I '■'•■' 
 
Class JL, ¥S £> 
 Book.__iI_ 
 
 (bpyiigfit^ .. 
 
 CJ3EYRIGHI DEPOSE 
 
THE 
 PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
The Psychology of Drawing 
 
 With Special Reference to 
 Laboratory Teaching 
 
 Fred Carleton Ater 
 Professor of Education, University of Oregon 
 
 BALTIMORE : 
 
 WARWICK & YORK, INC. 
 
 1916 
 
27 ■ 
 
 COPYRIGHT 1916, 
 
 BY 
 
 WARWICK & YORK, INC. 
 
 JUL 17 1916 
 
 2CI.A445545 
 
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF 
 DRAWING 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 This book represents the results of a study of 
 drawing as a device in laboratory teaching which 
 has included a survey of the existing literature of 
 the psychology of drawing. An attempt has been 
 made to characterize the chief contributions to the 
 psychology of drawing and to organize the results 
 of the important studies in such a manner as to 
 afford students of the various aesthetic, economic, 
 and scientific aspects of drawing a scientific point 
 of departure. 
 
 It is with great pleasure that I indicate here my 
 sincere appreciation for the assistance which I 
 have received from teachers, friends, and students. 
 Among many deserving ones I wish to mention 
 in particular the names of Dr. Otis W. Caldwell, 
 Professor of the Teaching of Botany; Walter Sar- 
 gent, Professor of Education in Relation to Fine 
 and Industrial Arts; and Dr. Charles H. Judd, 
 Professor and Director of the School of Education 
 of the University of Chicago. Professor Cald- 
 well has given me great practical assistance in the 
 setting and investigation of the laboratory prob- 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 lem involved and has been of unfailing help and 
 encouragement throughout the study. I am a 
 heavy debtor to Professor Sargent for numerous 
 critical suggestions in the analysis of drawing and 
 hearty co-operation in a number of experiments. 
 Especial acknowledgment is cheerfully rendered to 
 Professor Judd whose keen criticism of the con- 
 tent and form of this production has removed 
 many errors and contributed greatly to its merit. 
 
 Fred Carleton Ayer. 
 University of Oregon, 
 September 15, 191 5. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PART I. THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM 
 
 Chapter I. The Problem Page 
 
 I. Introduction I 
 
 II. The General and Specific Problems 2 
 
 1. Analytical Observation 2 
 
 2. Laboratory Records 2 
 
 3. Retention 3 
 
 III. Definitions 4 
 
 1. Analytical Observation 5 
 
 2. Representative Drawing 6 
 
 3. Analytical Drawing 6 
 
 4. Memory Drawing 8 
 
 5. Spontaneous Drawing 8 
 
 6. Schema 8 
 
 IV. General Procedure 9 
 
 1. Correlation 9 
 
 2. Memory Tests 10 
 
 3. Introspection 10 
 
 4. General and Special Ability 10 
 
 5. The Effect of Analytical Seeing upon Draw- 
 
 ing 11 
 
 PART II. SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE OF 
 DRAWING. 
 
 Chapter II. The Methods of Research and Biblio- 
 graphical Survey 
 
 The Methods of Research 15 
 
 I. The Gross Products Method 16 
 
 II. The Special Products Method 18 
 
 III. The Comparative Products Method 33 
 
 IV. The Biographical Method 36 
 
 V. The Experimental Method 39 
 
 vii 
 
viii THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 Page 
 Chapter III. Studies in the Relation of Drawing 
 the Intellectual Development 
 
 I. Industrial versus Cultural Values 49 
 
 II. Scientific Values 55 
 
 III. Relation of Drawing to Special and General Apti- 
 tudes 58 
 
 Chapter IV. Studies in the Analysis of the Draw- 
 ing Product 
 
 I. Gross Products 67 
 
 II. Stages in the Development of Drawing 73 
 
 III. Drawing as a Form of Language 79 
 
 Chapter V. Studies in the Analysis of the Draw- 
 ing Act 
 
 I. Analysis of the Act of Drawing (Albien) 87 
 
 II. Perceptual Development (Judd and Cowling).. . . 91 
 
 III. Drawing Types (Albien) 92 
 
 IV. Difficulties of Drawing (Meumann) 97 
 
 V. Types of Retention (Meumann) 100 
 
 PART III. EXPERIMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS. 
 Chapter VI. The Experiments 
 
 I. Representative Drawing, Description, and Dia- 
 grammatic Drawing 107 
 
 1. Problem 107 
 
 2. Method of Procedure 107 
 
 3. Methods of Scoring 114 
 
 4. Method of Determining Correlation 121 
 
 (1) Correlation by the Rank Method. . . 122 
 
 (2) Theory of Correlation 126 
 
 5. Results and Conclusions 129 
 
 II. Drawing and School Grades 136 
 
 1. Problem 136 
 
 2. Materials 136 
 
CONTENTS ix 
 
 Page 
 
 3. Method of Procedure 136 
 
 4. Results 137 
 
 5. Special Observations 139 
 
 6. Conclusion 140 
 
 III. Retention and the Devices Used to Secure It 141 
 
 1. Problem 141 
 
 2. Method of Procedure, Test No. 1 141 
 
 3. Method of Scoring 142 
 
 4. Results of Test No. 1 142 
 
 5. Conclusion 144 
 
 6. Method of Procedure, Test No. 2 144 
 
 7. Results of Test No. 2 148 
 
 8. Conclusion 150 
 
 IV. Analysis 'of Observation during Representative 
 
 Drawing and Description 151 
 
 1. Problem 151 
 
 2. Method of Procedure 151 
 
 3. Analysis of Description and Drawing 152 
 
 V. The Effect of Analytical Observation upon Draw- 
 ing 154 
 
 1. Problem 154 
 
 2. Method of Procedure 154 
 
 3. Results 155 
 
 4. Conclusion 156 
 
 Chapter VII. Final Conclusions 
 
 I. The Psychological Analysis of Drawing 157 
 
 1. The Preconceived Purpose 157 
 
 2. The Ability to See 158 
 
 3. Ability to Represent 158 
 
 II. Adaptation of Laboratory Teaching 160 
 
 III. Analytical Observation 162 
 
 IV. Laboratory Records 165 
 
 V. Retention 166 
 
 VI. Recommendations 167 
 
 Bibliography 169 
 
PART I 
 
 THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM 
 
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO 
 
 LABORATORY TEACHING 
 
 Chapter I 
 
 THE PROBLEM 
 
 /. Introduction. 
 
 The laboratory method has come to be prac- 
 tically universal in the teaching of science. The 
 process of drawing is everywhere esteemed as a 
 most significant form of laboratory methodology. 
 To some degree in the physical sciences, but more 
 especially in the biological sciences, the amount of 
 time devoted to making pen and pencil drawings 
 is a major part of the laboratory procedure. Many 
 pupils encounter great difficulty in making the 
 required drawings. They either make poor draw- 
 ings or consume a disproportionate amount of 
 time in the effort to make good ones. Because of 
 this, many receive low grades, are discouraged, 
 and discontinue their work in the field of science. 
 The widespread use of a teaching device which 
 consumes extended periods of time in all cases, 
 and fails to meet the needs of individual pupils 
 in many cases, raises an important problem. 
 
2 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 II. The General and Specific Problems. 
 
 Laboratory work brings the pupil into first-hand 
 contact with the objective material with which 
 its particular science is concerned. The chief end 
 of laboratory work is to insure a better under- 
 standing and a more permanent retention of the 
 material concerned. Omitting personal demon- 
 stration and instruction, laboratory procedure 
 involves the following factors: 
 
 i. Analytical Observation. The pupil is given 
 oral or written directions of procedure which aim 
 to direct his attention to the material in such a 
 way that he will master it. Three special devices 
 are used to promote analytical observation. 
 
 (a) Representative Drawing. The student is 
 asked to reproduce the object in an imitative 
 drawing. "Lay the locust on its back. Make 
 a careful drawing, lateral view." 
 
 (b) Description. The student is asked to 
 describe what he observes. "What is the shape 
 of the head?"' 
 
 (c) Analytical Drawing. The pupil is asked 
 to explain in a schematic drawing some par- 
 ticular aspect of the object. "Make a dia- 
 grammatic drawing of the lily, showing the 
 relative position of the pistil, stamens, petals, 
 and sepals." 
 
 2. Laboratory Records. A second factor of 
 laboratory procedure is the laboratory record. 
 
THE PROBLEM 3 
 
 The pupil is asked to keep a graphic record of his 
 work which permits his instructor to measure his 
 progress. The record consists of one or more of 
 the following graphic products: 
 
 (a) Representative drawings. 
 
 (b) Descriptions. 
 
 (c) Analytical drawings. 
 
 3. Retention. A third factor of laboratory pro- 
 cedure is concerned with subsequent recall. The 
 results of laboratory work are fixed in memory 
 according to the success of the analytical observa- 
 tion and the reinforcement given by the making 
 of records. 
 
 In a word, laboratory work has three aims: the 
 observation of material, the making of records, 
 and the retention of learning. It furthers these 
 aims by three devices: representative drawing, 
 description, and analytical drawing. Our general 
 problem is to determine the character of the various 
 interrelations of the factors which enter into labora- 
 tory procedure. 
 
 Current practice varies as to the method of 
 securing analytical observation and recording 
 results. Most instructors give as few specific 
 directions as practicable so that the student may 
 exercise the maximum of initiative. The process 
 of descriptive explanation or that of drawing is 
 supposed to focus the attention upon the salient 
 characteristics of the object or organism. Many 
 
4 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 teachers, as we shall show presently, believe that 
 this is one of the particular values of representative 
 drawing. Similarly, in the recording of results, 
 description and drawing are used more or less 
 interchangeably, varying according to the labora- 
 tory manual used. Drawing almost always has 
 an important place in the records and in some 
 cases is used exclusively. Our special problem 
 is the psychological analysis of laboratory drawing. 
 Does drawing secure analytical observation? 
 Is drawing a reliable record of the pupil's work? 
 Does drawing promote the most desirable reten- 
 tion? If the process of drawing fails in any or all 
 of these respects, it follows directly that a very 
 conspicuous amount of present-day laboratory 
 methodology is founded upon fallacious principles 
 and is in need of radical readjustment. That such 
 is the case is the conclusion of this thesis, and it 
 is hoped that the facts emphasized by the analysis 
 of previous investigations and the results of the 
 present experiments will lead to a better under- 
 standing of the psychological principles involved 
 in drawing as well as materially improve present- 
 day methods of laboratory teaching. 
 
 III. Definitions. 
 
 At this point it will be well to define several 
 terms which appear frequently in the pages to 
 follow. An early understanding of these expres- 
 
THE PROBLEM 5 
 
 sions will aid materially in following the thread of 
 the succeeding discourse. 
 
 i. Analytical Observation. Every material ob- 
 ject or process has a number of characteristics 
 which may be grasped in consciousness with suf- 
 ficient clearness to afford a basis for comparison 
 and analysis. A locust's hind legs are longer 
 than his fore legs; a pendulum swings repeatedly 
 in the same period of time. Certain character- 
 istics, such as the lengths of the locust's legs, 
 are noticed because of difference; other charac- 
 teristics, such as the successive swings of the 
 pendulum, are compared on the basis of similar- 
 ity. In either case the observer notices the sep- 
 arate items as such first and makes the compar- 
 ison afterward. "The perception of sequence 
 aids us in the perception of difference." 
 
 What an individual sees in an object depends 
 upon the knowledge he brings to it. But it is 
 important to note that it depends upon much 
 more than that. The detail of observation is 
 determined by its immediate purpose. If we 
 study an insect with the preconceived purpose of 
 painting it, immediately we begin to compare 
 items of color and form. The entire analysis is 
 concerned with these things and no other. On 
 the other hand, if we approach the insect with 
 the preconceived purpose of discovering how 
 injurious it may be to the crops, at once we attend 
 
6 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 to the comparative structure of the insect's mouth- 
 parts, its egg-laying apparatus, or similar ana- 
 tomical features. It is obvious that the items of 
 analysis must be related to the problem of the 
 particular moment. This is a matter of great 
 pedagogical importance to laboratory teaching, 
 because there are innumerable characteristics 
 attaching to any object or process which are not 
 of scientific importance. The analysis must in- 
 volve scientific comparisons and not those of 
 aesthetic, moral, or other interest. 
 
 Our particular interest, then, in "analytical 
 observation" is the interest of science, and as 
 such we shall use the expression herein. The 
 method of its attainment is one of our major 
 problems. 
 
 2. Representative Drawing. A drawing is "repre- 
 sentative" which reproduces as accurately as 
 possible the exact appearance of an object. The 
 product is a visual imitation of the original. 
 Representative drawing may refer either to the 
 process or to the product. 
 
 j. Analytical Drawing. When imitation is not 
 the chief end, representation in drawing may be 
 modified in various ways. This begins with the 
 omission of certain details of surface appearance. 
 A drawing of a chair does not show the grain of 
 the wood. Omission continues until the mere 
 outline of the object completes the representation. 
 
THE PROBLEM 7 
 
 Whatever is shown is emphasized at the expense 
 of the characteristics left out. 
 
 The actual appearance of the object is altered 
 in a second type of modification. This is well 
 shown in the illustrations of our elementary physi- 
 ologies, where the structures are greatly simplified 
 in the drawings, as, for example, the cross section 
 of the thorax. 
 
 A third type transcends the limits of perspective 
 and opacity. The drawing shows more than the 
 eye can actually see. The same drawing, for 
 example, shows the shoe, the foot, and the bones 
 of the foot. This is sometimes called logical 
 realism as distinguished from the visual realism 
 of representative drawing. 
 
 A fourth modification of the representative 
 drawing is the type or symbolic drawing. This 
 drawing portrays the characteristic features only, 
 which a number of objects have in common. It 
 is generic rather than specific. The type drawing 
 of a bird, for example, is not an imitation of an 
 actual bird, but exhibits such features as feathers, 
 beak, wings, etc., which all birds have in common. 
 The perfect type drawing shows all of the common 
 features of the group represented. As its symbol- 
 ism becomes more and more pronounced, it loses 
 in visual representation until but one pronounced 
 characteristic may mark the type, as when a 
 single feather stands for bird. 
 
8 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 It must not be supposed that these four primary 
 modifications of drawing are entirely distinct 
 from one another. As a matter of fact, they are 
 closely interrelated. In practice the schematic 
 drawing is ordinarily a blend of two or more of 
 the typical modifications. But whatever the form 
 of the modified drawing, a preliminary compari- 
 son and analysis of the characteristics which are 
 to be emphasized in the drawing is necessary. 
 The analysis may result in no more than the 
 simple diagram of the hand, or it may lead to the 
 synthesis necessary to construct a drawing which 
 shows the basic floral plan of the entire rose fam- 
 ily. In any case the resultant drawing is an indi- 
 cation of preliminary analysis and gives rise to 
 the name "analytical drawing," which we have 
 chosen and will use in this sense. 
 
 4. Memory Drawing. This expression refers to 
 drawings of objects or scenes from the memory of 
 one or more previous views. 
 
 5. Spontaneous Drawing. A drawing which is 
 made voluntarily by a child from memory or the 
 imagination without previous suggestion of a 
 subject. 
 
 6. Schema. This term refers to any typical 
 drawing which is used repeatedly to represent the 
 same class of objects. A circle, for example, with 
 two straight lines attached below is frequently 
 the child's first "schema" for a man. At the 
 
THE PROBLEM 9 
 
 other end of the scale is the mass of detailed 
 schemata which the professional drawer ordinarily 
 has at his command, enabling him to make an 
 instant memory drawing of practically any com- 
 mon form. 
 
 IV. General Procedure. 
 
 My attention was called to the problem involved 
 in the use of drawings for analytical and repre- 
 sentative purposes while directing the laboratory 
 drawing of various students in biology classes. 
 The frequently observed variations in drawing 
 ability among students otherwise similarly gifted, 
 and the difficulties with drawing experienced by 
 certain pupils who were excellent in grasping scien- 
 tific principles, led me to set the definite problem 
 of measuring the correlation between drawing 
 and the study of science. In this I have utilized 
 the following general procedure. (For details 
 and results of these tests, see later chapters.) 
 
 1. Correlation. Four groups of subjects were 
 carefully tested with unfamiliar objects as to their 
 abilities in drawing, description, and diagramming. 
 The members of each group were then ranked 
 serially in the order of the merit of their produc- 
 tions by a group of judges. The amount of cor- 
 relation existing between any two abilities, such 
 as drawing and description, was then established 
 by the use of a correlation formula. The four 
 groups of subjects follow. 
 
io THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 (a) 51 high school students of the University 
 of Chicago High School, examined in 19 12. 
 
 (b) 48 graduate students in the School of 
 Education, University of Chicago, examined in 
 1912. 
 
 (c) 50 college students of the University of 
 Oregon, examined in 191 3. 
 
 (d) 61 college students of the University of 
 Oregon, examined in 1913. 
 
 2. Memory Tests. After the students in groups 
 (a), (c), and (d), above, had drawn and described 
 various objects, they were examined as to their 
 memory of the various details. Comparison 
 between the effects of the two processes was then 
 made, either by the process of serial correlation 
 or on a percentage-of -error basis. 
 
 3. Introspection. Immediately after drawing 
 and describing an object, group (b), above, made 
 an introspective analysis of the two processes 
 involved. This has been supplemented by numer- 
 ous tests of individuals of a similar nature since 
 1912. 
 
 4. General and Special Ability. In 191 3 I made 
 an investigation of the correlation between ability 
 in drawing and aptitude in other school subjects 
 on the basis of school grades. In this I compared 
 the grades of the 51 University High School stu- 
 dents with their ranking in drawing as discovered 
 in the special tests. In addition I compared the 
 
THE PROBLEM II 
 
 grades received in drawing by 141 normal school 
 students with the grades received in all other 
 subjects. 
 
 5. The Effect of Analytical Seeing upon Draw- 
 ing. In 191 2 I made an experimental study with 
 16 subjects who were students in the University 
 of Chicago School of Education. Eight of the 
 subjects were directed to consider the compari- 
 son between the size of the beak and of the foot 
 of a bird. The other eight were directed to study 
 the details of the bird's foot. The entire group 
 was then directed to make an accurate repre- 
 sentative drawing of the bird, which was placed 
 in full view of all. Comparative measurements 
 were then made of the individual drawings. 
 
 In addition to these original tests I have had 
 children of various ages and a number of adults 
 make drawings to exemplify the results of a num- 
 ber of the experiments listed in the following 
 survey. 
 
PART II 
 
 SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE OF 
 DRAWING 
 
Chapter II 
 
 THE METHODS OF RESEARCH AND BIB- 
 LIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY 
 
 The methods of research which have been 
 employed in the analysis of the activity and re- 
 sults of drawing may be divided into two general 
 groups — the objective and the subjective. The 
 objective methods are typical of investigations 
 which have been chiefly concerned with the study 
 of the products of drawing. The subjective meth- 
 ods are typical of the researches which have in- 
 quired more specifically into the mental or formal 
 phenomena which accompany the process of draw- 
 ing. It is profitable for purposes of analysis to 
 subdivide the objective and subjective methods 
 into a number of subordinate types which are 
 characteristic of the various studies of the psychol- 
 ogy of drawing up to the present time. 
 
