose plainly enough the childish fashion, even though there has been some slight amount of elementary instruction. Hence I have not hesitated to make use of drawings sent me by kindergarten teachers. I may add that I have used by preference the drawings executed by children in elementary schools, as these appear to illustrate the childish manner with less of parental interference than is wont to be present in a cultured home.

Footnote 229:

Only a few drawings of older children above seven have been included.

A child’s drawing begins with a free aimless swinging of the pencil to and fro, which movements produce a chaos of slightly curved lines. These movements are purely spontaneous, or, if imitative, are so only in the sense that they follow at a considerable distance the movements of the mother’s pencil.[230] They may be made expressive or significant in two ways. In the first place, a child may by varying the swinging movements accidentally produce an effect which suggests an idea through a remote resemblance. A little boy when two years and two months, was one day playing in this wise with the pencil, and happening to make a sort of curling line, shouted with excited glee, ‘Puff, puff!’ _i.e._, smoke. He then drew more curls with a rudimentary intention to show what he meant. In like manner when a child happens to bend his line into something like a closed circle or ellipse he will catch the faint resemblance to the rounded human head and exclaim, ‘Mama!’ or ‘Dada!’

Footnote 230:

E. Cooke gives illustrations of these in his thoughtful and interesting articles on “Art-teaching and Child-nature,” published in the _Journal of Education_, Dec., 1885, and Jan., 1886.

But intentional drawing or designing does not always arise in this way. A child may set himself to draw, and make believe that he is drawing something when he is scribbling. This is largely an imitative play-action following the direction of the movements of another’s hand. Preyer speaks of a little boy who in his second year was asked when scribbling with a pencil what he was doing and answered ‘writing houses’. He was apparently making believe that his jumble of lines represented houses.[231] Almost any scribble may in this earliest stage take on a meaning through the play of a vigorous childish imagination.

Footnote 231:

Preyer, _op. cit._, p. 47.

The same play of imagination is noticeable in the child’s first endeavours to draw an object from memory when he is asked to do so. Thus a little girl in her fourth year referred to by Mr. E. Cooke when asked to draw a cat produced a longish irregularly curved line crossed by a number of shorter lines, which strange production she proceeded quite complacently to dignify by the name ‘cat,’ naming the whiskers, legs, and tail (Fig. 1 (_a_); compare the slightly fuller design in Fig. 1 (_b_)).[232]

Footnote 232:

Taken from E. Cooke’s articles already quoted, drawings 19 and 20.

Here it is evident we have a phase of childish drawing which is closely analogous to the symbolism of language. The representation is arbitrarily chosen as a symbol and not as a likeness. This element of a non-imitative or symbolic mode of representation will be found to run through the whole of childish drawing.

Even this chaotic scribble shows almost from the beginning germs of formative elements, not merely in the fundamental line-elements, but also in the loops, and in the more abrupt changes of direction or angles. A tendency to draw a loop-like rudimentary contour soon emerges, and thus we get the transition to a possible outlining of objects. Miss Shinn gives a good example of an ovoid loop drawn by her niece in her hundred and ninth week.[233] With practice the child acquires by the second or third year the usual stock in trade of the juvenile draughtsman, and can draw a sort of straight line, curved lines, a roughish kind of circle or oval, as well as dots, and even fit lines together at angles.[234] When this stage is reached we begin to see attempts at real though rude likenesses of men, horses and so forth. These early essays are among the most curious products of the child-mind. They follow standards and methods of their own; they are apt to get hardened into a fixed conventional manner which may reappear even in mature years. They exhibit with a certain range of individual difference a curious uniformity, and they have their parallels in what we know of the first crude designs of the untutored savage.

Footnote 233:

_Op. cit._, pt. ii., p. 97; “fifty-sixth week” is, she informs me, an error for hundred and ninth week.

Footnote 234:

I am much indebted to Mr. Cooke for the sight of a series of early scribbles of his little girl. _Cf._ Baldwin, _Mental Development_, chap. v., where some good examples of early line-tracing are given. According to Baldwin angles or zig-zag come early, and are probably due to the cramped, jerky mode of movement at this early stage. Preyer seems to me wrong in saying that children cannot manage a circular line before the end of the third year (_op. cit._, p. 47). Most children who draw at all manage a loop or closed curved line before this date.

_First Drawings of the Human Figure._

It has been wittily observed by an Italian writer on children’s art that they reverse the order of natural creation in beginning instead of ending with man.[235] It may be added that they start with the most dignified part of this crown of creation, _viz._, the human head. A child’s first attempt to represent a man proceeds, so far as I have observed, by drawing the front view of his head. This he effects by means of a clumsy sort of circle with a dot or two thrown in by way of indicating features in general. A couple of lines may be inserted as a kind of support, which do duty for both trunk and legs. The circular or ovoid form is, I think, by far the most common. The square head in my collection appears only very occasionally and in children _at school_, who presumably have had some training in drawing horizontal and vertical lines. The accompanying example (Fig. 2) is the work of a Jamaica girl of five, kindly sent me by her teacher.

