Part 30

As I have remarked, to the child bent on representing ‘man’ the head or face is at first the principal thing, some early drawings contenting themselves with this. But in general the head receives some support. The simplest device here is the abstract mode of representation by two supporting lines, which do duty for legs and body. These are for the most part parallel (see above, p. 336, Fig. 2), though occasionally they are united at the top, making a kind of target figure. This same arrangement, fixing the head on two upright lines, meets us also in the rude designs of savages, as may be seen in the accompanying rock inscription from Schoolcraft (Fig. 10).[247]

Footnote 247:

_Op. cit._, pt. iv., plate 18.

The comparative indifference of the child to the body or trunk is seen in the obstinate persistence of this simple scheme of head and legs, to which two arms attached to the sides of the head are often added. A child will complete the drawing of the head by inserting hair or a cap, and will even add feet and hands, before he troubles to bring in the trunk (see above, p. 336, Fig. 2, and p. 342, Fig. 7 (_d_), also the accompanying drawing by a boy of six, Fig. 11 (_a_)). With this neglect of the trunk by children may be compared the omission of it—as if it were a forbidden thing—in one of General Pitt-Rivers’ drawings, executed by a Zulu woman (Fig. 11(_b_)).

From this common way of spiking the head on two forked or upright legs there is one important deviation. The contour of the head may be left incomplete, and the upper occipital part of the curve be run on into the leg-lines, as in the accompanying example by a Jamaica girl of seven (Fig. 12). I have met with no example of this among English children.

The drawing of the trunk may commence in one of two ways. With English children it appears often to emerge as an expansion or prolongation of the head-contour, as in the accompanying drawings of the front and side view (Fig. 13 (_a_) and (_b_)).[248] Or, in the second place, the leg-scheme may be modified, either by drawing a horizontal line across them and so making a rectangle, as in the accompanying drawing by a boy of six, or by shading in the upper part of the space, as in the other figure by a girl of five (Fig. 13 (_c_) and (_d_)). A curious and interesting variant of this second mode of introducing the trunk is to be found in the drawings of Von den Steinen’s Brazilians, where the leg-lines are either kept parallel for a while and then made to diverge, or are pinched in below what may be called the pelvis, though not completely joined (Fig. 13 (_e_) and (_f_)).

Footnote 248:

A drawing given by Andree, _op. cit._, plate ii., II, seems to me to illustrate a somewhat similar attempt to develop the trunk out of the head.

When the trunk is distinctly marked off, it is apt to remain small in proportion to the head, as in the following two drawings by boys of about five (Fig. 14 (_a_) and (_b_)). As to its shape, it is most commonly circular or ovoid like the head. But the square or rectangular form is also found, and in the case of certain children it is expressly stated that this came later. A triangular cape-like form also appears now and again, as in the accompanying drawing by a boy of six (Fig. 14 (_c_)).[249] The treatment of the form of trunk often varies in the drawings of the same child.

Footnote 249:

The opposite arrangement of a triangle on its apex occurs among savage drawings.

At this stage there is no attempt to show the joining on of the head to the trunk by means of the neck. The oval of the head is either laid on the top of that of the trunk, or more commonly cuts off the upper end of the latter. The neck, when first added, is apt to take the exaggerated look of caricature. It may be represented by a single line, by a couple of parallel lines, or by a small oval or circle, as in the accompanying drawings by a girl of six and a boy of five respectively (Fig. 15 (_a_) and (_b_); _cf._ above, p. 342, Fig. 7 (_b_)).

It is noticeable that there is sometimes a double body, two oval contours being laid one upon the other. In certain cases this looks very like an expansion of the neck, as in the accompanying drawing by the same boy that drew the round neck above (Fig. 16 (_a_)). In other cases the arrangement plainly does not aim at differentiating the neck, since this part is separately dealt with (Fig. 16 (_b_)). Here it may possibly mean a crude attempt to indicate the division of the trunk at the waist, as brought out especially by female attire, as may be seen in the accompanying drawing where the dots for buttons on each oval seem to show that the body is signified (Fig. 16 (_c_); _cf._ above, p. 342, Fig. 7 (_c_)).[250] This, along with the triangular cape-shape of the trunk, is one of the few illustrations of the effect of dress on the first childish treatment of the figure. As a rule, this primitive art is a study of nature in so far as the artificial adjuncts of dress are ignored, and the rounded forms of the body are, though crudely enough no doubt, hinted at.

Footnote 250:

On the other hand I find the button dots sometimes omitted in the lower oval.

Coming now to the arms we find that their introduction is very uncertain. To the child, as also to the savage, the arms are what the Germans call a Nebensache—side-matter (_i.e._, figuratively as well as literally), and are omitted in rather more than one case out of two. After all, the divine portion, the head, can be supported very well without their help.