 Objective Methods 
 
 i. Gross Products Method. In which the inves- 
 tigation has to do with relatively indiscriminate 
 collection of large numbers of drawings. 
 
 2. Special Products Method. In which the 
 study is concerned with the collection of drawings 
 related to some specific theme, such as the illus- 
 trations of a given story. 
 
 15 
 
16 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 3. Comparative Products Method. In which the 
 drawings of one typical group of individuals are 
 compared to the drawings of a second, as the 
 drawings of children with those of savages. 
 
 Subjective Methods 
 
 4. Biographical Method. In which drawings of 
 the same individuals are collected in a series cover- 
 ing an extended period of time and accompanied 
 by records of the subjective behavior. 
 
 5. Experimental Method. In which the act or 
 process of drawing is analyzed by a relatively 
 definitely controlled experiment. 
 
 The five types of research indicated above will 
 be treated in greater detail in the following sum- 
 mary of methods and related bibliography. 
 
 I. The Gross Products Method. 1 
 
 This method involves the gathering of a great 
 mass of objective material in the way of drawings 
 collected by parents or teachers who are not 
 familiar with accurate psychological procedure. 
 The drawings are analyzed with reference to 
 whate\er common facts may appear. The gross 
 products method has a serious disadvantage in 
 
 1 Compare "die statistische Methode" of Ruttmann (87) 
 and "la methode de collectionnement " of Rouma (86). 
 (Figures in parentheses refer to the number of the citation 
 as listed in the bibliography at the close of this work.) 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 17 
 
 that the more essential conditions and circum- 
 stances attendant upon the individual drawing 
 are not known to the interpreter of the accumulated 
 results. This results in generalizations upon 
 seeming similarities which are in reality due to 
 different causes. There are also dangers due to 
 the effects of influence unknown to the collector, 
 such as advice from the parent or imitation of 
 other drawings. 
 
 Investigations of this type were very popular in 
 the United States during the last decade of the 
 nineteenth century and, while open to criticism, 
 have paved the way for more accurate conclu- 
 sions as the conditions of the drawing have been 
 determined with greater precision. 
 
 From the historical point of view, one of the 
 most important studies of this type is that made 
 by Carrado Ricci 1 of Bologne, Italy. His work 
 created widespread interest in children's draw- 
 ings and has been widely quoted by subsequent 
 writers. Ricci's material included 100 drawings by 
 children of his friends, 1000 drawings made in 
 the common schools of Bologne, and 250 drawings 
 from the schools of Modene, together with the 
 modelings in clay by 20 children. Ricci's work 
 discusses a number of phases of drawing which 
 have been studied in detail by subsequent investi- 
 
 1 Ricci, L'Art dei Bambini, 1887. (See bibliography for 
 complete titles.) 
 
18 ] THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 gators, such as stages in the evolution of drawing, 
 the child's sense of beauty, the development of 
 the sense of color, and the art of primitive races. 
 
 Other studies of this type are those of Hall 1 , 
 O'Shea, 2 Maitland, 3 Lukens, 4 and Barnes. 5 Hall 
 interpreted a number of drawings of children as 
 indicative of their early thinking. O'Shea made a 
 study of the drawings of a number of Wisconsin 
 school children from 5 to 17 years of age. Mrs. 
 Maitland made an analysis of 1570 drawings of 
 California children from 5 to 17 years. Lukens 
 studied the drawings of 1232 attempts at repre- 
 sentation by children under 10 years. Barnes 
 interpreted 700 papers by girls in London Board 
 Schools writing under the direction: "Describe 
 the prettiest thing you have ever seen, and say 
 why you thought it pretty." 
 
 II. The Special Products Method. 6 
 
 With the establishment of more definite condi- 
 tions as to the incentive for drawing and the com- 
 
 1 Hall, Contents of Children's Minds on Entering School, 
 1892. 
 
 2 O'Shea, Children's Expression through Drawing, 1894. 
 
 3 Maitland, What Children Draw to Please Themselves, 
 
 1895. 
 
 4 Lukens, A Study of Children's Drawings in the Early 
 Years, 1896. 
 
 5 Barnes, The Prettiest Thing, 1902. 
 
 6 Compare "die monographische Methode" of Ruttmann 
 and "la methode des enqueues" of Rouma. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 19 
 
 position of the group of drawers, the gross pro- 
 ducts method passes over into the special products 
 method. The incentive for drawing may vary 
 according to the interest of the investigator, but 
 it always centers in a definite problem. For 
 instance, a group of children is asked to illustrate 
 a story which has just been read to them, to draw 
 a picture of a house from memory, or to represent 
 some object presented directly to them. The 
 homogeneity of the group is definitely restricted 
 in age, training, sex, race, etc., according to the 
 purpose of the study. The products obtained 
 permit the analysis of the perceptual and pre- 
 sentation side of drawing to a certain degree, but 
 the emphasis is laid upon the product itself. It 
 is not essential that the investigator be present or 
 that a record be kept of the accompanying sub- 
 jective phenomena. 
 
 The majority of existing researches have util- 
 ized this method in whole or in part, and a wealth 
 of material has been collected. The chief center 
 of activity in this field for the past decade has 
 been on continental Europe, although such early 
 American works as those of Barnes are of impor- 
 tance in this field. 
 
 The work of Earl Barnes 1 is one of the earliest 
 attempts to interpret large numbers of children's 
 drawings secured upon this basis. Barnes made 
 
 1 Barnes, A Study of Children's Drawings, 1893. 
 
20 THE PSYCHOLOGY OP DRAWING 
 
 use of an English version of the poem Hans Guck- 
 In-Die-Luft, taken from Der Struwwelpeter. The 
 poem was first read to the children; they were 
 then told that they were to draw one or more 
 pictures from the story. The story was read the 
 second time and the children proceeded to draw. 
 The poem follows: 
 
 JOHNNY HEAD-IN-THE-AIR 
 
 As he trudged along to school, 
 It was always Johnny's rule 
 To be looking at the sky 
 And the clouds that floated by; 
 But just what before him lay, 
 In his way, 
 
 Johnny never thought about; 
 So that everyone cried out: 
 "Look at little Johnny there, 
 Little Johnny Look-In-The-Air." 
 
 Running just in Johnny's way, 
 
 Came a little dog one day; 
 
 Johnny's eyes were still astray 
 
 Up on high, in the sky; 
 
 And he never heard them cry: 
 
 "Johnny, mind the dog is nigh!" 
 
 What happens now? 
 
 Down they fell with such a thump, 
 
 Dog and Johnny in a lump! 
 
 They almost broke their bones, 
 
 So hard they tumbled on the stones. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 21 
 
 Once with head as high as ever, 
 Johnny walked beside the river. 
 Johnny watched the swallows trying 
 Which was cleverest at flying. . . 
 Going in and coming out — 
 This was all he thought about, 
 So he strode on — only think! — 
 To the river's very brink, 
 Where the bank was high and steep, 
 And the water very deep; 
 And the fishes in a row, 
 Stared to see him coming so. 
 
 One step more! Oh, sad to tell! 
 
 Headlong in poor Johnny fell. 
 
 The three little fishes in dismay, 
 
 Wagg'd their heads and swam away. 
 
 There lay Johnny on his face, 
 
 With his nice red writing-case; 
 
 But, as they were passing by, 
 
 Two strong men had heard him cry; 
 
 And, with sticks, these two strong men 
 
 Hook'd poor Johnny out again. 
 
 Oh! you should have seen him shiver 
 
 When they pulled him from the river. 
 
 He was in a sorry plight, 
 
 Dripping wet, and such a fright! 
 
22 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 This poem presents two catastrophes and, in 
 all, nine scenes for illustration. The aim of the 
 research was to determine what scenes were most 
 often drawn; at what ages the greatest number of 
 pictures were drawn; differences between boys 
 and girls; and the laws governing the use of full 
 face and profile. In all, Barnes collected 6393 
 papers (chiefly from California), including 15,218 
 pictures from children about equally distributed 
 among the ages 8 to 16. S. Partridge in England, 
 and Levinstein and Lamprecht in Germany, have 
 used this same story and sheet of instructions. 
 
 Clark 1 made use of some 700 drawings of chil- 
 dren in a study of their difficulties with perspective. 
 The first group of drawings collected were the 
 products of the attempts of children to draw an 
 apple with a hat pin stuck horizontally through it 
 and turned at an angle to the observer. A second 
 group consisted of the representations of a book 
 lying side down and turned at an angle to the 
 observer. 
 
 Lena Partridge 8 has classified the drawings of 
 men and women by 2000 English children from 3 
 to 13 years of age. Her analysis of the graphic 
 products is made for various ages on the basis 
 of (1) presence of certain parts of the human 
 
 1 Clark, The Child's Attitude toward Perspective Prob- 
 lems, 1897. 
 
 1 Lena Partridge, Children's Drawings of Men and Women, 
 1900. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 23 
 
 figure, (2) mode of representation of parts, (3) 
 direction and inclination of parts, (4) attention 
 given to clothes, and (5) sex differences. 
 
 Miss Findley 1 investigated the special problem 
 of the presence of artistic taste among children. 
 
 Among the studies made in France, Belgium, 
 and Switzerland may be mentioned those of 
 Passy, Perez, Schuyten, Claparede and Geux, 
 Ivanof, and Rouma. Passy 2 and Perez s employ 
 the method of direct observation of a number of 
 children drawing under particular assignments. 
 The results of their observations are among the 
 earlier publications. Schuyten, 4 beginning in 1901, 
 made a study of the evolution of the human figure 
 in drawings by children from 3 to 13, using for 
 the most part the special products method. He 
 visited unannounced a number of schools at ap- 
 proximately the same time of day and requested 
 the children to draw the figure of a man as they 
 were in the habit of doing. The children were 
 given entire freedom in their procedure. Schuyten 
 obtained 20 series of drawings, 100 for each half- 
 year period of ages running from 3 to 13 years, and 
 divided equally among boys and girls. He utilized 
 the materials as follows: 
 
 1 Findley, Design in the Art Training of Young Children, 
 1906. 
 1 Passy, Notes sur les Dessins des Enfants, 1891. 
 
 3 Perez, L'Art et la Poesie chez l'Enfant, 1888. 
 
 4 Schuyten, Het oorspronkelijk teekenen als bijdrage tot 
 kinderanalyse, 1901. 
 
24 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 1. By a lengthy and minute analysis of the 
 manner in which the various parts, head, mouth, 
 teeth, etc., were drawn, he established a quali- 
 tative coefficient of the degree of perfection of 
 each group. 
 
 2. A most elaborate quantitative study was 
 made by exact and detailed measurements of all 
 anatomical variations in the head, nose, neck, 
 trunk, hands, etc. 
 
 3. The development of artistic standards was 
 ascertained by a comparison with classic ideals. 
 
 4. After many attempts the endeavor to estab- 
 lish types for the human figure at each age was 
 abandoned. 
 
 Probst, 1 an instructor in a native school in 
 Algiers, tested some of Levinstein's conclusions 2 
 in a study of a preparatory class of 53 Kabyle 
 children of a tribe entirely free from European 
 mixture. Probst first caused them to draw such 
 pictures as they desired of their own accord. He 
 then compared their choice of subjects with that 
 of European children. In a second experiment he 
 had them draw from memory a different type of 
 object on each school day for four successive 
 weeks. They drew one or more men on Mon- 
 days, a quadruped on Tuesdays, a bird on Wed- 
 nesdays, a familiar scene on Thursdays, and what- 
 
 1 Probst, Les Dessins des Enfants Kabyles, 1906. 
 1 See later. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 25 
 
 ever they pleased on Fridays. Probst's conclu- 
 sions are not in accord with those of Levinstein. 
 
 Claparede and Geux 1 conducted a research in 
 1906 and 1907 in connection with the psycho- 
 logical seminar at the University of Geneva, 
 which resulted in the collection of some 12,000 
 drawings from 3000 pupils. A questionnaire 
 embracing definite instructions for procedure was 
 distributed to a number of teachers. Under 
 similar external conditions, pupils were directed: 
 
 1. To make a representative drawing of a chair 
 or a stool placed in view of all. 
 
 2. To draw a cat from memory. 
 
 3. To illustrate the fable, Le Corbeau et le 
 Renard. 
 
 4. To draw from choice whatever and however 
 they wished. 
 
 Instructions were given to guard against copy- 
 ing, communication, and fatigue. All of the 
 drawings were made with a pencil and ordinarily 
 lasted five minutes. The instructors appended to 
 the sheet of drawings of each child the sex, nation- 
 ality, class, rank in class, general ability, subjects 
 in which the greatest and least ability was shown, 
 and remarks as to the mental type or additional 
 peculiarities. The aim of the research was to 
 answer a two-fold problem, (1) how taste and 
 
 1 Claparede and Geux, Plan d'Experiences Collectives sur 
 le Dessin des Enfants, 1907. 
 
26 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 aptitude for drawing evolve, and (2) what corre- 
 lation exists between aptitude in drawing and 
 aptitude for work in general. The latter problem 
 was assigned to one of Claparede's students, E. 
 Ivanof, 1 who made a careful study of 9764 draw- 
 ings from the original collection. 
 
 Rouma, 2 in connection with various classes of 
 subjects in Belgium and Switzerland, has made 
 an elaborate series of studies in which he makes 
 use of diverse methods, the results of which are 
 published in his book, Le Langage Graphique de 
 V Enfant, which contains one of the clearest treat- 
 ments of the subject available. For the sake of 
 unity, all of his study is mentioned here. The 
 chief sources of Rouma's materials cover a period 
 of years, as follows: 
 
 1. From October, 1900, to July, 1901, he 
 gave two hours per day to the collection of 
 drawings of eight children of rich parents. Part 
 of the time was given to the collection of spon- 
 taneous drawings with the accompanying com- 
 ments of the children, and part to the drawing 
 of suggested themes, such as: When I was a 
 little boy; The trip to the country; The soldiers. 
 
 2. From September, 1901, to July, 1905, 
 Rouma had the following subjects treated by 
 all the classes in a school for retarded children 
 and in a number of schools for normal children. 
 
 1 Ivanof, Correlation entre l'Aptitude au Dessin et les 
 autres Aptitudes, 1908. 
 a Rouma, La Langage Graphique de l'Enfant, 1913. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 27 
 
 (a) Man, woman, little boy, little girl, soldier, 
 
 cavalier. 
 
 (b) The family house. 
 
 (c) A man walking with his little dog. 
 
 (d) A lady taking her baby a ride in a baby 
 
 carriage. 
 
 (e) Two girls playing ball. One of them 
 
 throws the ball through the window. 
 It is broken. 
 
 (f) A thief escapes pursued by a gendarme. 
 
 The thief carries a hen which he has 
 stolen under his arm. 
 
 (g) Saint-Nicolas. 
 
 (h) Subjects from choice. 
 
 3. From September, 1901, to July, 1903, 
 Rouma met a class of 40 pupils, aged 6 to 8, 
 regularly one-half hour per week. The mem- 
 bers drew alternately from free choice and dic- 
 tation. 
 
 4. From September, 1904, to July, 1905, 
 Rouma collected spontaneous and suggested 
 drawings from a class of thirty backward chil- 
 dren, aged 9 to n, devoting six one-half -hour 
 periods to this task per week. He also noted 
 all comments which accompanied the drawings 
 of certain selected pupils, discovering many 
 factors thereby which escaped attention other- 
 wise. 
 
 5. From September, 1905, to July, 1906, 
 Rouma made a study of twenty-six abnormal 
 children in a special class in Brussels. The 
 drawings were made from choice and by way of 
 interpretation of a given subject. The develop- 
 ment of modeling and language was studied at 
 the same time. Rouma calls attention to the 
 
28 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 fact that the slower development of the stages 
 of drawing among abnormal children makes 
 possible a more detailed study of the individual 
 steps. Paralleling this research, Rouma made 
 a study of the drawings of the pupils of a Froe- 
 belian school and a primary school. 
 
 6. In 1908, under the personal supervision of 
 Rouma, a number of teachers in the Froebelian 
 schools of Charleroi kept a record of the spon- 
 taneous drawings and accompanying comments 
 of selected pupils in their classes. 
 
 In addition to the above mentioned researches 
 Rouma made studies of the pupils of other schools 
 and of certain normal and abnormal children not 
 attending school. His final treatment includes a 
 discussion of the stages of evolution in drawing, 
 the various characteristics of the drawing-image, 
 the evolution of drawing as a form of language, 
 the bearing of drawing upon intellectual develop- 
 ment and attention, modeling, the culture of 
 aptitude in drawing, and the place of drawings in 
 the interrelations of race and species. 
 
 Among the leading German investigations of 
 the special products type are those of Levinstein, 
 Verworn, Kerschensteiner, Lamprecht, Kik, Wil- 
 liam Stern, Diick, and Wagner. The works of 
 Levinstein and Verworn extend into and will be 
 described under the comparative products method. 
 
 Kerschensteiner 1 made a monumental research 
 
 1 Kerschensteiner, Die Entwickelung der zeichnerischen 
 Begabung, 1905. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 29 
 
 in the interests of reforming the drawing instruc- 
 tion in Munich. He aimed to discover (a) the 
 entire course of the development of drawing from 
 the first schema to the ultimate representation of 
 space, and (b) the quality of representative ex- 
 pression attainable by children 6 to 14 years of 
 age. In 1903 Kerschensteiner obtained 96,000 
 drawings from 7000 children of the Munich schools, 
 2500 of whom possessed special aptitude in draw- 
 ing. The children were asked to represent as 
 follows : 
 
 Trial I. From memory: (a) the picture of 
 
 their mother, their father, their own picture; 
 
 (b) a horse, a dog and a cat, a bird; (c) an 
 
 angel. 
 
 After nature: a child of the class. 
 Trial 2. From memory: (a) a flower, a tree; 
 
 (b) a chair, a church, a tramway. 
 
 After nature: a chair, a violin, a 
 
 pitcher. 
 Trial 3. A battle in the snow. 
 
 The 2,500 children with special talent in draw- 
 ing represented: 
 
 (a) a man carrying a beam; (b) a woman carry- 
 ing a water-cask; (c) a building of the vil- 
 lage, after nature. 
 
 Kerschensteiner obtained the record of each 
 pupil's age, ability, profession of parents, if 
 possessed of a book of pictures, and if accustomed 
 to draw at home. He concluded, however, that a 
 
30 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 large number of the drawings had been subject to 
 outside influence and instituted another series of 
 tests in 1904, including in addition to the regular 
 pupils a school of idiots and a number of kinder- 
 gartens. In the second series he secured 100,000 
 drawings. 
 
 The drawings were classified according to a 
 detailed sheet of instructions by the teachers. 
 Kerschensteiner had all pupils showing marked 
 talent draw in his presence afterward. When he 
 was assured of the perfect fairness of the children's 
 work, he began to collect documents which would 
 aid in explaining this exceptional aptitude. 
 
 In a third series, 52,000 additional drawings 
 were collected which had been used in the orna- 
 mentation of a book and a plate. Kerschen- 
 steiner made a number of supplementary tests to 
 clear uncertain points, particularly in connection 
 with perspective. The drawing instruction in 
 Munich had been reorganized on the basis of the 
 results of this research and Kerschensteiner's 
 work is a distinct contribution to the psychology 
 and pedagogy of drawing. 
 