Footnote 235:

Corrado Ricci, _L’Arte dei Bambini_ (1887), p. 6.

This first attempt to outline the human form is, no doubt, characterised by a high degree of arbitrary symbolism. The use of a rude form of circle to set forth the human head reminds one of the employment by living savage tribes of the same form as the symbol of a house (hut?), a wreath, and so forth.[236] Yet there is a measure of resemblance even in this abstract symbolism: the circle does roughly resemble the contour of the head: as, indeed, the square or rectangle may be said less obviously to do when hair and whiskers and the horizontal line of the hat break the curved line.

Footnote 236:

See Von den Steinen, _op. cit._, p. 247.

But it is not the mere contour which represents the face: it is a circle picked out with features. These, however vaguely indicated, are an integral part of the facial scheme. This is illustrated in the fact that among the drawings by savages and others collected by General Pitt-Rivers, one, executed by an adult negro of Uganda, actually omits the contour, the human head being represented merely by an arrangement of dark patches and circles for eyes, ears, etc. (Fig. 3).[237]

Footnote 237:

These drawings, of the highest interest to the student of child-art as well as to the anthropologist, are to be seen in the General’s Museum at Farnham (Dorset) (7th room).

Coming now to the mode of representing the features, we find at an early stage of this schematic delineation an attempt to differentiate and individualise features, not only by giving definite position but by a rough imitation of form. Thus we get the vertical line as indicating the direction of the nose, the horizontal line that of the mouth, and either a rounded dot or a circular line as representative of the curved outline of the eye—whether that of the iris, of the visible part of the eyeball, or of the orbital cavity. A precisely similar scheme appears in the drawings of savages.[238]

Footnote 238:

Schoolcraft has a good example of this facial scheme in the drawing of a man shooting (_The Indian Tribes of the United States_, i., pl. 48).

At first the child is grandly indifferent to completeness in the enumeration of features. Even ‘the two eyes, a nose and a mouth’ are often imperfectly represented. Thus when dots are used we may have one or more specks ranging, according to M. Perez, up to five.[239] The use of a single dot for facial feature in general has its parallel in the art of savage tribes.[240] It is, however, I think, most common to introduce three dots in a triangular arrangement, presumably for eyes and mouth,—a device again which reappears in the art of uncivilised races.[241] Even when the young draughtsman has reached the stage of distinguishing the features he may be quite careless about number and completeness. Thus a feature may be omitted altogether. This funnily enough happens most frequently in the case of that one which seems to us ‘grown-ups’ most self-assertive and most resentful of indignity, _viz._, the nose. These moon-faces with two eyes and a mouth are very common among the first drawings of children. The mouth, on the other hand, is much less frequently omitted. The same thing seems to hold good of the drawings of savages.[242] The eyes are rarely omitted. The single dot may perhaps be said to stand for ‘eye’. Some drawings of savages have the two eyes and no other feature, as in the accompanying example from Andree, plate 3 (Fig. 4 (_a_)). On the other hand, a child will, as we have seen, sometimes content himself with one eye. This holds good not only where the dot is used but after something like an eye-circle is introduced, as in the accompanying drawing by a Jamaica girl of seven (Fig. 4 (_b_)).

Footnote 239:

_L’Art et la Poésie chez l’Enfant_, p. 186.

Footnote 240:

For an illustration see Andree, _Eth. Parallelen und Vergleiche_, pl. 3, fig. 19.

Footnote 241:

See for an example, Schoolcraft, iv., pl. 18.

Footnote 242:

According to Stanley Hall the nose comes after the mouth. This may be an approximate generalisation, but there are evidently exceptions to it. On the practice of savage draughtsmen see the illustrations of Australian cave drawings in Andree, _op. cit._, p. 159. _Cf._ the drawings of Brazilian tribes, plate iii., 15. In some cases there seems a preference for the nose, certain of the Brazilian drawings representing facial features merely by a vertical stroke.

In these first attempts to sketch out a face we miss a sense of relative position and of proportion. It is astonishing what a child on first attempting to draw a human or animal form can do in the way of dislocation or putting things into the wrong place. The little girl mentioned by E. Cooke on trying, about the same age, to draw a cat from a model actually put the circle representing the eye outside that of the head. With this may be compared the drawings of Von den Steinen and other Europeans made by his Brazil Indian companions, in which what was distinctly said by the draughtsman to be the moustache was in more than one instance set above the eyes (Fig. 4 (_c_)). When dots are inserted in the linear scheme they are apt at first to be thrown in anyhow. The two eyes, I find, when these only are given, may be put one above the other as well as one by the side of the other, and both arrangements occur in the drawings of the same child. And much later when greater attention to position is observable there is a general tendency to put the group of features too high up, _i.e._, to make the forehead or brain region too small in proportion to the chin region (_cf._ above, Fig. 2, p. 336).[243]

Footnote 243:

M. Passy calls attention to this in his interesting note on children’s drawings, _Revue Philosophique_, 1891, p. 614 ff. I find however that though the error is a common one it is not constant.