The arms, as well as the legs, being the thin lanky members, are commonly represented by lines. The same thing is noticeable in the drawings of savages.[251] The arms appear in the front view of the figure as stretched out horizontally, or, at least, reaching out from the sides; and their appearance always gives a certain liveliness to the figure, an air of joyous self-proclamation, as if they said in their gesture-language, ‘Here I am’ (see above, p. 339, Fig. 5 (_a_), and the accompanying drawing of a boy of six, Fig. 17).

Footnote 251:

For examples, see Andree, _op. cit._, plate 3. _Cf._ the drawings of Von den Steinen’s Brazilians.

In respect of shape and structure a process of evolution may be observed. In certain cases the abstract linear representation gives place to contour, the arm being drawn of a certain thickness. But I find that the linear representation of the arm often persists after the legs have received contour, this being probably another illustration of the comparative neglect of the arm; as in the accompanying drawing by a boy of five (Fig. 18 (_a_)). The primal rigid straightness yields later on to the freedom of an organ. Thus an attempt is made to represent by means of a curve the look of the bent arm, as in the accompanying drawings by boys of five (Fig. 18 (_b_) and (_c_)). In other cases the angle of the elbow is indicated. This last comes comparatively late in children’s drawings, which here, too, lag behind the crudest outline sketches of savages.

The mode of insertion or attachment of the arms is noteworthy. Where they are added to the trunkless figure they appear as emerging either from the sides of the head, as in the accompanying drawing by a boy of two and a half years, or from the point of junction of the head and legs (Fig. 19; _cf._ above, p. 342, Fig.7 (_d_) and (_e_)). In the case of savage drawings wanting the trunk the arm is also inserted at this point of junction (see above, pp. 344, 346, Figs. 10 and 13 (_f_)).[252]

Footnote 252:

On the treatment of the arm in the drawings of savages, see in addition to the authorities already mentioned _The Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology_, 1883-4, p. 42 ff.

After the trunk has been added, the mode of insertion varies still more. In a not inconsiderable number of cases the arms spring from the bottom of the head-circle, and sometimes even from the median region, as before the trunk appeared (_cf._ above, p. 346, Fig. 14 (_b_)). In the last case the most grotesque arrangements occur, as if the arms might sprout at any point of the surface.[253] In the majority of cases, however, and certainly among the better drawings, the arms spring from the side of the trunk towards the median level (_cf._ above, p. 341, Fig. 6 (_a_)).

Footnote 253:

The tendency which appears in more than one child’s drawings to put the right arm below the left is worth noting, though I am not prepared to offer an explanation of the phenomenon.

The length of the arm is frequently exaggerated. This adds to the self-expansive and self-proclamatory look of the mannikin, as may be seen in the accompanying drawings by boys of five and of six respectively (Fig. 20 (_a_) and (_b_)).

This arrangement of the arms stretched straight out, or less commonly pointing obliquely upwards or downwards, continues until the child grows bold enough to represent actions. When this stage is reached their form and length may be materially modified, as also their position.[254]

Footnote 254:

On the treatment of the arm, see Perez, _op. cit._, p. 190: _cf._ Ricci, _op. cit._, pp. 6-8. I have met with no case of the arms being attached to the legs such as Stanley Hall speaks of, _Contents of Children’s Minds_, p. 267.

The arm in these childish drawings early develops the interesting adjunct of a hand. Like other features this is apt at first to be amusingly forced into prominence by its size, and not infrequently by heaviness of stroke as well.

The treatment of the hand illustrates the process of artistic evolution, the movement from a bold symbolism in the direction of a more life-like mode of representation. Thus one of the earliest and rudest devices I have met with, though in a few cases only, is that of drawing strokes across the line of the arm by way of digital symbols. Here we have merely a clumsy attempt to convey the abstract idea of branching or bifurcation. These cross-strokes are commonly continued upwards so that the whole visible part of the arm becomes tree-like. It is an important step from this to the drawing of twig-like lines which bifurcate with the line of the arm (Fig. 21 (_a_) and (_b_)).

It is a still more significant advance in the process of evolution when the digital bifurcations are placed rightly, being concentrated in a bunch-like arrangement at the extremity of the arm-line. Here, again, various modes of treatment disclose themselves, marking stages in the development of the artist.

The simplest device would seem to be to draw one short line on either side of the termination of the arm-line so as to produce a rude kind of bird’s foot form. This may be done clumsily by drawing a stroke across at right angles to the line of the arm, or better by two independent strokes making acute angles with this line. These two modes of delineation manifestly represent a restriction of the two varieties of diffuse or dispersed treatment of the fingers already illustrated. Both forms occur among children’s drawings. They may be found among the drawings of savages as well.[255]

Footnote 255:

See Andree’s collection, _op. cit._, ii., II.