 Lamprecht, 1 with the aim of contributing to the 
 study of the history of civilization, beginning in 
 1904 at the University of Leipsig, initiated an 
 international research upon a vast scale. Lam- 
 
 1 Lamprecht, Les Dessins d'Enfants comme Source His- 
 torique, 1906. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 31 
 
 precht sent a sheet of detailed instructions to 
 various countries, involving the collection of the 
 following types of drawings: 
 
 1. Spontaneous drawings of children who 
 have not been influenced by suggestion or 
 training. 
 
 2. Specified representative drawings of: 
 
 (a) objects isolated in space, as a dog, table, 
 flower, etc. 
 
 (b) illustrated incidents, stories, etc. 
 
 3. Series of drawings from the same child. 
 
 4. Drawings of adults, particularly those 
 with non-professional occupations. 
 
 For comparative purposes a large number of 
 drawings were secured from the poem Hans 
 Guck-In-Die-Luft, using the Barnes method. In 
 addition data were collected as to the age, train- 
 ing, intelligence, and social position of the various 
 subjects. A vast number of drawings were se- 
 cured from Belgium, Sweden, Italy, England, 
 Russia, Japan, America, India, and Africa, all of 
 which have been classified and filed in the museum 
 of the "Seminar for Culture and Universal His- 
 tory" at Leipsig. Levinstein (61) (see bibli- 
 ography), Kohler (58), and Kretzschmar (59) 
 have made researches in connection with the 
 classification and interpretation of this vast body 
 of material 
 
 Kik 1 made a study of thirteen drawers of mark- 
 
 1 Kik, Die iibernormale Zeichenbegabung bei Kindern, 
 1908. 
 
32 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 edly exceptional ability, part of the subjects 
 working in his presence. He gave particular at- 
 tention to environmental influences and the rela- 
 tion between drawing aptitude and intelligence. 
 
 William Stern, 1 beginning in 1905, directed an 
 inquiry at Breslau embracing the drawings of 
 1500 pupils, aged 6 to 18, from the primary, 
 middle, and high schools. The pupils endeavored 
 to interpret a poem of some fifty verses which 
 had been read to them. The resultant drawings 
 were analyzed as to (1) individual differences, (2) 
 progress with age, (3) representation of space, (4) 
 the problem of time, and (5) differences in sex. 
 
 Wagner 2 interpreted the foregoing material, 
 classifying the possible motives of the drawings, 
 giving percentages of frequency* for representation 
 of movement, human figure, indications of humor, 
 etc., and characterizing the developmental stages 
 of drawing. 
 
 Diick 3 made a special study of the interests of 
 children in drawing and art, noting particularly 
 the changes of interest at the time of puberty. 
 
 1 Stern, Spezielle Beschreibung der Ausstellung freier 
 Kinderzeichnungen aus Breslau, 1906. 
 
 'Wagner, Das frie Zeichnen von Volksschulkindern, 1913. 
 
 3 Diick, Uber das zeichnerische und kiinstlerische Interesse 
 der Schiiler, 1913. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 33 
 
 III. The Comparative Products Method. 1 
 
 The comparative products method arises out of 
 various combinations of the gross and special 
 products methods. Drawings which have been 
 obtained from one group of individuals are com- 
 pared to the products of some other group. The 
 drawings are taken to be significant of certain 
 psychological traits of the groups concerned. It 
 is hoped to reveal the relations existing between 
 the respective groups by means of a study of the 
 similarities in the drawing products. In this way 
 advantage is taken of groups of drawings already 
 carefully organized, such as may be found in 
 many ethnological studies. 
 
 There is no question that drawings may be 
 utilized to reveal certain mental characteristics 
 and thus prove valuable for comparative pur- 
 poses. The validity of comparative generaliza- 
 tions, however, naturally depends upon the or- 
 iginal method of obtaining the drawings. In 
 view of this fact, considerable caution must be 
 used in dealing with "gross products" drawings. 
 
 The comparative products method has been 
 made use of by many investigators to enlarge the 
 scope of their original researches. The most 
 common contrast is the one made between a series 
 of drawings of normal children with those of some 
 
 1 Includes Ruttmann's "die ethnologische Methode." 
 
34 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 other homogeneous group. In this manner the 
 drawings of normal children have been compared 
 with (i) the drawings of savages, (2) the drawings 
 of prehistoric peoples, (3) the drawings of the 
 pathologically degenerate, (4) the drawings of 
 children of other races, (5) the drawings of illit- 
 erate adults, and (6) the art products of earlier 
 periods of civilization. In addition numerous 
 studies have considered the parallels existing 
 between the sexes, between general ability and 
 drawing aptitude, and between drawing and 
 other types of expression, such as modeling, writ- 
 ing, and language. In making comparisons with 
 the drawings of savages and prehistoric peoples, 
 advantage is frequently taken of the materials 
 collected and organized in such excellent studies 
 as those of Danzel, 1 Haddon, 2 Koch-Griinberg, s 
 Grosse, 4 Verworn, 5 Wilson, 6 and in the Annual 
 Reports of the United States Bureau of Ethnology. 
 The researches of Schuyten, Probst, Ivanof, 
 Lamprecht, Stern, and Kik, which utilize the 
 comparative method in part, have already been 
 mentioned. Levinstein 7 utilized the drawings 
 
 1 Danzel, Die Anfange der Schrift, 1912. 
 1 Haddon, Evolution in Art, 19 14. 
 
 • Koch-Grunberg, Anfange der Kunst im Urwald, 1906. 
 
 * Grosse, The Beginnings of Art, 1897. 
 
 B Verworn, Zur Psychologie der primitive Kunst, 1908. 
 •Wilson, Prehistoric Art, 1896. 
 
 7 Levinstein, Kinderzeichnungen mit Parallelen aus der 
 Urgeschichte, Kulturegeschichte und Volkerkunde, 1905. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 35 
 
 collected by Lamprecht in a study of the compar- 
 ative type. Three of the eight chapters of his 
 interesting book are given to a discussion of these 
 parallels. Levinstein also treats in considerable 
 detail the general question of children's drawings 
 and appends an extensive bibliography in his 
 publication. Gennep 1 has elaborated a special 
 treatment of this type, and similar discussions may 
 be found in Chamberlain, 2 Sully, 3 Wundt, 4 and 
 Meumann. 5 
 
 Max Verworn 6 began a study of the relation- 
 ships existing between the drawings of children 
 and primitive peoples in 1906. Verworn col- 
 lected the drawings of a large number of rustic 
 children, aged 6 to 14, believing that their environ- 
 ment made something of an approach to that of 
 the primitive. The children drew from memory 
 such familiar forms as a goat, cow, horse, sun, 
 moon, man, and woman. In a second study Ver- 
 worn had children copy drawings of the paleolithic 
 age which represented reindeer and mammoths. 
 Then followed a series of drawings in which the 
 
 1 Gennep, Dessins d'Enfant et Dessins Prehistorique, 
 1911. 
 
 2 Chamberlain, The Child, a Study in the Evolution of 
 Man, 1900. 
 
 3 Sully, Studies of Childhood, 1895. 
 
 4 Wundt, Volkerpsychologie, 1900-09. 
 
 5 Meumann, Experimentelle Padagogik, 1914. 
 
 6 Verworn, Zur Psychologie der primitiven Kunst, 1908. 
 
36 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 children each time drew their previous drawing. 
 Verworn sought by this parallel to clarify certain 
 points in the serial development of primitive 
 drawings. 
 
 Lobsien 1 repeated Schuyten's experiment to 
 discover if a parallel existed between advance in 
 age and an approach to the canons of art. He 
 discards Schuyten's detailed measurements and 
 selects the best and poorest drawers of ages 8, II, 
 13, and 14. His conclusions vary somewhat from 
 those of Schuyten. 
 
 The researches of Rouma and Levinstein in the 
 field of the drawings of abnormal children have 
 been mentioned. Rudolf Lindner 1 compared the 
 drawings of deaf and dumb children with those of 
 normal children by having the pupils of the Leip- 
 sig Deaf and Dumb Institute follow Kerschen- 
 steiner's directions for drawing a tramcar from 
 memory. 
 
 IV. The Biographical Method* 
 
 This method endeavors to obtain all of the facts 
 connected with an extended series of drawings by 
 individual children. The observer is familiar 
 with psychological methods and keeps detailed 
 
 1 Lobsien, Kinderzeichnung und Kunstkanon, 1905. 
 
 2 Referred to by Meumann, Experimented Padagogik, 
 Bd. Ill, p. 758. 
 
 3 Compare Luquet's "methode microscopique." 
 
The methods of research 37 
 
 records of the subjective phenomena accompany- 
 ing the drawings of the same child for a period of 
 several years. For the most part this method has 
 been used in studying the spontaneous drawings of 
 children prior to the influence of special instruc- 
 tion. More recently this has been varied by the 
 introduction of special themes for interpretation 
 or has been extended into the school period. The 
 biographical method is practically free from the 
 sources of error common to the exclusively ob- 
 jective methods and, in connection with other 
 methods, offers a most fertile field for investiga- 
 tion. Many excellent researches have been made 
 with biographical material. 
 
 An early study of this type was made under the 
 direction of Elmer E. Brown, 1 who interpreted four 
 extended studies of the drawings of individual 
 children Miss M. V. Shinn followed the drawings 
 of a child from the 27th to the 64th month, Cath- 
 erine W. Slack watched a second child from the 
 36th to the 60th month, Eleanor G. Sharp studied 
 a third child from the 28th to the 60th month, 
 and Lulu M. Chapman, a fourth child from the 
 32d to the 48th month. Brown collected data on 
 the development of each child from the following 
 points of view: (1) circumstances at the begin- 
 ning of drawing, (2) degree of representation, 
 beauty, and symmetry in the drawing, (3) first 
 
 1 Brown, Notes on Children's Drawings, 1897. 
 
38 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 attempts at copy drawing, (4) child's attitude to- 
 ward drawing, (5) symbolism, (6) conventional- 
 ism, (7) size, direction, and form of outlines, and 
 (8) changing interests in form and color. 
 
 Louise Hogan 1 made an extended bibliograph- 
 ical study of the drawings of a child up to the age 
 of eight, treating both spontaneous and suggested 
 drawings. Lukens 2 followed the drawings of a 
 little girl from the 27th to the 56th month. His 
 treatment contains a very good summary of 
 studies of children's drawings up to that time. 
 
 C. and W. Stern 3 traced the developmental 
 stages in drawing by the study of the early draw- 
 ing periods and artistic interests of a little boy. 
 Luquet,* using what he terms the "methode 
 microscopique," has made the most elaborately 
 detailed study of the biographical type up to the 
 present time. His book of 262 pages and 150 
 plates of drawings contains a very complete analyt- 
 ical account of the development of the drawings of 
 the little girl, Simonne Luquet, from a little over 
 three years of age to nearly nine. Luquet col- 
 lected a series of over 1700 drawings with the 
 accompanying comments and made a careful 
 
 1 Hogan, A Study of a Child, 1898. 
 
 8 Lukens, A Study of Children's Drawings in the Early 
 Years, 1896. 
 
 ' C. and W. Stern, Die zeichnerische Entwickelung eines 
 Knaben, 1909. 
 
 4 Luquet, Les Dessins d'un Enfant, 1913. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 39 
 
 record of all subjective conditions. Other re- 
 searches involving the biographical method have 
 been made by Baldwin, 1 Moore, a Preyer, 3 Sully, 4 
 and others. 
 
 V. The Experimental Method. 
 
 The experimental method attempts to analyze 
 the process of drawing by setting up a definite 
 and precise control of the drawing act which takes 
 into account the subjective as well as the objective 
 aspects of drawing. It attempts to measure the 
 response of individual drawers to known and con- 
 trollable conditions. As distinguished from ob- 
 jective methods, very careful attention is given to 
 the inner mental conditions of the individual sub- 
 jects. The attempt is made to determine indi- 
 vidual variations in such subjective factors as per- 
 ception, type of imagery, memory, endowment, 
 and training. In general, the problem is to reduce 
 the drawing process to its elements for purposes 
 of ultimate analysis of the ordinarily synthesized 
 activity by the employment of the methods of 
 experimental psychology. 
 
 In the majority of existing researches the meth- 
 ods of control have been but partial at best, but, 
 
 1 Baldwin, Mental Development in the Child and the 
 Race, 1897. 
 1 Moore, The Mental Development of a Child, 1896. 
 
 3 Preyer, The Mind of the Child, 1899. 
 
 4 Sully, Studies of Childhood, 1895. 
 
40 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 as a whole, the results obtained by the experimental 
 method are of the greatest significance both to the 
 psychology and the pedagogy of drawing. The 
 chief researches follow. 
 
 Judd and Cowling 1 made an experimental 
 analysis of the various elements which enter into 
 the process of the visual perception of a simple 
 figure. A small linear figure composed of four 
 straight and three curved lines was exposed to 
 the view of a number of subjects for a period of 
 ten seconds. The subjects immediately after- 
 ward attempted to reproduce the figure in a draw- 
 ing. The figure was then exposed again and a 
 second drawing attempted. This process was 
 repeated until the subject had attained an ap- 
 proximately correct percept of the figure. By a 
 comparison of the objective results with the intro- 
 spections of the various subjects, the investigators 
 were enabled to trace the development of the per- 
 ceptual process and the ability to reproduce the 
 figure graphically. 
 
 Katz 2 studied the individual differences in repre- 
 sentative drawing among children by having three 
 girls of 5, 6, and 7 years draw in succession with 
 ruler and pencil the following models made out of 
 blue pasteboard: (i) triangle, (2) quadrate, (3) 
 
 1 Judd and Cowling, Studies in Perceptual Development, 
 1897. 
 
 2 Katz, Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Kinderzeichnungen, 
 1906. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 41 
 
 parallelogram, (4) ellipse, (5) circle, (6) cube, (7) 
 flat quadrate with four supports in the form of a 
 four-legged table, (8) three-sided pyramid, (9) 
 regular tri-lateral. In a second series of drawings 
 Katz investigated the elements of the perceptual 
 process and attention which gave rise to the 
 peculiar characteristics of individual drawings. 
 
 Albien 1 has contributed an elaborate experi- 
 mental study concerning the elements entering 
 into the drawing act which is of first importance 
 to the psychology and pedagogy of drawing. The 
 experiments were carried on with individual 
 pupils in Albien's home. The first was conducted 
 by Meumann. The others were taken up during 
 a period of about eight weeks, during which Albien 
 tested from two to four pupils daily. The process 
 of representative drawing from copy was taken to 
 consist of two major processes: (1) the optical- 
 perceptional part, and (2) the graphical-reproduc- 
 tive part, involving the representation of the 
 previously apprehended and assimilated optical 
 images. Each of these major processes was taken 
 to consist of a number of subordinate elemental 
 part-processes. (See discussion later.) 
 
 The aim of Albien's research was to set up an 
 experiment which would isolate the various part- 
 processes of the drawing act. To this end figures 
 
 1 Albien, Der Anteil der Nachkonstruierenden Tatigkeit 
 des Auges und der Apperception an dem Behalten und der 
 Wiedergabe einfacher Formen, 1907. 
 
42 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 were selected for "copy" which provided for the 
 following considerations : 
 
 1. The resemblance of the "copy" to known 
 figures was controlled so as to reduce the play 
 of memory to a definite minimum. Three 
 figures were selected for copy; the first being 
 practically foreign to the previous experience of 
 the subjects, the second resembling the contour 
 of known forms, and the third of medium dif- 
 ficulty. 
 
 2. The constructive activity of the eye and 
 hand movements and of the apperceptive pro- 
 cesses was controlled by artificial interruption. 
 Eye movements were excluded, when desirable, 
 by means of a definite fixation point marked on 
 the copy. The involuntary drawing move- 
 ments of the hand during preliminary percep- 
 tion were excluded by rhythmic movements of 
 the hands. 
 
 3. An attempt to exclude the will during 
 perception was made by asking the pupils not 
 to think about drawing the object during the 
 process of fixation. 
 
 The experiment as a whole was carried on in 
 three chief parts. 
 
 Part I. Drawing After Fixating Seeing (Zeichnen 
 nach fixierenden Sehen). 
 
 In this part of the experiment each of the three 
 types of copy was exposed by means of a tachisto- 
 scope for a period of ten seconds (repeated when 
 desirable), during which time the eye was kept 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 43 
 
 fixed upon the fixation mark near the center of 
 the figure, all of the figure, however, lying within 
 the field of the subject's vision. The subject then 
 attempted to reproduce the image of the copy by 
 drawing it. The subject was then asked: 
 
 "Do you consider the drawing to be correct?" 
 "Can you tell what is wrong? Where is 
 anything lacking?" 
 
 "What is the cause of it? Is it that you can- 
 not see accurately and cannot draw satisfac- 
 torily?" 
 
 Part II. Drawing from Memory (Nach der Vor- 
 stellung aus dem Geddchtnis) . 
 Each subject was permitted to observe the copy 
 until he thought he could draw it from memory. 
 The drawing was then executed. The time of 
 the observation and execution was recorded and 
 the following questions asked: 
 
 "Is the drawing difficult? Why? or, What 
 is the cause?" 
 
 "Upon what do you depend in memory draw- 
 ing?" Other questions are supplemented ac- 
 cording to individual needs. 
 
 Part III. Representative Drawing from Copy 
 (Abzeichnen der Vorlage). 
 In conclusion each figure was drawn with the 
 copy in view. The time of drawing was recorded. 
 All subjective manifestations were recorded 
 throughout the entire experiment. 
 
44 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 The subjects for the experiment were selected by 
 Albien from a local raz/-school and included classes 
 Sexta to Untersekunda, with the following age 
 distribution : 
 
 Sexta 
 
 96 
 
 mbjects 
 
 9-10 years 
 
 Quinta 
 
 9 
 
 ii 
 
 11-12 " 
 
 Quarta 
 
 10 
 
 ii 
 
 13-14 " 
 
 Tertia 
 
 9 
 
 ii 
 
 15-16 " 
 
 Untersekunda 
 
 8 
 
 ii 
 
 17-18 " 
 
 The pupils in the Sexta had had no lessons in 
 drawing. The others had received two hours per 
 week in freehand drawing. From the original 
 classes, containing about fifty pupils each, Albien 
 selected one good, one medium, and one poor 
 drawer with good general intelligence, and one 
 good, one medium, and one poor drawer with poor 
 general intelligence. In conclusion Albien ana- 
 lyzed the various types of drawers and the effects of 
 endowment, perserveration, the feelings, and re- 
 flection, upon drawing. 
 
 Stiehler 1 made an instructive experiment to 
 determine the relation between construction and 
 drawing, with the particular aim of distinguishing 
 between the physical concept and the drawing 
 concept attaching to the same object. The experi- 
 ment, having eighteen children as subjects, was 
 conducted in two parts. 
 
 1 Stiehler, Beitrage zur Psychologie und Methodik des 
 Zeichenunterrichts, 1913. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 45 
 
 1. Each child placed a match-box at a dis- 
 tance of about 60 cm. in such a manner that it 
 stood obliquely and lower than the eyes. The 
 children were admonished to note the number 
 of surfaces, their arrangement, size, and form; 
 and at the same time, however, they were not 
 to turn their heads in order that the perception 
 might always occur from the same visual angle. 
 Nothing was said with regard to perspective 
 phenomena, foreshortening of size, and shifts 
 in form. After observation and general delib- 
 eration, the box was set aside. It was then 
 drawn from memory. 
 