The want of proportion is still more plainly seen in the treatment of the several features. The eye, as already remarked, is apt to be absurdly large. In the drawing of Mr. Cooke’s little girl mentioned above it is actually larger than the head outside which it lies. This enlargement continues to appear frequently in later drawings, more particularly when one eye only is introduced, as in the accompanying drawing by a boy in his seventh year (Fig. 5 (_a_); _cf._ above, Fig. 4 (_b_)). The mouth is apt to be even more disproportionate, the child appearing to delight in making this appalling feature supreme, as in the following examples, both by boys of five (Fig. 5 (_b_) and (_c_)). The ear, when it is added, is apt to be enormous, and generally the introduction of new details as ears, hair, hands, is wont to be emphasised by an exaggeration of their magnitude.

Very interesting is the gradual artistic evolution of the features. Here, as in organic evolution, there is a process of specialisation, the primordial indefinite form taking on more of characteristic complexity. In the case of the eye, for example, we may often trace a gradual development, the dot being displaced by a small circle or ovoid, this last supplemented by a second circle outside the first,[244] or by one or by two arches, the former placed above, the latter above and below the circle. The form remains throughout an abstract outline or scheme, there being no attempt to draw even the lines—_e.g._, those of the lid-margins—correctly, or to indicate differences of light and dark, save in the case where a central black dot is used. In this schematic treatment so striking and interesting a feature as the eye-lash only very rarely finds a place. A similar schematic treatment of the eye in the use of a dot, a dot in a circle, and two circles, is observable in the drawings of savages and of Egyptian and other archaic art.[245]

Footnote 244:

In one case I find the curious device of two dots or small circles, one above the other within a larger circle, and this form repeated in the eye of animals.

Footnote 245:

An example of circle within circle occurs in a drawing by a male Zulu in General Pitt-Rivers’ collection.

The evolution of the mouth is particularly interesting. It is wont to begin with a horizontal line (or what seems intended for such) which is frequently drawn right across the facial circle. But a transition soon takes place to a more distinctive representation. This is naturally enough carried out by the introduction of the characteristic and interesting detail, the teeth. This may be done, according to M. Perez, by keeping to the linear representation, the teeth being indicated by dots placed upon the horizontal line. In all the cases observed by me the teeth are introduced in a more realistic fashion in connexion with a contour to suggest the parted lips. The contour—especially the circular or ovoid—occasionally appears by itself without teeth, but the teeth seem to be soon added. The commonest forms of tooth-cavity I have met with are a narrow rectangular and a curved spindle-shaped slit with teeth appearing as vertical lines (see the two drawings by boys of six and five, Fig. 6 (_a_) and (_b_)). These two forms are improved upon and more likeness is introduced by making the dental lines shorter, as in Fig. 5 (_c_) (p. 340). With this may be compared a drawing by a boy of five (Fig. 6 (_c_)), where however we see a movement from realism in the direction of a freer decorative treatment.

A somewhat similar process of evolution is noticeable in the case of the nose, though here the movement is soon brought to a standstill. Thus the vertical line gives place to an angle, which may point to the side, as in the drawing of a country-boy between three and four (Fig. 7 (_a_)), but more frequently, I think, points upwards, as in the drawing of a boy of six (Fig. 7 (_b_)). This in its turn leads to an isosceles triangle with an acute angle at the apex, as in the drawing of a boy of six (Fig. 7 (_c_)). In a few cases a long spindle-shaped or rectangular form similar to that of the mouth is employed, as in a drawing of a nervous child of six (Fig. 7 (_d_)). Refinements are introduced now and again by an attempt at the nostrils, as in the accompanying curious drawing by a seven-years-old Jamaica girl (Fig. 7 (_e_)).[246]

Footnote 246:

It is possible that in this drawing the two short lines added to the mouth are an original attempt to give the teeth.

The introduction of other features, more especially ears and hair, must, according to my observations, be looked on as occasional only, and as a mark of an advance to a more naturalistic treatment. Differences of treatment occur here too. Thus the ears, which are apt to be absurdly large, are now inserted inside the head circle, now outside it. The hair appears now as a dark cap of horizontal strokes, now as a kind of stunted fringe, now as a bundle or wisp on one side, which may either fall or stand on end (see above, Fig. 7 (_d_), and the accompanying drawing by a girl of nearly four, Fig. 8 (_a_)). These methods of representation are occasionally varied by a more elaborate line-device, as a curly looped line similar to that employed for smoke, as in the annexed drawing by a girl of seven (Fig. 8 (_b_)).

As implied in this account of the facial features, a good deal of convention-like agreement of method is enlivened by a measure of diversity of treatment. Perhaps one of the most striking instances of daring originality is seen in the attempt by a girl of four—who was subjected to a great deal of instruction—to give separate form to the chin (Fig. 9). This may be compared with the attempt of the Uganda negro to indicate symbolically the cheeks (see above, p. 336, Fig. 3).