In this terminal finger-arrangement the number of finger-lines varies greatly, being, in the cases observed by me, frequently four and five, and sometimes even as great as ten. It varies, too, greatly in the drawings of the same child, and in some cases even in the two hands of the same figure, showing that number is not attended to, as may be seen in the two annexed drawings, both by boys of five (Fig. 22 (_a_) and (_b_)). The idea seems to be to set forth a multiplicity of branching fingers, and multiplicity here seems to mean three or more. The same way of representing the hand by a claw-form, in which the number of fingers is three or more, reappears in the drawings of savages (_cf._ above, p. 339, Fig. 4 (_c_)).[256]

Footnote 256:

Examples may be found in Catlin, Schoolcraft, Andree, Von den Steinen, and others, also in the drawings in the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Farnham. Von den Steinen gives a case of seven finger-strokes.

An important advance on these crude devices is seen where an attempt is made to indicate the hand and the relation of the fingers to this. One of the earliest of these attempts takes the form of the well-known toasting-fork or rake hand. Here a line at right angles to that of the arm symbolically represents the hand, and the fingers are set forth by the prongs or teeth (see above, p. 341, Fig. 6 (_a_), and p. 349, Fig. 18 (_a_)). Number is here as little attended to as in the radial arrangements. It is worth noting that this _schema_ seems to be widely diffused among children of different nationalities, and occurs in the drawings of untaught adults. I have not, however, noticed any example of it among savage drawings.

Another way of bringing in the hand along with the fingers is by drawing a dark central patch or knob. This not infrequently occurs without the fingers as the symbol for hand. It becomes a complete symbol by arranging finger-lines after the pattern of a burr about this (see above, p. 347, Fig. 15 (_a_)).

A further process of artistic evolution occurs when the fingers take on contour. This gives a look of branching leaves to the hand. The leaf-like pattern may be varied in different ways, among others by taking on a floral aspect of petal-like fingers about a centre, as in the two annexed drawings by boys of six (Fig. 23 (_a_) and (_b_); _cf._ above, p. 350, Fig. 20 (_a_)).

One curious arrangement by which a thickened arm is made to expand into something like a fan-shaped hand appears with considerable frequency. It is zoologically interesting as being a kind of rough representation of the fundamental typical form from which hand, fin, and wing may be supposed to have been evolved. Here the arm sinks into insignificance, the whole limb taking on the aspect of a prolonged hand, save where the artist resorts to the device of making the double organ go across the body (Fig. 24 (_a_) and (_b_)).

The legs come in for very much the same variety of treatment as the arms. The abstract straight line here, as already pointed out, soon gives place to the pair of lines representing thickness. They are for the most part parallel and drawn at some distance one from the other, though in certain cases there is a slight tendency to give to the figure the look of the ‘forked biped’ (_cf._ above, p. 342, Fig. 7 (_c_)). In a large proportion of cases there is a marked inclination of the legs, as indeed of the whole figure, which seems to be falling backwards (see above, pp. 340, 352, Figs. 5 (_c_) and 22 _(b_)). In many instances, in front and profile view alike, one of the legs is drawn under the body, leaving no room for the second, which is consequently pushed behind, and takes on the look of a tail (see above, p. 352, Fig. 22 (_b_)s).

Both legs are regularly shown alike in front and in profile view. Yet even in this simple case attention to number may sometimes lapse. Among the drawings collected by me is one by a boy of five representing the monster, a three-legged ‘biped’ (Fig. 25).[257]

Footnote 257:

Unless this is a jocose suggestion of a tail.

The shape of the leg varies greatly. With some children it is made short and fat. It develops a certain amount of curvature long before it develops a knee-bend. This is just what we should expect. The standing figure needs straight or approximately straight legs as its support. When the knee-bend is introduced it is very apt to be exaggerated (_cf._ above, Fig. 24 (_b_)). This becomes still more noticeable at a later stage, where actions, as running, are attempted.

The treatment of the foot shows a process of evolution similar to that seen in the treatment of the hand. At first a bald abstract indication or suggestion is noticeable, as where a short line is drawn across the extremity of the leg. In place of this a contour-form, more especially a circle or knob, may be used as a designation. Very interesting here is the differentiation of treatment according as the booted or naked foot is represented. Children brought up in a civilised community like England, though they sometimes give the naked foot (see p. 342, Fig. 7 (_d_), where the claw pattern is adopted), are naturally more disposed to envisage the foot under its boot-form. Among the drawings of the Jamaica children, presumably more familiar with the form of the naked foot, I find both the toasting-fork and the burr arrangement, as also a rude claw, or birch-like device used for the foot (see above, pp. 336, 338, 345, Figs. 2, 4 (_b_), and 12). The toasting-fork arrangement appears in General Pitt-Rivers’ collection of savage drawings. Also a bird’s foot treatment often accompanies a similar treatment of the hand in the pictographs of savage tribes, and in the drawings of Von den Steinen’s Brazilians (see above, pp. 338, 339, Fig. 4 (_a_) and (_c_)).