 2. The match-boxes were then touched, 
 rubbed, pressed, relaxed, turned; there was 
 counting, measuring with strips of paper, com- 
 parison; first with the eyes closed, then open. 
 The representation was then made from memory. 
 
 The results of these two tests were interpreted 
 in light of the accompanying remarks of the sub- 
 jects. 
 
 Peter 1 has recently experimented with an analysis 
 of the elements attached to the mastery of the 
 perspective relationships in drawing objects which 
 are situated back of other objects. Peter required 
 the pupils to draw a scene viewed through an inter- 
 vening window. 
 
 Beside the part played in Albien's experiments, 
 Meumann 1 records in his treatment of The Ana- 
 
 1 Peter, Beitrage der Analyse der zeichnerische Begabung, 
 1914. 
 
 2 Meumann, Vorlesungen zur Einftihrung In die Experi- 
 mentelle Padagogik, 1914. 
 
46 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 lysis of Drawing two further experiments worthy 
 of note here. In the first series Meumann had a 
 group of subjects draw from memory a number of 
 familiar objects. Certain of the subjects were 
 then directed to describe the objects from memory, 
 or, failing in this, to describe the objects when 
 pictures of them were placed before them. Various 
 individuals were questioned as to their difficulties 
 in drawing from memory. In addition, individual 
 hand dexterity was studied and a comparison was 
 made of the memory (auswendig) drawings follow- 
 ing short and long exposure. 
 
 In a second series of experiments directed by 
 Meumann, an attempt was made to classify the 
 types of drawing retention and the elemental 
 processes of the drawing act. In this study ob- 
 jects of gradually increasing difficulty were pre- 
 sented for representative drawing (Abzeichen). 
 These included such objects as a piece of lime-spar 
 lying upon a cigar box, and a cigaret box with 
 crayon and inkstand. The following types of 
 drawing were secured: 
 
 i. After the subject announced that the ex- 
 posure had been long enough for sufficient ob- 
 servation, the object was covered and drawn 
 from memory. 
 
 2. Out of recollection, usually one day later, 
 of the first attempt. 
 
 3. From memory after an exposure of one 
 minute. 
 
THE METHODS OF RESEARCH 47 
 
 4. The same object as in 3 after one day. 
 
 5. From memory after an exposure of about 
 ten seconds. 
 
 6. From memory after a tachistoscopic ex- 
 posure of about one-half second. 
 
 7. Objects from which all subjective con- 
 struing had been excluded. 
 
 8. From the recollection of a picture, such as, 
 The Birth of Christ. 
 
 9. After an attempt at influencing the mem- 
 ory by suggestion. 
 
 Immediately after each drawing each subject 
 was asked questions to bring out individual vari- 
 ations in the subjective elements of the drawing 
 act. Finally a stamp, the Hamburg escutcheon, 
 and the subject's own pocketbook were drawn 
 from memory. The subjects were also tested in 
 hand skill and types of imagery. 
 
Chapter III 
 
 STUDIES IN THE RELATION OF DRAWING 
 TO INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT 
 
 I. Industrial versus Cultural Values. 
 
 The rise 1 of drawing in the public school program 
 of studies has been due to two more or less con- 
 flicting art interests, the industrial and the cul- 
 tural. Drawing made very little headway in the 
 United States until emphasis upon its economic 
 value secured the support of such educational 
 leaders as Horace Mann and Henry Barnard. 
 The publication of a number of foreign articles on 
 the value of drawing together with the public- 
 spirited work 3 of such men as William Bentley 
 Fowle, Rembrandt Peale, and William Minifie, 
 kept an interest in public school drawing alive, 
 but until 1870 progress was practically counter- 
 acted by a widespread conception of drawing as an 
 "amusing exercise." 
 
 In 1870 the state of Massachusetts enacted a 
 law which states that "mechanical and industrial" 
 
 1 No attempt is made here to give even a summary of the 
 historical rise of drawing, an account of which may be found 
 in Jessup, Clarke, Haney, or Farnum. (See bibliography.) 
 
 2 Haney, Development of Art, pp. 21-33. 
 
 49 
 
So THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 drawing may be freely taught in any city and town, 
 and free instruction must be given in cities and 
 towns of over 10,000 inhabitants. This was 
 followed by the selection of Walter Smith of the 
 School of Arts in Leeds, England, as State Agent. 
 Smith was a few years later made director of the 
 newly established Massachusetts Normal Art 
 School. 
 
 "As directors of the foremost Art Schools, 
 State Supervisors, city directors, editors and 
 writers, craftsmen, painters, sculptors, and 
 architects, the alumni of this particular school 
 and their children of one and two generations 
 lead in the art world of the United States 
 today." 1 
 
 The Massachusetts movement spread rapidly to 
 other states, but the great emphasis given to 
 mechanical and industrial drawing was followed by 
 a reaction, chiefly on the part of teachers, toward 
 an emphasis of the intellectual values of drawing. 
 This is well illustrated in a quotation cited by 
 Jessup. 1 
 
 "The old style of drawing consisted princi- 
 pally of picture making from copies. The new 
 is an intellectual study; the thought, ingenuity, 
 and invention of the scholar in the line of art 
 as supplied to industrial pursuits. The influ- 
 ence of this branch is manifold; it especially 
 
 1 Farnum, Present Status of Drawing and Art in Schools, 
 p. 18. 
 
 2 Jessup, Special Supervision in the Public Schools of the 
 United States, p. 29. 
 
RELATION OF DRAWING TO DEVELOPMENT 51 
 
 develops: (1) observation; (2) forethought; (3) 
 painstaking; (4) taste, imagination; (5) memory 
 of forms; (6) power to discriminate — judgment; 
 (7) ease and precision in the movements of the 
 hand. As drawing is opposed to carelessness, 
 haste, bad forms, and clumsy execution, it is a 
 valuable art in teaching writing." Report of 
 the Schools of Erie, Pennsylvania, 1877-78. 
 
 The prevailing belief in the disciplinary value of 
 drawing is summarized in Clarke's voluminous 
 work 1 in 1888 as follows: 
 
 "The value of drawing as a means of mental 
 discipline is believed to be not inferior to that 
 of any of the studies at present included in the 
 curriculum of the public schools. It is, there- 
 fore, not only because of its direct application 
 to the industries and art and hence of economic 
 value to the pupil, that this study of drawing 
 has a claim to admission into the public schools. 
 Its value as a means of developing and training 
 the intellectual faculties is so well established, 
 from the professional point of view of the teacher, 
 and, regarded merely as an instrument of 
 pedagogics, the progressive system of ... 
 industrial drawing can readily establish its 
 claim for introduction into the elementary 
 course of instruction on educational grounds 
 alone." 
 
 A value of drawing which is of greater cultural 
 breadth than the so-called intellectual value, and 
 which may be called the aesthetic value, received 
 
 Clarke, I. E., Art and Industry, Part I, CXXII. See 
 Jessup, p. 29. 
 
52 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 widespread acceptance through the interest in 
 design and decoration stimulated by the art 
 exhibits of the World's Fairs at Chicago in 1893 and 
 St. Louis in 1904. With the development of this 
 interest there has been a marked tendency to 
 correlate the cultural and industrial work in the 
 school arts which has resulted in a realignment of 
 the values of drawing. 
 
 Henry Turner Bailey 1 gives the following reasons 
 for requiring drawing in the public schools: 
 
 "1. Drawing is a language of form: (a) 
 graphic recorder of scientific fact; (b) expres- 
 sion of constructive and decorative art; (c) 
 medium for expression of ideas of artistic beauty. 
 
 "2. Practice in drawing promotes: (a) close 
 observation, thus insuring clear mental images; 
 (b) muscular control or skill of hand; a pre- 
 requisite in the practice of any craft; (c) a 
 knowledge of the elements of beauty in nature 
 and art, the basis of design, and the grounds 
 for intelligent taste and appreciation. 
 
 "3. The study of drawing opens the mind to 
 the treasures of nature and the various arts; 
 increases the pleasure and general significance 
 of life." 
 
 In contrast to this, Sargent's 2 analysis of drawing 
 as representation differentiates the following 
 values : 
 
 1 Bailey, Monroe's Cyclopedia of Education, 1912. 
 
 2 Sargent, Fine and Industrial Arts in Elementary Schools, 
 1912. 
 
RELATION OF DRAWING TO DEVELOPMENT 53 
 
 1. General. "Drawing is a language, a mode 
 of reproducing ideas, and as such is a means of 
 forming and developing these ideas." "Draw- 
 ing develops ability of concrete habits of 
 thought." "Drawing stimulates the mental 
 activity of children." 
 
 2. Industrial. "To the man engaged in 
 constructive work, drawing offers a means of 
 endless experimentation . ' ' 
 
 3. Scientific. "In scientific studies drawing 
 focuses the attention upon, and quickens obser- 
 vation of, facts of form and structure, rendering 
 the senses more accurate in their testimony and 
 furnishing a means of making definite records." 
 
 4. Aesthetic. "Representation is also the 
 language of the fine arts of painting and sculp- 
 ture." 
 
 R. B. Farnum, 1 who has recently made a thor- 
 ough-going investigation into the status of draw- 
 ing and art in the elementary and secondary 
 schools of the United States for the Bureau of 
 Education and is probably mo^e familiar with the 
 general situation than any other man in the country, 
 states that: 
 
 "The broad and general purpose of culture 
 through art education may be roughly sub- 
 divided into three distinct aims. . . which 
 are universally agreed upon. Such an educa- 
 tion should train (a) in expression, (b) in obser- 
 vation, (c) in appreciation." 
 
 1 Farnum, Present Status of Drawing and Art in Schools, 
 1914. 
 
54 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 (a) Expression. "As an outward expression 
 of the mental processes, the value of the study 
 of art lies in stimulating the finest ideals and in 
 giving command of the best means of expressing 
 them." 
 
 (b) Observation. "Keen and accurate obser- 
 vation, then, is fundamental to art and is an 
 asset in the broadest sense. It calls for close 
 analysis and stimulates the initiative of the 
 discoverer." 
 
 (c) Appreciation. "Appreciation as applied 
 to master creations of the artist in architecture, 
 sculpture, painting, to the forms of minor art 
 seen in the works of the craftsman, to nature, 
 to the very environment of the person himself, 
 is the third aim in art education." 
 
 With these several aims of drawing in mind, it 
 is interesting to note the emphasis that is given to 
 technical ability in college entrance requirements. 
 The following university entrance requirement 1 
 must be met by candidates who apply for five 
 credits in freehand or mechanical drawing: 
 
 Freehand Drawing. The applicant must pos- 
 sess ability: 
 
 1. To make rapid sketches from objects 
 which shall indicate the perspective appearance, 
 the proportions, and the main characteristics of 
 structure and form. 
 
 2. To make as records of observations such 
 drawings as would be appropriate for illustra- 
 tion to accompany high school studies in the 
 sciences. 
 
 1 University of Chicago Entrance Requirements, 1912. 
 
RELATION OF DRAWING TO DEVELOPMENT 55 
 
 3. To sketch freehand, from specifications, 
 any simple geometric figure. 
 
 4. To match with water colors any given 
 color, or to carry a flat wash of color over a 
 given area. 
 
 Mechanical Drawing. The applicant must pos- 
 sess ability: 
 
 1. From a given mechanical drawing of a 
 simple object to make a freehand drawing of 
 the appearance of the object in perspective. 
 
 2. From a simple geometric form or con- 
 structed object to make dimensioned freehand 
 working drawings which furnish data sufficient 
 for a finished instrumental drawing or for the 
 construction of the object. 
 
 3. From specifications to make a completed 
 working drawing, freehand or instrumental, or 
 a sketch of the appearance of the object. 
 
 It should be stated here that outside of art and 
 technical schools individuals are rarely found who 
 measure up to the standards of the foregoing aims 
 and requirements. 
 
 II. Scientific Values. 
 
 Attention was called in the introductory chap- 
 ter to the fact that representative drawing is 
 esteemed by many teachers as a useful device for 
 securing analytical observation. This concep- 
 tion of the value of drawing is more specifically 
 disclosed in the following list of typical quotations 
 from laboratory manuals and relevant literature: 
 
56 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 Spencer, Education, 1861. Drawing is "a 
 means whereby still greater accuracy and com- 
 pleteness of observation is induced." 
 
 Johonot, Principles and Practice of Teaching, 
 1878. "Drawing is of the highest use to all 
 intellectually in inciting to correct observation." 
 
 Bergen, Note-book to Accompany Botany 
 Texts, 1904. "Sketch every thing that can be 
 drawn, and then explain in writing all points 
 not evident from the sketches." 
 
 Ganong, The Teaching Botanist, 1900. "The 
 very act of drawing will call attention to fea- 
 tures otherwise overlooked." 
 
 Maxwell, The New Course of Study, 1904. 
 "Use drawing wherever possible and particu- 
 larly in nature study, for there can be no proper 
 study of these objects unless they are drawn. 
 This is absolutely essential." 
 
 Hardest, Laboratory Guide for Histology, 
 1908. "In drawing one learns to practice habits 
 of neatness and astuteness of observation." 
 
 Conn, Biology, 1912. "In all cases where 
 laboratory work is possible, students should be 
 required to make careful drawings of the ob- 
 jects." 
 
 Curtis, Laboratory Directions in General 
 Zoology, 1912. "Drawings are used solely as a 
 means of enforcing exact observation and 
 recording the results of the same." 
 
 Bastin, Laboratory Exercises in Botany, 
 1895. "They [drawings] are useful not only in 
 explaining to others the structures observed, 
 but they are in themselves great aids also to 
 accurate observation, and are equally helpful in 
 
RELATION OF DRAWING TO DEVELOPMENT 57 
 
 giving vividness and permanency to knowl- 
 edge." 
 
 Hall, The Teaching of Physics, 1913. "Prac- 
 tice of the graphical method of record, by means 
 of the simplest possible drawings, is of very 
 great service; for it requires the pupil really to 
 study his apparatus, and yet, by saving many 
 words, may save his time as well as that of the 
 reader." 
 
 The use of drawing as a device for recording the 
 work accomplished by the pupil is practically 
 universal. 
 
 Ganong, The Teaching Botanist, 1910. "He 
 can not make even a passable scientific drawing 
 or written description of an object until he has 
 first seen it accurately and completely, and 
 realized its construction." "For his purpose 
 both drawings and descriptions are needed." 
 
 Bigelow, The Teaching of Zoology, 1907. 
 "The ideal record of laboratory work in zool- 
 ogy consists of both drawings and notes." 
 
 In spite of the common belief in the efficacy of 
 representative drawing to secure analytical obser- 
 vation, there is a growing realization among those 
 who have given more thought to laboratory prac- 
 tice that the purely representative drawing does 
 not accomplish this purpose. 
 
 Ganong, The Teaching Botanist, 1910. "It 
 is essential for the teacher to realize that scien- 
 tific drawing does not consist in the composi- 
 tion of pictures correct in perspective and fine 
 
58 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 finish, but in the making of diagrammatic 
 outlines which convey to the mind of the be- 
 holder accurate conceptions of the real construc- 
 tion of the object represented." 
 
 Bigelow, The Teaching of Zoology, 1907. 
 "Drawings, like the structures they represent, 
 lend themselves chiefly to the training in ob- 
 servation. For sound training in induction we 
 must have notes . . . clearly written, logical 
 accounts of observations, experiments, and 
 conclusions." 
 
 To these quotations should be added one of 
 Luquet's conclusions. 1 
 
 "For to set limits to the sense of observation, 
 it is certain that in making the child draw one 
 attracts his attention to motifs in which he was 
 perhaps not interested by himself. But if we 
 consider here drawing as an element of 'object 
 lessons,' logical realism is infinitely more adapted 
 to this role than visual realism, since it con- 
 sists precisely in placing in the drawing all 
 that is in the object, and to typify all of the 
 elements, each with its exemplary form, and 
 by logical realism the child in some way spon- 
 taneously effects the dissection of the object 
 which he reproduces." 
 
 777. Relation of Drawing to Special and General 
 Aptitudes. 
 
 Many writers have called attention to the value 
 of drawing as a means of studying the intellectual 
 
 1 Luquet, Les Dessins d'un Enfant, pp. 250-51, 
 
RELATION OF DRAWING TO DEVELOPMENT 59 
 
 development of the child. The spontaneous 
 drawing in particular serves as a definite form of 
 expression to reveal many conditions of the child's 
 mental life and growth which are otherwise inac- 
 cessible. Here, as with all children's drawings, it 
 is unwise to build too much upon group collections 
 unless augmented by the acts and remarks of the 
 children while drawing and by series of drawings 
 from the same children. 1 
 
 The relation which exists between ability in 
 drawing and ability in other subjects and other 
 modes of expression is an interesting question 
 which bears directly upon our general problem. 
 The literature of drawing contains abundant com- 
 ment concerning the relation of drawing to other 
 subjects, as well as to general intelligence, but 
 there is very little in the way of exact experimental 
 investigation. 
 
 >' Miss Elderton 2 compared 19 boys in the Fourth 
 Form of an English public school as to abilities in 
 Drawing and Classics and obtained a correlation 
 of .416. With the same number of boys in the 
 next higher form, the Remove, she obtained a 
 negative correlation of — .313. Waiving criticism 
 as to the manner of obtaining the original grades, 
 the small number of subjects, nineteen, in this 
 
 1 Rouma, Le Langage Graphique de l'Enfant, p. 157. 
 
 2 Elderton, On the Association of Drawing with Other 
 Capacities in School Children, Biometrika, 1909. 
 
60 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 study permits chance to play so large a part in 
 the ultimate correlation discovered that the figures 
 given are practically without value. 
 
 The most pretentious attempt in this field is 
 the study of M. Ivanof, 1 which embraces 9764 
 drawings. The correlations were made according 
 to age and not by grade in school. The valua- 
 tion of the drawings was based upon three factors: 
 (1) accuracy of proportions, (2) imaginative con- 
 ception, (3) technical and artistic value. 
 
 The individual drawings were graded from per- 
 fect down to worthless on a scale of points: 6, 5, 
 4, 3, 2, 1, and o. Each drawer was eventually 
 classified from the average of four drawings graded 
 separately into one of three groups: 
 
 1. Good drawers (Average 6 or 5). 
 
 2. Medium drawers (Average 4 or 3). 
 
 3. Poor drawers (Average 2, 1, or o). 
 Table I expresses the final results: 
 
 The results shown in this table indicate that 
 ability in drawing is positively correlated with 
 general ability, particularly among the girls. The 
 results are, however, open to criticism on account 
 of the possible variability of the original grades in 
 the various branches. These were obtained on 
 the basis of the individual judgments of a number 
 of different teachers and not by accurate psycho- 
 
 1 Ivanof, Correlation entre l'Aptitude au Dessin et les 
 autres Aptitudes, 1908. 
 
RELATION OF DRAWING TO DEVELOPMENT 6 1 
 
 Table I 
 
 Correlation Between Aptitude in Drawing and Work in General 
 
 The figures show the percentage of pupils in each group who 
 were strong students in general work. 
 
 Strong Pupils 
 
 Berne 
 
 Geneve 
 
 Neu- 
 chatel 
 
 Vaud 
 
 ( % among all pupils 
 
 Boys -< % among good drawers. 
 C % among poor drawers. 
 
 33 
 45 
 29 
 
 33 
 40 
 
 22 
 
 34 
 34 
 15 
 
 32 
 
 54 
 15 
 
 ( % among all pupils .... 
 
 Girls -j % among good drawers. 
 
 (. % among poor drawers. 
 
 36 
 6o 
 30 
 
 32 
 
 48 
 
 12 
 
 39 
 
 100 
 22 
 
 35 
 68 
 18 
 
 logical tests. Moreover, the three factors used 
 for grading the drawings are widely variable and 
 afford a source for misinterpretation of the final 
 results. Ivanof also estimated the correlation 
 between drawing and a number of other school 
 subjects. 
 
 i. Drawing and Writing, (a) Of boys who 
 are good in drawing, the percentage good in 
 writing is higher and the percentage poor in 
 writing is much lower than with the average of 
 the pupils, (b) The correlation is less clear 
 with the girls, since the percentage of good girl 
 drawers who are poor in writing (18%) is prac- 
 tically equal to the average (17%). (c) Includ- 
 ing all, there is a positive correlation. 
 
 2. Drawing and Geography, (a) Boys are 
 more often better, and less often poorer, than 
 girls, (b) There is a positive correlation between 
 
62 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 drawing and geography with both boys and 
 girls. This correlation is easily explained, be- 
 cause the study of geography involves the 
 memory to a great extent. 
 
 3. Drawing and History. Conclusion. It is 
 not easy to explain the strong correlation which 
 we have found between history and drawing. 
 It may come from an indirect correlation; 
 perhaps those good in history, like those good 
 in drawing, are those who know best how to 
 construct mentally the visual schemas of events, 
 scenes, objects. 
 
 4. Drawing and Calculation. The correla- 
 tion is clearly present with the girls; it is less 
 marked with the boys. With the pupils at 
 Vaud the results are antagonistic. 
 
 5. Drawing and Manual Arts. Large corre- 
 lation present. This is easily explained. It 
 implies many of the same physiological factors: 
 exactness of the visual sense, precision in hand 
 movements, aesthetic taste. 
 
 6. Drawing and Language. Contradictory re- 
 ports from canton to canton. Ivanof con- 
 cludes the correlation is uncertain. 
 
 7. Drawing and French Composition. The 
 results show a positive correlation. 
 
 All of the results above are open to a number 
 of criticisms which will be discussed in greater 
 detail in connection with a similar personal re- 
 search. (See Chapter VI.) 
 
 Kik, 1 in the course of his elaborate study of 
 thirteen unusually talented drawers, makes the 
 
 1 Kik, Die iibernormale Zeichenbegabung bei Kindern, 
 1908. 
 
RELATION OF DRAWING TO DEVELOPMENT 63 
 
 following statement with reference to the relation 
 between talent in drawing and the degree of gen- 
 eral intelligence: 
 
 "It is easy to comprehend that mechanical 
 copying as merely skill of hand has nothing to 
 do with general intelligence and that a good 
 copyist may be a poor scholar. In general, 
 the pure copyists are weak pupils in the scien- 
 tific branches. As the number of copyists is 
 sufficiently large, and since they formerly ob- 
 tained the best marks, one has been able to 
 say, 'A good drawer is a poor scholar.' But in 
 reality it is the statement of Kerschensteiner 
 which is true: 'A great talent of graphic expres- 
 sion is regularly associated with the child of 
 good intelligence.' The activity of the memory 
 and the imagination in drawing proves that it 
 is intellectual work and that a great talent for 
 drawing is always the sign of a developed intel- 
 ligence. Experience demonstrates it. The good 
 drawers show a good or satisfactory faculty for 
 the scientific branches; they have certain strong 
 subjects and certain weak subjects. Often the 
 good drawers are strong in the natural sciences. 
 Favored by their love of nature, they have ac- 
 quired a mass of empirical knowledge and at- 
 tend the lessons with interest. The drawers of 
 imagination are excellent in style and obtain 
 good marks in German; literature pleases them; 
 there they find material for drawing. Preoc- 
 cupied with concrete objects, they have a cer- 
 tain weakness for the abstract sciences: mathe- 
 matics, algebra, geometry. Finally, they are 
 not brilliant in oral expression, habituated and 
 tempted as they are to express themselves by 
 drawing." 
 
64 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 Rouma 1 agrees with the general trend of these 
 conclusions, but Albien, 2 after a careful experi- 
 mental study of the drawing act, says: 
 
 "The foregoing experiments give no confirma- 
 tion to the thesis which Kerschensteiner up- 
 holds: very great talent for graphic expression 
 is positively correlated in children with good 
 intellectual endowment. For the pupils in the 
 foregoing attempts did not show equally not- 
 able intelligence and good drawing talent. The 
 most talented boy in drawing ranks 29 in a 
 class of 46." 
 
 These contradictory reports result in great part 
 from different interpretation of the meaning of 
 the word drawing. Ivanof includes under draw- 
 ing factors of imagination and aesthetic interpre- 
 tation, while Albien's experiments restrict draw- 
 ing to pure representation. Kik specifically denies 
 good intelligence to the copyist and claims it for 
 the artist. It is probable that drawing, as an art, 
 is characterized by some of the same factors 
 which enter into "general intelligence," while 
 drawing, as mere representation, is relatively 
 specialized. The conclusions of two studies in 
 general intelligence bear upon this question. 
 
 Terman 3 tested seven of the brightest boys and 
 
 1 Rouma, Op. cit., p. 198. 
 
 2 Albien, Op. cit., p. 33. 
 
 'Terman, Genius and Stupidity, Pedagogical Seminary, 
 1906. 
 
RELATION OF DRAWING TO DEVELOPMENT 65 
 
 seven of the dullest boys in a group of five hundred 
 elementary school pupils in (a) powers of inven- 
 tion and imagination, (b) mathematical ability, 
 (c) mastery of language, (d) insight, (e) ease of 
 learning the game of chess, (f) memory, and (g) 
 motor ability. He concludes that the bright 
 boys are superior to the dull boys in all mental 
 tests and inferior in the motor. 
 
 Simpson 1 investigated the correlation present in 
 a variety of mental abilities which he groups 
 roughly under the heads: sense-discrimination, 
 motor control, efficiency in perception, efficiency 
 in association, memory, and selective thinking. 
 Upon the basis of his own and previous experi- 
 ments Simpson concludes: 
 
 "We find justification for the common as- 
 sumption that there is a close interrelation 
 among certain mental abilities, and conse- 
 quently a something which may be called 'gen- 
 eral mental ability' or 'general intelligence'; 
 and that, on the other hand, certain capacities 
 are relatively specialized, and do not neces- 
 sarily imply other abilities except to a very 
 limited extent." 
 
 Whatever correlation may exist in general be- 
 tween talent in drawing and other intellectual 
 capacities, it is quite evident that there are num- 
 erous individual cases where a high state of intelli- 
 
 1 Simpson, Correlation of Mental Abilities, 1912. 
 
66 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 gence is not a sign of superior drawing ability. 
 Not only is this true, but it is not particularly 
 uncommon to find cases of extreme negative cor- 
 relation between drawing ability and other mani- 
 festations of intelligence. Rouma's 1 tests with 
 weak-minded children show that subjects with 
 feeble intelligence sometimes have very strong 
 visual memories and make slowly achieved draw- 
 ings which are remarkable in perfection of detail. 
 In contrast to this, Stiehler 2 records that he has 
 two sculptors in his Seminar practice school who 
 have no ability in drawing whatever, and Meu- 
 mann 3 describes an adult specialist in psychology 
 whose drawings are entirely without represent- 
 ative value. 
 
 1 Rouma, Op. cit., p. 199. 
 
 a Stiehler, Psychologie und Methodik des Zeichenunter- 
 richts, p. 35. 
 
 3 Meumann, Experimentelle Padagogik, III, p. 750. 
 
Chapter IV 
 
 STUDIES IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE DRAW- 
 ING PRODUCT 
 I. Gross Products. 
 
 Many investigators have been interested in the 
 broad question of what children draw and numer- 
 ous analyses of large collections of drawings have 
 been made upon this basis. A typical example is 
 the study of 1570 drawings by Mrs. Maitland. 1 
 The drawings were obtained by asking children to 
 draw what they pleased. The drawings were 
 then collected and classified as shown in the fol- 
 lowing table : 
 
 Table II 
 What Children Draw Spontaneously 
 
 The figures indicate the number of children who drew the 
 type specified at the various ages. 
 
 Type 5-7 yrs. 8-10 yrs. 11-13 yrs. 14-15 yra. 
 
 Human figure 45 40 8 5 
 
 Animals 23 21 11 10 
 
 Plants 35 30 17 11 
 
 Houses 32 30 13 4 
 
 Mechanical 8 13 1 1 8 
 
 Still life 40 47 39 31 
 
 Geometric design 5 12 28 37 
 
 Ornament 3 3 4 8 
 
 1 Maitland, What Children Draw to Please Themselves. 
 67 
 
68 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 Levinstein 1 finds similar results in a gross analy- 
 sis of several large collections of drawings. At 
 early ages children prefer to draw the human 
 form. As age increases, animals, plants, and 
 diverse objects respectively gain a larger place in 
 the drawings. In all cases it is the familiar animal 
 or plant which receives the highest percentage of 
 representation. 
 
 On the other hand, Probst, 2 in a study of the 
 spontaneous drawings of the native children of a 
 Kabyle tribe in Algiers, finds that animals are 
 drawn in preference to the human figure. Probst 
 asserts that the matter of choice varies with the 
 race and that it is dependent upon local tradition 
 and environment. 
 
 The evolution of the representation of the human 
 figure affords material for the analysis of the 
 development of a specific type. Lena Partridge 3 
 has catalogued the variations of the different child 
 ages in detail. 
 
 These statistics indicate that there are a num- 
 ber of well-marked general stages in the evolu- 
 tion of the representation of the human figure. 
 At early ages the child has little idea of form, 
 proportion, or visual representation. The simple 
 notions gradually include more and more detail 
 
 1 Levinstein, Kinderzeichnungen. 
 
 1 Probst, Les Dessins des Enfants Kabyles. 
 
 3 Partridge, L., Children's Drawings of Men and Women. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING PRODUCT 69 
 
 Table III 
 
 What Children Draw in Representing the Human Form 
 The figures give percentages of children at each age. 
 
 Age3 4 s 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 
 
 Body 50 82 92 93 98 99 98 99 ioo 100 
 
 Feet 39 83 92 93 94 98 98 97 98 98 
 
 Arms 45 67 71 80 76 75 93 90 95 95 
 
 Neck 8 22 20 37 51 63 79 79 90 93 
 
 Hair 6 26 27 32 38 58 70 65 73 82 
 
 Beard I 12 15 12 18 34 40 36 60 51 
 
 Feet profile... 15 54 66 73 78 87 83 85 79 85 
 
 Nose profile. .. 6 34 46 65 76 79 81 81 77 76 
 
 Body profile. . . 1 5 7 16 30 36 41 50 59 62 
 
 Hat 32 57 59 76 78 81 84 89 85 80 
 
 Buttons 30 37 37 52 55 66 64 81 79 83 
 
 until approximately complete. The change from 
 full-face representation to profile is a marked 
 characteristic in the development of the human 
 figure. 
 
 Levinstein 1 makes similar generalizations from 
 a large array of drawings. The biographical 
 studies of Rouma 2 and Luquet 3 indicate that the 
 representation of animal as well as human forms 
 passes through a series of stages which appear 
 successively. 
 
 1 Levinstein, Op. cit. 
 
 2 Rouma, Le Langage Graphique de l'Enfant. 
 
 3 Luquet, Les Dessins d'un Enfant. 
 
70 THE PSYCHOLOGY of drawing 
 
 Many students have been interested in the way 
 in which children draw. There is a considerable 
 mass of literature devoted to the study of the 
 child's difficulty with the factors of time, orienta- 
 tion, opacity, proportion, space, perspective, and 
 movement. The majority of children master 
 these problems in similar fashion. 
 
 Rouma 1 distinguishes four stages of develop- 
 ment in the representation of movement. 
 
 1. The drawings are stereotyped, indicating 
 merely that a man or an animal is being repre- 
 sented. The child announces verbally what 
 the motion is. "The man runs." 
 
 2. The second stage shows movement by 
 some form of relationship. A line is drawn 
 from the stereotyped form of a dog to a house, 
 which indicates that the dog is going to the 
 house. 
 
 3. The movement is partially indicated in 
 the drawing. A raised leg, with the remainder 
 of the figure stereotyped, shows that a man is 
 running. 
 
 4. The entire drawing depicts motion. 
 
 The following table is taken from Rouma. The 
 figures indicate the variation in representation of 
 motion by ages. The tests were given to five 
 classes in a Molenbeek school for girls. 
 
 1 Rouma, Op. cit., pp. 86-104. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING PRODUCT 71 
 
 Table IV 
 
 Representation of Motion 
 
 The figures indicate the number of children of different ages. 
 
 
 
 First Grade- 
 
 -33 
 
 pupils 
 
 
 Ages 
 
 First Stage 
 
 Second Stage 
 
 Third Stage 
 
 Fourth Stage 
 
 
 Neutral 
 
 Relative 
 
 
 Partial 
 
 Complete 
 
 6 yrs.. . 
 
 3 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 7yrs... 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 8 yrs.. . 
 
 1 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 2 
 
 O 
 
 9 yrs.. . 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 26 
 
 
 2 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 Fourth Grade- 
 
 —26 pupils 
 
 
 9 yrs... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 10 yrs.. . 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 11 yrs... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 12 yrs... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 13 yrs... 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 11 
 
 13 
 
 These statistics show that, while there is a gen- 
 eral parallelism between advance in age and the 
 ability to represent movement, there is great vari- 
 ation among individual pupils. Different chil- 
 dren of the same age appear in three different 
 stages of drawing. 
 
•)2 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 Levinstein 1 tabulated 4943 illustrations of 
 Hans Guck-in-die-Luft upon the basis of the 
 manner of drawing. As a result he distinguishes 
 two chief types of drawings. (1) Fragmentbilder 
 (fragment-pictures) and (2) Erzahlungsbilder (nar- 
 rative-pictures). The illustrations of a child of 
 six years afford a pure example of the Fragment- 
 bilder. No actual scene is represented, but the 
 illustration is composed of isolated figures scat- 
 tered over the paper entirely without organiza- 
 tion. At older ages the children begin to produce 
 the Erzahlungsbilder. The scenes of the story 
 are now distinguished and arranged according to 
 the sequence of the phrases of the story, a scene for 
 each phrase in chronological order. Levinstein 
 found that this type is begun at the age of 9 or 
 10, and that at 11 or 12 it is the chief type of the 
 children's illustrations. 
 
 Rouma 2 made a similar test to satisfy himself 
 of the true worth of Levinstein's conclusions. 
 Rouma had the story of the Petit-Poucet related 
 to the children as the scenes were shown by the 
 cinematograph. He found that the Erzahlungs- 
 bilder gradually displaced the Fragmentbilder in 
 the children's illustrations according to the in- 
 crease in age, but that it occurred at an earlier 
 
 1 Levinstein, Op. cit. 
 
 1 Rouma, Op. cit., p. 150. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING PRODUCT 73 
 
 age than Levinstein had found. In addition he 
 made a very significant discovery by asking some 
 of the children who always drew Fragmentbilder 
 to act out the story. He found that they could 
 act out all of the scenes in complete detail. He 
 then had them draw again, but they were unable 
 to make other than the fragmentary illustrations. 
 The fact that the children knew all about the 
 story, but could not make the drawings, shows 
 that the type of drawing does not indicate the 
 child's knowledge. His physical behavior, there- 
 fore, does not depend upon clear visual images of 
 the scenes of the story. 
 
 II. Stages in the Development of Drawing. 
 
 We have seen that it is possible to distinguish 
 a number of developmental periods in the mastery 
 of graphic representation. The earlier students of 
 children's drawings mark out three distinct per- 
 iods in the growth of the normal child. Burk, 1 
 for example, states that: 
 
 "The progress of a child learning to draw is 
 roughly divisible into three periods. 
 
 "1. A period in which the movements are 
 wholly muscular and are unguided by the 
 visual centers in any degree; roughly, this 
 period is that of the second and third years. 
 
 "2. A period roughly between the fourth 
 
 1 Burk, The Genetic versus the Logical Order in Drawing, 
 1902, p. 321. 
 
74 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 year and the ninth or tenth, characterized by 
 the first beginning of crude representation and 
 slowly proceeding toward an interest to accur- 
 ate drawing of objects as they are actually seen. 
 "3. A period beginning with an interest in 
 accurate representation of what the eye sees to 
 the exclusion of associated ideas." 
 
 The more recent analytical and biographical 
 studies render it possible to characterize the 
 development of drawing in greater detail. Both 
 objective and subjective, standards determine the 
 delimitation of the individual developmental 
 periods. The objective point of view dominates 
 the following differentiation. (After Kerschen- 
 steiner and Meumann.) 
 
 1 . P re-experimental Stage. The separate parts 
 of the objects drawn are merely placed side by 
 side. The little drawer represents his father or 
 mother by placing the principal parts of their 
 bodies side by side. The child does not really 
 draw; he tells, describes, counts up what he 
 knows. He has grasped the idea of graphical 
 expression and seeks for a new form of expres- 
 sion and communication. This stage extends 
 nearly to the fourth year. 
 
 2. Stage of the Schema. The drawing is 
 schematic. The child's outlines of animals and 
 various objects are not visual representations, 
 but are symbolic reproductions of what the 
 child knows. He does not attempt to show 
 accurate details; is satisfied with rounding con- 
 tours. The same or only slightly changed 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING PRODUCT 75 
 
 schema serves for a man or a woman. The 
 animal schema is a man laid horizontally, with 
 four legs added. The laws of opacity, per- 
 spective, and space relations are not recog- 
 nized. The child shows both exterior and 
 interior of a house in the same drawing. 
 
 3. Stage of Beginning Appreciation of Line 
 and Form. The child makes his first attempts 
 at coherent visual representation, but the 
 imitative appearance still contains schematic 
 features. This stage begins about the seventh 
 year with gifted drawers, much later with the 
 untalented, or is never reached. 
 
 4. Stage of Representation According to Ap- 
 pearance. The schema disappears from the 
 drawing. The form of the representation is 
 determined by the appearance of the object. 
 The drawing is in outline; it makes no attempt 
 at the reproduction of tri-dimensional space. 
 Beginning with the eleventh year, a conspicuous 
 percentage of children cultivate a number of 
 means of representation of depth and plastic- 
 ity. This introduces the final stage. 
 
 5. Stage of Representation According to Tri- 
 dimensional Form. The depth and plasticity of 
 objects are now shown by means of proper 
 regulation of light and shade, perspective, and 
 foreshortening. This is the final stage, typical 
 of the highest development of drawing. Many 
 drawers do not reach this stage. 
 
 The subjective standards of delimitation are 
 based upon the development of individual chil- 
 dren. Luquet's biographical study indicates that 
 
76 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 all individuals pass successively through four 
 ages or phases of drawing. 1 
 
 i. Involuntary Drawing. The child has per- 
 ceived that the drawings of others represent 
 objects and that he is able to trace lines for 
 himself. He does not realize, however, that he 
 can represent similarly with his own lines. He 
 notes the accidental similarity of his drawings 
 after he has made them and then calls atten- 
 tion to "his" drawing. It is not yet an inten- 
 tional creation. 
 