An attempt to represent the booted foot seems to be recognisable in the early use of a triangular form, as in the accompanying drawing by a small artist of five (Fig. 26 (_a_)).[258] Very curious is the way in which the child seeks to indicate the capital feature of the boot, the division of toe and heel. This is very frequently done by continuing the line of the leg so as to make a single or a double loop-pattern, as in the following (Fig. 26 (_b_), (_c_); _cf._ above, p. 342, Fig. 7 (_b_)). A tendency to a more restrained and naturalistic treatment is sometimes seen (see above, p. 354, Fig. 24 (_a_) and (_b_)). It may be added that the notch between toe and heel is almost always exaggerated. This may be seen by a glance at Figs. 17 and 22 (_a_), pp. 348, 352. The same thing is noticeable in a drawing by a young Zulu in General Pitt-Rivers’ collection.

Footnote 258:

This is hardly conclusive, as I find the triangular form used for the foot of a quadruped, presumably a horse.

_Front and Side View of Human Figure._

So far, I have dealt only with the treatment of the front view of the human face and figure. New and highly curious characteristics come into view when the child attempts to give the profile aspect. This comes considerably later than the early lunar representation of the full face.

Children still more than adults are interested in the full face with its two flashing and fascinating eyes. ‘If,’ writes a lady teacher of considerable experience in the Kindergarten, ‘one makes drawings in profile for quite little children, they will not be satisfied unless they see two eyes; and sometimes they turn a picture round to see the other side.’ This reminds one of a story told by Catlin of the Indian chief, who was so angry at a representation of himself in profile that the unfortunate artist was in fear of his life.

At the same time children do not rest content with this front view. There is, I believe, ample reason to say that, quite apart from teaching, they find their own way to a new mode of representing the face and figure which, though it would be an error to call it a profile drawing, has some of the characteristics of what we understand by this expression.

The first clear indication of an attempt to give the profile aspect of the face is the introduction of the angular line of the side view of the nose into the contour. The little observer is soon impressed by the characteristic, well-marked outline of the nose in profile; and as he cannot make much of the front view of the organ, he naturally begins at an early stage, certainly by the fifth year, to vary the scheme of the lunar circle, broken at most by the ears, by a projection answering to a profile nose.

This change is sometimes made without any other, so that we get what has been called the mixed scheme, in which the eyes and mouth retain their front-view aspect. This I find very common among children of five. It may be found—even in the trunkless figure—along with a linear mouth (see above, pp. 340-344, Figs. 5 (_c_) and following, also 11 (_a_)). The nasal line is, needless to say, treated with great freedom. There is commonly a good deal of exaggeration of size. In certain cases the nose is added in the form of a spindle to the completed circle (Fig. 27; _cf._ above, p. 340, Fig. 5 (_c_)).

It may well seem a puzzle to us how a normal child of five or six can complacently set down this irrational and inconsistent scheme of a human head. We must see what can be said by way of explanation later on. It is to be noticed, further, that in certain cases the self-contradiction goes to the point of doubling the nose. That is to say, although the interesting new feature, the profile nose, is introduced, earlier habit asserts itself so that the vertical nasal line appears between the two eyes (see above, p. 349, Fig. 18 (_c_)).

The further process of differentiation of the profile from the primitive full-face scheme is effected in part by adding other features than the nose to the contour. Thus a notch for the mouth appears in some cases below the nasal projection (Fig. 28 (_a_)), though the grinning front view is apt to hold its own pertinaciously. A beard, especially the short ‘imperial,’ as it used to be called, shooting out like the nose from the side, also helps to mark profile.[259] Less frequently an ear, and in a very few cases, hair, are added on the hinder side of the head, and assist the impression of profile. Adjuncts, especially the pipe, and sometimes the peak of the cap, contribute to the effect, as in the accompanying drawing by a boy of six (Fig. 28 (_b_); _cf._ above, Figs. 6 (_a_), 18 (_c_), and 24 (_b_), pp. 341, 349, 354).[260]

Footnote 259:

I take the long line in Fig. 27 to represent the manly beard.

Footnote 260:

In rare cases the pipe sticks out from the side of what is clearly the primitive full face. Schoolcraft gives an example of this, too, in Indian drawing, _op. cit._, pt. ii., pl. 41.