 2. Synthetic Incapacity. The child deter- 
 mines to represent the visual appearance of 
 objects. From then on he varies only in his 
 manner of expressing realism. In this stage he 
 is overcome by diverse obstacles, the chief of 
 which is his synthetic incapacity to assemble 
 the different details which have gained his at- 
 tention into a coherent whole. 
 
 3. Logical Realism. This age is character- 
 ized by logical realism. The child deliberately 
 attempts to reproduce not only what he is able 
 to see of an object, but all there is. He gives a 
 typical form to each part. 
 
 4. Visual Realism. In this stage the child 
 arrives at visual representation, submitting 
 with more or less lack of skill in execution to the 
 principles of perspective. He has arrived, as 
 far as drawing is concerned, to the period of 
 the adult. 
 
 The stages of graphic development are not a 
 result of a completely independent development 
 
 1 Luquet, Op. cit., p. 225. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING PRODUCT 77 
 
 of the child ; imitation and teaching must be taken 
 into consideration as adding or even interfering 
 with the natural gifts. It is very possible to de- 
 limit stages which show the degree of conformity 
 to the ideals of instruction. 1 Thorndike 2 has 
 constructed a scale which attempts to measure a 
 child's achievement in drawiig. The scale is 
 composed of fourteen typical drawings taken 
 from Kerschensteiner's Die Entwickelung der Zeich- 
 nerischen Begdbung. The fourteen sample draw- 
 ings range in merit by approximately equal steps 
 from o up to 17. The drawings of a child or of a 
 class may be compared to the sample drawings of 
 the scale and the degree of achievement estimated 
 accordingly. 
 
 Becterew 3 gives a list of ten objective character- 
 istics by which children's drawings may be judged. 
 The list includes such factors as the degree of 
 regularity of lines, relative complexity, degree of 
 imitation, time required for observation, coherence 
 of related events, completeness of execution, 
 creative power, permanent and temporary indi- 
 vidual peculiarities. 
 
 Whatever pedagogical values are derived from 
 an analysis of the stages of drawing must take 
 
 1 See Stiehler, Psychologie und Methodik des Zeichenun- 
 terrichts, pp. 18-21. 
 
 a Thorndike, The Measurement of Achievement in Draw- 
 ing, 1913. 
 
 * Becterew, Objektive Psychologie, 1913, p. 392. 
 
78 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 into consideration the individual child as well as 
 the group. The individual child not only is 
 likely to differ markedly from other children of 
 his own age, but is variable in his own develop- 
 ment. Periods of regress to former stages are 
 frequent. Old schemas which have been dis- 
 carded in favor of visual representation reappear 
 for extended periods of time. The situation is 
 further complicated by the common appearance 
 of mixed stages in which the drawings of the 
 child have characteristics from both earlier and 
 later stages. Disposition, mood, and physio- 
 logical condition affect the type of drawing. If 
 interested and animated, the child uses one type 
 of representation; if distrait or fatigued, another 
 type. The calm, logical, positive child draws 
 more exactly and talks less; the brilliant, imagina- 
 tive child sketches freely and supplies the details 
 orally. 1 As Luquet 2 says: 
 
 "The theoretical distinction which we have 
 indicated among the four ages of drawing is, in 
 fact, much less sharp; each period is prolonged 
 after the following period has commenced; in 
 particular, not only with the child, but equally 
 with the adult, more or less sporadic traces of 
 logical realism persist in the drawings of indi- 
 viduals who have arrived consciously to the 
 phase of visual realism." 
 
 1 Rouma, Op. cit., p. 134. 
 
 2 Luquet, Op. cit., p. 228. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING PRODUCT 79 
 
 III. Drawing as a Form of Language. 
 
 The statement that "drawing is not an art for 
 children, but a language" 1 is found in some form 
 in practically every work on children's drawings. 
 The earlier studies as usual give more attention 
 to groups than to individuals. The following 
 frequently quoted comparison is from Lukens: 2 
 
 "The development of drawing should show 
 the same stages as the development of speech 
 — suggested as follows: 
 
 Speech 
 
 1. Automatic cries and re- 
 flex or impulsive sounds. 
 
 2. Imitation of sound, but 
 without meaning; child bab- 
 bles back when addressed. 
 
 3. Understands words, but 
 does not speak beyond such 
 words as "mama," "papa," 
 etc. 
 
 4. Repeats words as mere 
 sounds when they are said 
 to him. 
 
 5. Uses words to express 
 his thoughts. 
 
 6. Studies grammar and 
 rhetoric. 
 
 Drawing. 
 
 1. Automatic and aimless 
 scribble. 
 
 2. Scribbling localizations 
 and imitation of movements 
 of other persons' hands. 
 
 3. Understands pictures, 
 but does not draw beyond 
 the simplest localization of 
 features by scribbling. 
 
 4. Copies from others to 
 see how to get the right ef- 
 fects in the use of lines. 
 
 5. Picture-writing, illus- 
 trated stories, scenes, etc. 
 
 6. Studies technique of 
 drawing, perspective, pro- 
 portion, shading, etc. 
 
 1 Levinstein, Kinderzeichnungen, 1905. 
 a Lukens, A Study of Children's Drawings in the Earlier 
 Years, 1896. 
 
80 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 It is undoubtedly true that the first two stages 
 mentioned above have a common basis in the 
 impulses of play and imitation. From this point 
 on the comparison loses its significance, because 
 the characteristics given to the last four stages of 
 drawing are not typical of its genetic development. 
 The biographical studies of Luquet 1 show that 
 during this period the development of drawing is 
 characterized by the method of "expressing real- 
 ism." Language, on the other hand, tends to 
 become more and more abstract. 2 The child's 
 free drawing is always individualistic, while his 
 language is dominated by social convention. In 
 the earlier stages there are many parallels between 
 the two forms of expression. In the later stages 
 drawing diverges in one direction toward the con- 
 crete, while language diverges in another toward 
 the abstract. This may be illustrated by refer- 
 ence to studies in the racial development of draw- 
 ing. 
 
 Haddon's 3 biological study of the evolution of 
 drawing shows that: 
 
 "There are certain needs of man which appear 
 to have constrained him to artistic effort; these 
 may conveniently be grouped under the four 
 terms of Art, Information, Wealth, and Relig- 
 ion. 
 
 1 See previous section. 
 
 a Meumann, Experimentelle Padagogik, II, p. 693. 
 
 8 Haddon, Evolution in Art, 1914. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING PRODUCT 81 
 
 "Art. — Aesthetics is the study or practice of 
 art for art's sake, for the sensuous pleasure of 
 form, line, and color. 
 
 "Information. — In order to convey informa- 
 tion from one man to another, when oral or 
 gesture language is impossible, recourse must be 
 had to pictorial signs of one form or another." 
 Here it is seen that drawing serves as a language 
 when its chief purpose is primarily to convey 
 information. Let us note what happens in the 
 development of pictorial signs as a form of lang- 
 uage. Haddon 3 gives the following stages: 
 
 1. Pedographs. Pictures or actual repre- 
 sentations of objects. 
 
 2. Ideograms. Pictorial symbols, which are 
 used to suggest objects or abstract ideas. 
 
 Phonograms. Graphic symbols of sounds. 
 
 3. Verbal Signs, representing entire words. 
 
 4. Syllabic Signs, which stand for the articu- 
 lations of which words are composed. 
 
 5. Alphabetic Signs or Letters, which repre- 
 sent the elementary sounds into which the 
 syllable can be resolved. 
 
 The development proceeds from the individual 
 and concrete to the conventional and abstract. 
 The pictograph is the individual's own representa- 
 tion of the salient features of some object; the 
 ideogram and the phonogram still carry something 
 of visual appearance, but have become conven- 
 tionalized by social repetition, while verbal, 
 syllabic, and alphabetical signs have lost all 
 
82 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 semblance of visual representation. "The less 
 the picture became like what it was intended to 
 represent, the more useful it became as a means 
 for conveying thought." 1 
 
 Contrast with this the development of the 
 child's drawing in our present social organization. 
 (After Luquet and Kerschensteiner.) 
 
 1. Synthetic Incapacity. Graphic juxtaposi- 
 tion of what the child knows. 
 
 2. Schemata. Symbolic representation of 
 what the child knows. Conventionalized and 
 generic. 
 
 3. Visual Coherence. Imitates individual ap- 
 pearance, but contains schematic features. 
 
 4. Two-dimensional Representation. Visual 
 representation which lacks perspective. 
 
 5. Visual Realism. Perfect visual represen- 
 tation of the individual object. 
 
 The entire trend of drawing as representation is 
 from the general and abstract toward the specific 
 and concrete, just the opposite from the develop- 
 ment of drawing as a form of language. It is 
 evident from the above that drawing is most like 
 language at the second stage, when symbolic or 
 generic drawings are the rule. Luquet 2 questions 
 the advantage of the achievement of artificial 
 education in substituting visual for logical realism 
 
 1 Haddon, Op. cit., p. 221. 
 
 2 Luquet, Les Dessins d'un Enfant, p. 247. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING PRODUCT S3 
 
 in drawing. The drawing which permits the 
 exhibition of a series of facts in a condensed theater 
 of action deserves serious consideration before 
 being discouraged. 
 
 It is undoubtedly true that the emphasis of our 
 education upon the visual in drawing has dis- 
 couraged children from continuing their efforts at 
 logical drawing. It remains only in the incidental 
 construction of the analytical drawing. It is 
 here that drawing continues to parallel language. 
 Analytical drawing is characterized by logical and 
 generic representation. This fact is of importance 
 to our consideration of laboratory procedure; it 
 suggests why analytical drawing and description 
 are relatively interchangeable and why either of 
 these devices is preferable to representative draw- 
 ing. 
 
 Drawing presents its parallels to language before 
 it yields to the domination of visual reality. 
 Rouma 1 has made a detailed study of this early 
 period of the child's life with reference to the 
 drawing-language. He describes four general tend- 
 encies which, with considerable individual varia- 
 tion and complexity, appear in chronological 
 order. A summary follows: 
 
 1. Indicative Tendency. The child makes a 
 mark and indicates orally what it means. Each 
 sign stands for some unit in the total drawing. 
 
 1 Rouma, Le Langage Graphique, pp. 131-154. 
 
I THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 The child draws a man and as she marks says, 
 "This is the nose," "Here is the mouth," etc. 
 Visual representation is entirely lacking in the 
 pure type. The lines do not exteriorize, but 
 seem to fix the characteristics in the mind of 
 the child. 
 
 2. Descriptive Tendency. Visual representa- 
 tion enters into the drawings. The general 
 form is greatly simplified, but fairly exact and 
 the parts are relatively in proper position. The 
 representation is semi-ideographic and shows in 
 a descriptive way what the child knows about 
 the object. 
 
 3. Narrative Tendency. The child draws a 
 number of diverse characters and representations 
 which he unites into a story by oral comment. 
 The drawings are partially indicative, but the 
 child comprehends their representative value. 
 In the earlier stages of this tendency oral state- 
 ment plays the leading part ; later it is used only 
 to unite the various scenes of the story. The 
 drawings are general in character, the details 
 being expressed orally. The individual draw- 
 ings frequently are distinguished by a single 
 characteristic attitude. The drawings seem to 
 exteriorize the story and facilitate the narra- 
 tive. 
 
 4. The Drawing-Language at Its Height. Bet- 
 ter technique and more sustained attention 
 favor the composition of scenes. The child 
 becomes animated. He speaks in a high voice. 
 He completes the imperfections of his drawing 
 orally, by gesture, by facial expression. His 
 characters speak, move, have life. The indi- 
 vidual lines have greater representative value, 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING PRODUCT 85 
 
 but there is a distinct tendency to simplify 
 the drawing as a whole. The non-useful de- 
 tails are reduced, while the characteristic fea- 
 ture is frequently exaggerated. The child tends 
 to conventionalize his drawings by progressive 
 simplification when he uses the same charac- 
 ters in successive scenes. 
 

 
Chapter V 
 
 STUDIES IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE 
 DRAWING ACT 
 
 The analysis of the drawing product given in 
 the preceding chapter calls attention to individual 
 variations in the drawing ability, but fails to ex- 
 plain the causes of difference. The present chap- 
 ter gives a review of the results of recent attempts 
 to make such an explanation upon the basis of an 
 experimental analysis of the drawing activity. 
 
 I. Analysis of the Act of Drawing {Albien 1 ). 
 
 The complete act of drawing is composed of 
 two major processes which are quite distinct. It 
 consists of an optical-perceptual process and a 
 motor-graphic part, each of which is composed of 
 subordinate partial processes. In the optical- 
 perceptual process the eye receives the sensory 
 stimuli from the object in view and the mind 
 assimilates the perceived impression on the basis 
 of previously acquired experience with similar 
 sensory material. In the motor-graphic process 
 the hand is set in motion to reproduce the per- 
 ceived and more or less worked over visual image 
 of the original object. The partial processes 
 which enter into the optical-perceptual part of 
 
 1 Albien, Behalten und Wiedergabe einfacher Formen, 
 1907. 
 
 87 
 
88 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 the drawing activity show the following char- 
 acteristics: 
 
 i. Purely Optical Process. This includes the 
 fixation of the eye upon the object and the imaging 
 of the object upon the retina. 
 
 2. Sensational Process. This embraces the pas- 
 sive taking in of the specially disposed sensations 
 of brightness, color, surface distributions, etc. 
 It may also include the sensations of accompany- 
 ing eye and hand movements. 
 
 3. Awakening of Percepts Which Tend to be 
 Present and Apperception. The previously ac- 
 quired percepts of similar sensation complexes 
 which are at hand become actual. The object is 
 grasped in consciousness, recognized, identified, 
 and interpreted as the particular object present, 
 
 4. Assimilation. These apperceived ideas (3) 
 assimilate immediately with the passively taken 
 in impressions (2), causing them to become active 
 in consciousness. 
 
 5. Secondary Reproduction of Earlier Associa- 
 tions. Reproductions of formerly acquired con- 
 cepts and judgments of similar appearing objects 
 enter the mind. The conceptual activity devi- 
 ates somewhat from the object present and other 
 ideas enter the mind and assimilate with the 
 objective impression. These related ideas may 
 fuse unconsciously into our interpretation of the 
 perceived object, or they may assume a free rela- 
 tion which leads to reflection by contrast and com- 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING ACT 89 
 
 parison and ultimately to our highest understand- 
 ing of the object. 
 
 6. Preconceived Observation. The five partial 
 processes just defined are all modified by the or- 
 iginal purpose of the observation of the object. 
 If the purpose is to make a complete and thorough 
 examination of the object, the activity of each of 
 the elemental processes will be markedly different 
 than if the making of a mere sketch be in mind. 
 Through the preconceived purpose the whole 
 process of perception is given a particular direc- 
 tion, while from the countless number of possible 
 concepts which rise in consciousness a definite 
 selection is made. Attention directs itself pre- 
 dominantly to that in the object which is in ac- 
 cord with our purpose, whether we are conscious 
 of its deviation or not. 1 
 
 Such are the partial processes of the optical- 
 perceptual part of the drawing act. Similarly, 
 the motor-graphical part of drawing is composed 
 of subordinate elements. The hand is controlled 
 by three chief factors. 
 
 1. Direction by the Optical Image. When the 
 drawer looks away from the object of observa- 
 tion (and always, of course, when he is drawing 
 from memory), his hand is guided more or less 
 by the visual image which is retained in memory. 
 This is, moreover, always an inwardly worked 
 
 1 Judd and Cowling, Studies in Perceptual Development, 
 Psychological Review, 1897. 
 
90 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 over image, subject to the influence of any one 
 or all of the optical-perceptual partial processes. 
 Some drawers examine the object carefully for 
 several moments, study it more or less analytically, 
 then draw from the retained image without 
 further looking at the object. Other drawers 
 revive their waning image by frequently recurring 
 glances at the object. 
 
 2. Kinesthetic Control. The hand is controlled 
 in its particular movements by the immediate 
 kinesthetic sensations and by images of previous 
 sensations. Previous experience in drawing sim- 
 ilar lines gives the needed muscular control. The 
 kinesthetic images of the eye or hand movements 
 made during the period of observation may also 
 share in the subjective control of the hand. 
 
 3. Control by Watching Results. The appear- 
 ance of the developing drawing is used as a means 
 for conscious comparison with the appearance of 
 the original object. The wayward lines are cor- 
 rected or directed accordingly. 
 
 It is important to note, as Albien has empha- 
 sized, that the preceding optical-perceptual pro- 
 cess of drawing varies individually in its composi- 
 tion, its components, and the significance for the 
 whole process. With one individual analytical 
 observation is partial and inexact. Another ob- 
 serves but few details, but observes these details 
 minutely. One individual quickly gives over to 
 the play of his secondary associations or reflec- 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING ACT 91 
 
 tions, while another adheres more closely to the 
 given objective impressions and makes but little 
 individual interpretation. 
 
 As with the individual behavior of the percep- 
 tual part of the act of drawing, so are the indi- 
 vidual processes which control the hand. With 
 one drawer the hand is guided more by the visual 
 image, while with another it is guided by the 
 assistance of the imagination or reflection. With 
 one individual the hand follows point by point 
 the exact analytical observation of the object. 
 With another it follows the schema acquired 
 from some similar object. Finally, with indi- 
 viduals of strong motor inclination, the motor 
 images of the eye or hand movements may equal 
 or for a time predominate over the visual image. 
 
 These general considerations of drawing which 
 rest upon experimental analysis show that correct- 
 ness and originality in the execution of drawing 
 may depend upon extraordinarily varied factors. 
 It now remains to discuss the manner in which 
 these partial processes act together in different 
 individuals. Individual drawers may be classi- 
 fied by the difficulties which they encounter in 
 the act of graphic representation, or by the gifts, 
 which they possess for successful drawing. 
 
 II. Perceptual Development {Judd and Cowling 1 ). 
 Judd and Cowling 2 find that subjects attempt- 
 ing to reproduce a simple figure after an exposure 
 
 x Op. cit. 
 
 2 See Chapter II for method. 
 
92 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 of ten seconds exhibit two types of perceptual 
 development. One type gets an early mastery of 
 the general form and a later mastery of the de- 
 tails. The second type begins immediately to 
 master the details of the figure to the temporary 
 neglect of the general form. This same experi- 
 ment gives striking evidence of the complexity 
 of the perceptual process and of the variations 
 existing among different individuals. It is very 
 significant that repeated exposures and continued 
 analytical study is necessary before the percep- 
 tion of a simple figure is mastered. Correct 
 temporary memory of one part of the figure be- 
 comes vague when attention is directed to another 
 part. 
 
 III. Drawing Types (Albien 1 ). 
 
 Albien's carefully conducted experiments 2 indi- 
 cate that wide variations exist between individual 
 drawers, who tend to approach more or less closely 
 one of two sharply distinguished extreme types. 
 
 i. Visual Type. Appears in many gradations 
 according to the share played by apperception. 
 This type has a clear visual image and holds more 
 to the direct objective impressions. There are 
 two chief sub-types: 
 
 (a) The subject perceives a clear visual 
 image, but permits apperception and associa- 
 
 x Op. cit. 
 
 2 See Chapter II, 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING ACT 93 
 
 tion to enter little or not at all into activity. 
 The image is therefore transitory. The subject 
 may be a good copy drawer, but fails to draw 
 well from memory. 
 
 (b) The subject has a clear visual image. He 
 assimilates the impression and seeks through 
 analysis and subsequent synthesis to make the 
 impression conspicuous. This subject is a good 
 drawer. 
 
 2. Constructive Type. The subject has a visual 
 image which is but little imprinted. He depends 
 upon reflection and subjective construction for 
 the (memory) drawing. The original image is 
 altered in the drawing. The success of the draw- 
 ing depends upon the subject's mental power for 
 correct association and reflection. If not accom- 
 panied by analytical observation, the drawing is 
 a failure. 
 
 Samples of the above types may be shown by 
 giving the reactions of several of the subjects of 
 Albien's research. 
 
 1. Extreme Visual Type. Franz G., 9 years. 
 Ranks 29 in a class of 49. 
 
 Very lively, enters into the experiment with 
 great zeal. Attempts to draw a figure which 
 has been exposed ten seconds with his eye held 
 upon the fixation point in the center of the 
 figure. Interesting to observe how he stops 
 abruptly after the first stroke and draws no 
 further. "The image has disapppeared." He 
 draws with rapid, precise strokes. He observes 
 
94 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 a figure at his leisure, then draws it from mem- 
 ory. Says, "The image hangs in my head." 
 He retains the "whole image" very well. Num- 
 erous objects such as a barometer, vase, kaleido- 
 scope, etc., are exposed for ten — fifteen — twenty- 
 five seconds. Franz retains the characteristic 
 form and draws it without reconstruction. 
 Looks often in the distance while drawing. 
 Subject is markedly visually gifted and does 
 not help himself through construction. 
 
 2. Constructive Type with Some Visual Endow- 
 ment. Paul T., 9 years. Ranks 5 in a class of 
 49. 
 
 Gives precise answers to all questions. "I 
 cannot do that." "I do not see sufficiently for 
 that." Thinks long before he begins to draw 
 (up to two minutes) ; then draws slowly, but 
 with rapid, precise strokes. For one memory 
 drawing he observes 170 seconds; for the other 
 two, relatively a short time. During the draw- 
 ing from the model his eye wanders back and 
 forth. During the study he makes automatic 
 movements with the hand. Sees resemblances 
 in the forms of the copy to objects with which 
 he is familiar. He is an example of the con- 
 struing type who helps himself considerably by 
 his knowledge. He declares, "he marks how 
 the lines and strokes lie." The drawings are 
 good. 
 
 3. Extreme Constructive Type. Karl Sch., 15 
 years. First in general intelligence in a class of 
 43- 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING ACT 95 
 
 The performance of this pupil with good intel- 
 ligence (first of forty-three) is poorer than that 
 of many younger children with weak intelli- 
 gence. In the drawing after fixed seeing he 
 first gazes in the distance. One can see from 
 the movements of the muscles of his eyes and 
 forehead that he is meditating. Upon ques- 
 tioning he states that he is reflecting upon the 
 relations. He does not succeed with the mem- 
 ory drawing; an argument that he has no visual 
 image and that his mental power is unable to 
 supply the deficiency through reflection. When 
 he makes the drawing from the model he draws 
 precisely and in a shorter time. Upon ques- 
 tioning he says that he forms the drawing by 
 combination of the separate parts, reflects on 
 the relations, and thinks of similar appearing 
 objects. Makes four successive attempts to 
 draw the same figure after ten-second exposures 
 with eyes on a fixation point. Fails each time. 
 The subject is of the constructive type with 
 weak optical endowment. 
 
 Albien compared his subjects by means of 
 tachistoscopical reading tests with Messmer's 
 objective and subjective reading types. 1 He 
 Objective Type Subjective Type 
 
 1. Rigid fixation. 1. Fluctuating attention. 
 
 2. Relatively small scope of 2. Relatively large scope of 
 
 attention. attention. 
 
 3. Attention directed to 3. Attention directed to in- 
 
 periphery. terior. 
 
 4. Objective fidelity. 4. Subjective interpretive 
 
 tendency. 
 
 1 Messmer, Zur Psychologie des Lesens bei Kindern und 
 Erwachsenen. 
 
96 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 announces marked similarities between the visual 
 drawing type and Messmer's objective type, 
 and between the constructive drawing type and 
 Messmer's subjective type. The German word 
 kriegfiihrenden was exposed successively by means 
 of a tachistoscope for a fraction of a second. 
 The subjects endeavored to write the word, or as 
 much of it as possible, immediately after each 
 exposure. The results follow: 
 
 Paul E., Constructive Type. Franz G., Visual Type. 
 
 
 -kriegfiihrenden- 
 
 I. 
 
 kriegfordern 
 
 i- -g 
 
 2. 
 
 kriegfahren 
 
 2. -r.g.- 
 
 3- 
 
 kriegfordern 
 
 3- -fur- 
 
 4- 
 
 kriegfordern 
 
 4. -fiir.r- 
 
 5- 
 
 kriegfarchen 
 
 5. kr.-fu- 
 
 6. 
 
 kriegfiihren 
 
 6. kr-g- 
 
 7- 
 
 kriegfuhren 
 
 7. -fiihr-en 
 
 8. 
 
 kriegfarchen 
 
 8. h-g fiihr-k 
 
 9- 
 
 kriegfnrchen 
 
 9. krieg- 
 
 10. 
 
 kriegfurden 
 
 10. krieg-r 
 
 ii. 
 
 kriegfiireln 
 
 Thinks he can make 
 
 12. 
 
 kriegfahrnden 
 
 nothing further out 
 
 13- 
 
 kriegfarden 
 
 of it. 
 
 14. 
 
 kriegfuhren 
 
 
 15- 
 
 kriegfiihrenden 
 
 
 Albien insists that thorough observation does 
 not depend upon objective exactitude alone, but 
 rather upon the relation set up between the 
 objectively given impression and the conceptual 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING ACT ctf 
 
 assimilation which follows immediately. If the 
 associations and ideas which come about by re- 
 flection crowd out or misconstrue the objective 
 impressions, the resultant percept and eventual 
 drawing will be faulty and untrue. Thus the 
 pure constructive type gives himself over too soon 
 to subjective interpretation without at first seeing 
 clearly. The pure visual type permits his com- 
 prehension to be circumscribed by the objective 
 characteristics of the object so that he fails to 
 perceive it in the light of his previous knowledge. 
 The best type of observation for purposes of 
 drawing (or, as we shall emphasize later, for 
 purposes of scientific interpretation) is based upon 
 a proper union of objective seeing and subjective 
 contemplation. 
 
 IV. Difficulties in Drawing (Meumann 1 ). 
 
 A large share of present literature takes the 
 common point of departure that difficulties in 
 drawing arise from two causes. The poor drawer 
 cannot see correctly, or he fails in skill of hand. 
 Meumann calls attention to the fact that he has 
 found individuals who possess excellent sight and 
 great skill of hand who cannot draw. Meumann 
 gave a number of experimental tests 2 to determine 
 the causes of individual variation in drawing. 
 He found many causes for poor drawing and a 
 number of types of drawers. 
 
 1 Meumann, Experimentelle Padagogik. 
 * See Chapter II. 
 
" 9§ THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 The "seeing" of most men who are not painters 
 or drawers by occupation is in no manner an 
 analyzing and discerning seeing. 1 The object of 
 their seeing is not that of making themselves 
 reliably trustworthy with the form and colors of 
 objects, but at best only to recognize the things, 
 to connect the objects with the words commonly 
 used in naming them, or to learn to know with 
 certainty the characteristics of things needful for 
 the practical employments of life. Few realize 
 how inaccurate is their knowledge of the form 
 and color of the most familiar objects. Ask them 
 to draw a postage stamp or the picture of a friend 
 from memory, and they assert that they know 
 the thing sufficiently, but cannot draw it. Chal- 
 lenge them then to describe the appearance of 
 the stamp, and for the most part, to their sur- 
 prise, they fail lamentably. What is the cause of 
 these failures? This question may be best 
 answered by presenting a list of the difficulties 
 found in memory drawing. 
 
 It should be noted here that the memory is 
 involved in drawing even when the object is in 
 sight. The drawer must keep the mental image 
 in mind at least while actually drawing. He, of 
 course, keeps the mental image from disappear- 
 ing or changing greatly by constant return to the 
 object. Unless he can get the general outline of 
 
 1 Meumann, Op. cit., p. 719. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING ACT 99 
 
 the object fairly well imaged and retained in 
 memory, he is very likely to have the not uncom- 
 mon difficulty of being unable to make the de- 
 tailed parts of his drawing fit into a uniform 
 whole. The following difficulties come to light 
 most clearly during attempts at memory drawing. 
 
 1. The will to see analytically has not been 
 aroused. In the case of most drawers who have 
 never received drawing instruction, the will for 
 careful notation of the specific form and colors of 
 things is not present. 
 
 2. In spite of the will to see analytically the 
 drawer cannot make a correct analysis. He 
 lacks the power of discrimination between the gen- 
 eral setting and the minor details. 
 
 3. Defective visual memory images. The 
 drawer has a deficient sense of form, particularly 
 as to indistinctness and incompleteness. Despite 
 exhaustive observation, he retains no definite 
 visual memory of form, color, or space situations. 
 
 4. Lack of ability to hold the visual memory 
 image in attention while drawing. When the 
 drawer turns his attention to the act of drawing, 
 the mental image becomes dim or disappears 
 entirely. 
 
 5. Lack of co-ordination of the visual image 
 with the execution of the drawing movements. 
 The drawer cannot guide the hand according to 
 the dictates of the visual image. 
 
loo THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 6. The memory image is disturbed by the 
 sight of the beginning drawing and by the incon- 
 gruity between this and the design existing in 
 the imagination of the drawer. This is common 
 with unpracticed drawers. 
 
 7. The lack of acquired drawing designs (sche- 
 mata). The trained drawer acquires a mass of 
 schemata by which he can produce a schema of an 
 animal, a flower, or a house, quickly upon paper. 
 This serves as a support for the representation of 
 his memory images and he gradually modifies 
 the schema until it corresponds to that which he 
 would express. Many drawers who are deficient 
 in schemata and can draw well from another 
 drawing cannot draw from an object. 
 
 8. Lack of dexterity or skill of hand. The 
 drawer is unable to make a straight or curved 
 line satisfactorily. 
 
 9. Lack of knowledge of the projection of tri- 
 dimensional space upon a flat surface. 
 
 10. Defective artistic sense interferes with the 
 individualistic aesthetic treatment of drawing. 
 
 11. These defects may be found in different 
 combinations in different individuals. 1 
 
 V. Types of Retention (Meumann 2 ). 
 Finally, we may examine certain types of re- 
 tention in drawing. No two individuals are 
 
 1 Meumann believes that 2, 3, 4, and 5 are defects of 
 nature and that the others are due to training. 
 
 2 Op. cit. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING ACT 101 
 
 exactly alike, but it is possible as well as profit- 
 able to describe a number of characteristic types 
 of retention in drawing. Whether we are inter- 
 ested in drawing from the aesthetic, the repre- 
 sentative, or the scientific point of view, accurate 
 knowledge of the type of retention of the pupil is 
 of the greatest importance. The following analy- 
 sis is based upon Meumann's experiments with 
 eleven adults. 1 
 
 1. The completedly untrained drawer. The 
 subject has few drawing concepts and shows con- 
 spicuously that a certain knowledge of the pure 
 technique of drawing, regardless of all endowment, 
 is necessary. Some idea of the manner of repre- 
 sentation is necessary before an actual "drawing" 
 can be produced. The subject draws a pure 
 schematic sketch and cannot represent other- 
 wise. This type of drawing resembles that of 
 many young children and that of primitive peoples. 
 
 2. The subject (drawing from memory) supports 
 himself exclusively by the image of the object 
 without supplementing this by additions accord- 
 ing to his knowledge or conjecture. The drawing 
 is incomplete, but rests upon absolutely pure 
 visual retention. 
 
 3. Similar to the preceding type, save that the 
 image is supported by knowledge and reflection. 
 
 x See Chapter II. 
 
102 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 If the perspective course of the lines is not clear 
 in the visual image, it is reconstructed in thought. 
 
 4. This type has such a weak visual memory 
 that he yields completely to reflection and con- 
 struction of the object. 
 
 5. The subject possesses numerous drawing 
 schemata. He knows objects similar to the object 
 and for the most part works with them. Thus 
 he does not represent the individual character- 
 istics of the original objects. His drawing tech- 
 nically is very complete. (It seems that profes- 
 sionally trained drawers incline to this type of 
 retention.) 
 
 6. This type, like the child, gets a completed 
 schema at once from the object. It is, however, 
 generic, not specific. He draws a general cigar 
 box, not the one before him. 
 
 7. The specifically artistic type. He charac- 
 terizes his drawings through a habitual leaning to 
 the artistic working of the object. He seeks upon 
 this basis to get a certain aesthetic effect out of 
 the object. This tendency may show itself in 
 unskilled drawers and is relatively independent 
 of skill of hand and acquired schemata. 
 
 8. Finally, is the subject who draws better from 
 memory than after the model. He depends upon 
 his numerous visual memory images. He has 
 formed the habit of impressing himself with the 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE DRAWING ACT 103 
 
 visual appearance, or he possesses that exceptional 
 "adventitious retention" in high degree. 
 
 Karrenberg 1 found that children of nine and ten 
 years of age under the influence of systematic 
 training were enabled to double their ability in 
 representative drawing. 
 
 1 Karrenberg, Der Mensch als Zeichenobject, 1910. 
 
PART III 
 EXPERIMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS 
 
Chapter VI 
 THE EXPERIMENTS 
 
 Attention was called in Chapter I to the fact that 
 laboratory work in science teaching has three 
 aims: the observation of material, the making of 
 records, and the retention of learning, and that it 
 furthers these aims by three devices: represent- 
 ative drawing, description, and analytical drawing. 
 The determination of the character of the various 
 interrelations of these factors, and the psycho- 
 logical analysis of drawing were set as the prob- 
 lems for ultimate solution. The intervening sur- 
 vey of the literature of drawing has been devoted 
 to the psychological setting of these two prob- 
 lems. The present chapter will present a series of 
 special experiments which have been organized to 
 complete the analysis of the various factors of 
 laboratory teaching. 
 
 Experiment I. Representative Drawing, 
 Description, and Diagrammatic Drawing. 
 
 i. Problem. To evaluate the correlation be- 
 tween ability in representative drawing and abil- 
 ity in description and diagrammatic drawing. 
 
 2. Method of Procedure. The special tests used 
 for this problem were selected after numerous pre- 
 liminary trials which were necessary to adjust 
 
 107 
 
108 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 them to time limitations and to eliminate direc- 
 tions which were liable to misinterpretation. It 
 was necessary to select objects for the various tests 
 which were approximately equally well known to 
 the different subjects, which afforded a range of 
 difficulty adapted to grading, and which could be 
 finished at a single sitting. 
 
 Test No. i. Subjects. 51 students in a first- 
 year high school class in General Science. 
 
 A turkey feather (see Figure 1) was selected 
 for this test. It serves as a good object for draw- 
 ing and description, while its finer structure is 
 unknown and of sufficient intricacy to require a 
 satisfactory amount of ingenuity for study and 
 diagramming. Parts of the feather were mounted 
 on microscopic slides and focused under a number 
 of microscopes in such a way that the detail of 
 the feather was equally manifest to each subject. 
 The following preliminary statement was made to 
 the class at the beginning of a regular laboratory 
 period : 
 
 "You will be given a test today to compare 
 your abilities in drawing, description, diagram- 
 ming, and laboratory analysis. The work will 
 be counted as a regular day's work in elementary 
 science, but, as different classes are to be com- 
 pared, you are asked to do your best." 
 
 Each pupil was then given a feather, pencil, 
 rubber, paper, and a sheet of directions for the 
 first part of the test. At the end of the given 
 
F 
 
 s 
 
 Figures I to IV. 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS III 
 
 time the first records were collected and directions 
 passed for the second part of the test. The four 
 parts of the test were given in an eighty-minute 
 period. All of the tests were given under my 
 personal direction. The directions, which were 
 given out one part at a time, follow: 
 
 Part I. Drawing. (Materials: eraser, pencil, 
 and drawing paper.) 
 
 Write your name and the number of your 
 feather at the top of the page of drawing paper. 
 
 Place the feather in position as directed and 
 make a careful drawing of it. (Time allowed, 
 13 minutes.) 
 
 Part II. Description. (Materials: pen, ink, 
 and ruled paper.) 
 
 Write your name and the number of the 
 feather at the top of the page. 
 
 Without tearing or pulling the feather apart 
 in any way, study it carefully and describe it so 
 as to explain as much as possible about the 
 feather to a person who had never seen one. 
 (Time allowed, 12 minutes.) 
 
 Part III. Dissection and Analysis. (Materials: 
 same as II.) 
 
 Write your name at the top of each page of 
 paper used. 
 
 Pursue carefully the following directions and 
 answer the questions as they appear. Do not 
 write anything except the answers. 
 
 Examine the feather again and note that it is 
 composed of a central axis or quill and an ex- 
 panded, flattened part called the web or vane. 
 The quill is divided into two parts: (a) the 
 
H2 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 hollow, rounded, transparent barrel, which is 
 the end of the feather that is attached to the 
 body of the bird, and which has no attached 
 parts, and (b) the shaft, which has the vane 
 attached to its sides. Examine the surface of 
 the vane with a lens and note that it is com- 
 posed of a series of side branches of the shaft 
 which lie closely parallel to one another. These 
 side branches are called barbs. 
 
 Question I. In what direction do the barbs 
 run with reference to the shaft? (Time al- 
 lowed, 10 minutes.) 
 
 After having answered Question I, tear one 
 of the barbs loose from the barbs in front of 
 and behind it. Observe that it is similar to 
 the one which has been mounted for micro- 
 scopical examination. Examine the mounted 
 barb under the low power of the microscope and 
 note that the barb has a long, narrow body with 
 two opposite rows of small, more or less united, 
 branches attached to it. These fine branches of 
 the barbs are called barbules. Note that the 
 barbules in the row on the upper side of the 
 barb have a number of smaller branches or out- 
 growths, which gives the barbule something of 
 a bushlike appearance. These smaller out- 
 growths are called hooks, because some of them 
 have little hooks at the end. The barbules in 
 the row on the lower side of the barb do not 
 possess these smaller branches. Taking the 
 feather as a whole, then, there are in turn a 
 shaft with barbs on either side; each barb with 
 a row of barbules on either side and every upper 
 barbule with a number of hooks. 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 113 
 
 Question 2. If each of the barbules possess- 
 ing hooks averaged 10 hooks each, how would 
 you estimate the total number of hooks on a 
 feather? (Time allowed, 10 minutes.) 
 
 Having answered Question 2, pull two barbs 
 apart slowly and watch carefully what happens. 
 Examine the prepared mount of a section of the 
 vane, in which some of the barbs have been 
 partly torn apart. Examine the torn part and 
 other parts of the vane in this mount under the 
 low power of the microscope. Note again that 
 the upper row of barbules terminates in clusters 
 of hooks, while the barbules running back into 
 them from the barb just ahead do not have the 
 hooked branches. 
 
 Question 3. Explain in detail how the barbs 
 are held together. (Time allowed, 15 minutes.) 
 
 Part IV. Diagram. (Materials: eraser, pen- 
 cil, and drawing paper.) 
 
 Write your name at the top of the page. 
 
 Make a diagram (several, if necessary) show- 
 ing the relative arrangement of the shaft, the 
 barbs, the barbules, and the hooks. Label it 
 carefully. (Time allowed, 15 minutes.) 
 
 Test No. 2. Subjects. 
 
 Group 1 : 48 university graduate students. 
 
 Group 2: 50 university undergraduate students. 
 
 Group 3 : 30 university undergraduate students. 
 
 Group 4: 31 university undergraduate students. 
 Total, 159. 
 
 Test No. 2 is essentially a repetition of the parts 
 of Test No. 1 which measure ability in represent- 
 
114 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 ative drawing and description. The single varia- 
 tion is in the use of a different object for copy. 
 Each member of Group I was given similar draw- 
 ing materials and an object which was unfamiliar 
 to his or her drawing and describing experience. 
 The object was a small metal spring-clip (see 
 Figure 2) taken from the stage of a compound 
 microscope. The students were directed as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Part I. Write your name at the top of the 
 page of drawing paper. Place the object in the 
 exact position as directed and make a careful 
 drawing of it. (Time allowed, 7 minutes.) 
 
 Part II. Write your name at the top of the 
 page of drawing paper. Make a careful written 
 description of the object. (Time allowed, 7 
 minutes.) 
 
 The members of Groups 2, 3, and 4 followed 
 similar directions, using different objects to 
 copy. Each member of Groups 2 and 3 was 
 given a flat, triangular, metallic object (see 
 Figure 3) which will be referred to as the "tri- 
 angle." Each member of Group 4 was given a 
 small metallic sash-lift (see Figure 4). In every 
 case one drawing and one description of the same 
 object were made by each subject. 
 
 3. Methods of Scoring. As the validity of the 
 correlation established between any two traits 
 depends upon the accuracy of the original meas- 
 urements, great care has been used to insure exact 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 1 15 
 
 scoring of the results of these experiments. Ten 
 competent markers co-operated in scoring the 
 various tests. They first became thoroughly 
 familiar with the various tests by taking them. 
 They were then carefully instructed in the system 
 of grading, and means were taken to insure de- 
 liberate and painstaking work. It is believed that 
 ten such judges are of greater value than a much 
 larger number selected from a group of persons 
 who are strange to the tests and more or less indif- 
 ferent to the results. The procedure involved 
 the ranking of the individual members of each 
 group serially in order of the merit of their efforts. 
 Thus it was necessary to discover which one of 
 the 51 high school pupils was best in drawing, 
 which one was second, and so on down to the 
 poorest. 
 
 (a) Method of Scoring Drawings. Each draw- 
 ing was compared directly with every other draw- 
 ing of the same group. At each comparison the 
 drawing which was superior was graded '1,' and 
 the drawing which was inferior, '2.' When all 
 had been compared, the marks for each drawing 
 were summed and the total recorded. This was 
 done by each of the ten markers and the final 
 total recorded for each drawing. Thus each draw- 
 ing in a group of 50 was compared with the other 
 49 by ten different judges and received a final 
 mark on the basis of 490 individual compari- 
 
ii6 21 I THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 sons. The drawing having the lowest total, i. e., 
 the most grades of %' was ranked best; the one 
 having the greatest total was ranked poorest, 
 while the remaining drawings were ranked in 
 between according to the size of their total score. 
 The markers were instructed not to grade 
 "ties," but at each comparison to grade one 
 superior and the other inferior. This was not pro- 
 ductive of any considerable difficulty and insured 
 the use of greater discrimination on the part of 
 the judges. It was found convenient to tally 
 according to the score-card shown on page 117. 
 The score-card exhibited here was prepared for a 
 group of 30 drawings. In scoring, the drawings 
 in this case were numbered 1 to 30. Drawing 
 No. 1 was scored by comparison with each of the 
 other 29. At every comparison the two drawings 
 concerned were scored '1' and '2' in the squares 
 opposite their numbers on the tally sheet. Draw- 
 ing No. 1, having been compared with the others, 
 was then laid aside and No. 2 compared with the 
 remaining 28. No. 3 was then compared with 
 the remaining 27, and so on until none remained. 
 Thus the score-card registers individual compari- 
 sons as well as totals and affords a complete record 
 of all that was done. The score-card on page 118 
 shows the final rankings as given by the ten judges 
 for this group. 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 
 
 117 
 
 tOCtlflNH t^VD lO^M O \0 O VO O^OO rt- cN t^MOH O C300 00 t~» C\ C\ Th 
 
 NNN M M CO M0» WMMWMMMWI-INCIMI-I 
 
 mhhmn h( (HNhmhhnhhhhhhhhnm«hnn w 
 
 HHNNH HH HHMNMM«HHHNHHHH«NN 0) M CN l-H 
 
 MMNIHW M |_,MCNI-HC^MMCNl-tMHHIHIHI-4IHIHI-l N H (| CI H H 
 
 WMP10>N|_iN M(V > l ~'N MM Nt-ll-(>-l>-tMI--IIHI-l CNMWNCNMII 
 
 i-ii-iOCSlC^i-ii-it-iCSi-icMMMniHMiHCSNNN M«NWNC1«n 
 mi-icNCNNihihihMi-inmmcNihihihmw hhNNNNNNNh 
 
 HHMPlN H f|HWMNHHMHHHH N«mNNNNNNN« 
 
 i-ii-iOCNCNmNWM'-iCNmmcNmmi-i NMNhN«nh((nnn 
 MMNN«nci««HNtltlNN« NNNNNftMNNNNON 
 mwnocNmcN | - | W m W | - , ^NM wMWOWNtNCNNNNOMN 
 wi-iNNNNN'-'NiHtMiHNN HHNN«Hfl«NNNMN«N 
 
 hhmn«hnhNhMh NhhhnnnnnNNNNNNNh 
 i-iHNMNfiNHNHM NNNNHNNNNNNNNNNNNN 
 
 MWW«N«NN« NNNMNNWWNN«MCIflW««M«« 
 
 HH-hHCtMMMMM MNMMCNI-IWI-HI-ltHI-tMh-IIHI-lNMCNCNwP-l 
 
 i-ii-icSWNi-iin CNwNCNONNWi-ioOMOMCNCNCNMMOPJtN 
 
 WI-ICNWMlH Ht(HNHHNHHHHHNH«H«NNNNHH 
 
 HM«NN NNNHWH«MHNH«flN«««Nf)NN«NN 
 
 M M CI N MMI-lMl-lNMIHC^IHMIHMIHMMIHI-lOCSCNNC^MI-l 
 
 H H N Mh-ll-lMOMMI-IIHMIHIHI-IHIIHIHMIHMOt»>HCMMC(M 
 
 O WWCNNWNN M NNCNCNNNCN0INC40«NNC»C>I0IWC)CNCN 
 
 HNNNflpiNNHMNNN«OINNNNM««N««NN«« 
 
 w N rOTf-iOvO t^.00 0>0 h « tOrhiOVD f^oo 0*0 h n co^iOVO r^OO On O 
 
Ii8 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 Sample of Final Score for a Set of 30 Sash Lifter Draw- 
 ings 
 
 Total Final 
 
 No. TA KO SM PS LH HM LN HN AC AA Points Rank 
 
 1 31 35 32 38 36 39 32 33 37 38 35* 6 
 
 2 30 35 37 38 35 35 36 36 37 3i 350 5 
 
 3 53 43 30 37 34 45 51 43 32 36 404 " 
 
 4 49 48 54 50 45 50 49 46 50 53 494 23 
 
 5 48 49 45 55 48 38 46 39 54 48 470 19 
 
 6 35 3i 30 35 36 34 31 35 34 32 343 4 
 
 7 45 49 56 55 49 40 54 55 41 46 49° 22 
 
 8 34 31 34 41 30 29 33 30 33 40 334 3 
 
 9 5i 5i 50 47 44 45 46 45 50 50 479 20 
 
 10 29 35 37 36 33 42 34 36 41 30 353 7 
 
 11 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 580 30 
 
 12 34 33 44 33 33 33 43 34 34 36 361 8 
 
 13 39 40 47 46 43 36 40 37 45 46 419 14 
 
 14 54 55 49 48 53 50 5<> 54 53 49 515 26 
 
 15 37 38 39 4i 46 43 42 45 39 38 408 12 
 
 16 36 32 34 30 33 30 33 3i 31 35 325 1 
 
 17 32 41 43 39 41 37 33 40 42 40 388 10 
 
 18 41 40 36 36 37 42 35 39 41 37 384 9 
 
 19 41 46 46 45 47 51 50 45 46 42 459 17 
 
 20 45 42 38 32 50 51 49 33 39 54 437 16 
 
 21 42 42 41 42 39 40 40 41 41 41 409 13 
 
 22 40 41 46 36 50 43 45 37 49 41 428 15 
 
 23 47 52 42 54 38 49 51 53 39 43 468 18 
 
 24 51 48 53 5i 54 54 53 49 52 53 518 27 
 
 25 56 50 55 54 54 53 5i 54 55 54 536 28 
 
 26 47 29 31 29 29 31 30 46 30 30 332 2 
 
 27 55 56 55 55 54 5i 54 55 52 55 542 29 
 
 28 57 55 42 47 44 54 54 45 43 56 497 24 
 
 29 47 5i 5i 50 50 56 51 48 55 50 509 25 
 
 30 41 48 50 47 51 55 48 54 50 42 486 21 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 119 
 
 (b) Method of Scoring Descriptions. The de- 
 scriptions were graded by the method of counting 
 points which is ordinarily used in scoring Aussage 
 tests. In this instance each point was weighted 
 by the judge according to its clearness of mean- 
 ing on a basis of "10" for "perfectly definite." A 
 score of 12-98 indicates that the pupil has given 
 12 points of description with sufficient clearness of 
 statement to total 98. The descriptions were 
 then ranked according to total scores. Where 
 ties occurred the method of intermediate ranking 
 was used; thus, a tie at 22 and 23 was ranked 22.5. 
 
 Each judge read all of the descriptions of a 
 group before beginning to score. Each paper was 
 then given a second preliminary reading, after 
 which it was read a third time and scored by 
 points. The final marks were determined by 
 averaging the rankings of the ten judges. 
 
 (c) Method of Scoring Diagrams. The 51 dia- 
 grams of the structure of a feather were scored on 
 the basis of a system of weighted points. One of 
 the judges first ranked the diagrams serially ac- 
 cording to the merit of their general appearance. 
 To test the reliability of this ranking, a list of all 
 the points which could be shown in a complete 
 diagram of the feather was prepared. A second 
 judge then ranked the diagrams according to the 
 total number of points exhibited. The ranking 
 which had been made upon the basis of general 
 
120 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 appearance was now compared with the ranking 
 which had been made upon the basis of the number 
 of structural points shown. The two rankings 
 were approximately, but not exactly, similar. 
 The discrepancies were taken into account and a 
 new system of weighted points arranged which 
 made allowance for the difficulty as well as the 
 number of the points shown in the diagram. The 
 list follows: 
 
 Standard for Measuring Quality of Diagrams 
 
 Characteristics Shown Credit 
 
 1. Barbs attached to one side of shaft I point 
 
 2. Barbs attached to both sides of shaft y£ " 
 
 3. Barbs shown parallel yi " 
 
 4. Barbs shown at a slant to shaft yi " 
 
 5. Barbs attached to all parts of shaft I 
 
 6. Barbules attached to one side of barb 1 
 
 7. Barbules attached to both sides of barb yi " 
 
 8. Barbules shown parallel yi " 
 
 9. Barbules at proper slant yi. " 
 
 10. Two distinct kinds of barbules I 
 
 1 1. Barbules intermingled 1 " 
 
 12. Barbules attached to all parts of barb 1 
 
 13. Hooks attached to barbule I 
 
 14. Several hooks on one barbule )4 " 
 
 15. Hooks on upper row only I 
 
 16. Hooks hooking over barbules at a slant I 
 
 17. Hooks on entire margin of row of barbules. . 1 
 
 Total possible score 13^ points 
 
 Points labeled insufficiently are given one-half credit. 
 Points labeled incorrectly are graded o. 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 121 
 
 Attention is called to the fact that the standard 
 is not used to measure ability in representative 
 drawing. In fact, the diagrams for the most 
 part look very little like the original feather. It 
 is, in reality, a measure of analytical observation, 
 for the diagram called for is an excellent example 
 of what is described in the first chapter as "analyt- 
 ical drawing." The pupil must have made the 
 preliminary scientific analysis called for in the test 
 directions before he can construct a successful 
 diagram. As the particular test used requires a 
 wide range of discrimination and considerable 
 ingenuity in figuring out the structural plan of 
 the feather, it serves most excellently for compar- 
 ing the pupil's ability in analytical drawing with 
 his ability in representative drawing. 
 
 4. Method of Determining Correlation. The pres- 
 ence of correlation signifies that some definite 
 causal relation exists between two series or groups 
 of data. The mere fact that two coexisting con- 
 ditions vary in the same direction does not imply 
 true correlation unless one condition is the cause 
 of the other or both are due to a third cause. But 
 if it can be shown that there are common factors 
 possible to two variables, a tendency, however 
 small, for the variables to fluctuate constantly in 
 the same or opposite directions may be taken as 
 proof of an actual correlation. Thus the determ- 
 ination of a small degree of correlation between 
 
122 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 any two traits or achievements of a group of 
 school children at once assumes significance, 
 because there is no question about the common 
 factors of intelligence and training. The import- 
 ant problem in this event is the elimination of 
 all possibility of error in the method of finding 
 the degree of correlation. 
 
 (i) Correlation by the Rank Method. The most 
 practicable method of determining correlation 
 between abilities for which there is no standard 
 scale of measurement is by the rank method. 
 When the same group has been ranked in two 
 abilities in the manner described above, the results 
 offer data for direct comparison. Column A, 
 Table V, shows how the 51 high school students 
 (see Test No. 1) stood when ranked in order of 
 ability in description. The pupil ranked 1 was 
 best in description; No. 2 was second best; and 
 so on down to No. 51, who was the poorest of the 
 entire group. Column B shows the order of 
 merit of the same group in drawing. 
 
 By thus arranging the individual describers in 
 a column in order, 1 to 51, and placing directly 
 opposite the rank each received in drawing, we 
 can get a general idea of the comparative ranking 
 of the students in the two different abilities. Save 
 in extreme cases, such casual comparison of the 
 two columns will not be sufficient to ascertain 
 satisfactorily the degree of correlation which may 
 
Table V 
 
 Comparison of Abilities in Drawing and Description of 51 
 High School Pupils 
 
 ABC ABC 
 
 Rank in Rank in D or Dif- 
 
 Name Descrip- Drawing ference 
 
 tion in Rank 
 
 Rank in Rank in D or Dif- 
 Name Descrip- Drawing ference 
 tion in Rank 
 
 Brock 
 Angel 
 Klein 
 Rose 
 Bean 
 Moraw 
 Henry 
 
 Glass 8 
 Mathew 9 
 
 Greve 10 
 
 Lawler 1 1 
 
 Cooper 12 
 
 Willet 13 
 
 Hogan 14 
 
 Bolte 15 
 
 Wilson 16 
 
 Keen 17 
 
 Heck 18 
 
 Foster 19 
 
 Ansorg 20 
 McKinn 21 
 
 Leap 22 
 
 Runs 23 
 
 Donald 24 
 
 Donker 25 
 
 Joseph 26 
 
 36 
 38 
 30 
 19 
 26 
 42 
 24 
 11 
 39 
 37 
 49 
 
 3 
 35 
 4i 
 
 5 
 33 
 12 
 
 43 
 27 
 
 17 
 32 
 
 48 
 40 
 10 
 
 34 
 2 
 
 35 
 36 
 
 27 
 
 15 
 21 
 36 
 17 
 
 3 
 30 
 27 
 38 
 
 9 
 22 
 27 
 10 
 17 
 
 5 
 25 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 11 
 
 26 
 
 17 
 
 14 
 
 9 
 
 24 
 
 (Continued from below) 
 
 Pierce 27 
 
 Stone 28 
 
 Furth 29 
 
 Logan 30 
 
 Sully 31 
 
 Hagen 32 
 
 Vander 33 
 
 Cook 34 
 
 Virden 35 
 
 Lee 36 
 
 Ames 37 
 
 Lovel 38 
 
 Gamble 39 
 
 Jack 40 
 
 Tipton 41 
 
 Cutler 42 
 
 Adler 43 
 Hill 
 Jacob 
 Atty 
 Agar 
 
 "Knapp 48 
 
 Weber 49 
 
 Ingle 50 
 
 Cole 51 
 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 
 47 
 
 15 
 47 
 21 
 22 
 20 
 6 
 
 44 
 16 
 
 25 
 8 
 
 51 
 
 9 
 
 46 
 
 50 
 18 
 28 
 
 1 
 31 
 45 
 
 7 
 23 
 13 
 29 
 
 4 
 14 
 
 12 
 19 
 
 11 
 26 
 11 
 18 
 10 
 28 
 14 
 29 
 7 
 10 
 
 23 
 14 
 42 
 13 
 o 
 
 39 
 24 
 35 
 20 
 46 
 37 
 
 (Continued above) 
 
 51)1016 
 
 Average Rank Difference or Av. D. equals 19.9 
 Chance D. equals 17 
 r= — .271 P.E.r = .09 R = — .172 
 
124 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 be present. A number of significant possibilities 
 lie bound up in data of this nature and the true 
 one may be discovered only by careful study. 
 
 (a) First Possibility. The more ability a per- 
 son has in drawing, the more he has in descrip- 
 tion. Then in a given test, barring errors in grad- 
 ing, the student ranking I in drawing ranks I in 
 description; No. 2 in drawing is 2 in description; 
 and so on through the series. Such a correspond- 
 ence is signified by saying that the correlation 
 equals 1 or 100% positive. Such a correlation 
 exists between the volume and the weight of 
 water. The merest glance at Table V shows that 
 such a correlation does not exist between abilities 
 in drawing and description. No. 1 in description 
 is 36 in drawing. 
 
 (b) Second Possibility. The more ability a 
 person has in drawing, the less he has in descrip- 
 tion. No. 1 in drawing would in this case be 51 
 in description; No. 2 in drawing would be 50 in 
 description; and the others similarly related. This 
 type of correlation is said to be — 1 or — 100% 
 negative. Such a correlation exists between the 
 volume and the amount of pressure exerted by a 
 given weight of gas. It plainly does not exist in 
 Table V. 
 
 (c) Third Possibility. The abilities in the two 
 traits are in no way related, the obtained results 
 occurring by mere chance. Such a result would 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 125 
 
 be obtained, for instance, if the papers were graded 
 as they happened to lie in order in the pile without 
 reference to their contents. Results indicating 
 such a relationship are expressed by saying that 
 the correlation is indifferent or equal to 0. The 
 factor of chance correlation is particularly signifi- 
 cant when dealing with small groups and in any 
 case must always be discounted before a seeming 
 correlation can be used as a basis for proof or infer- 
 ence. It will be necessary to examine our results 
 more closely to determine if an indifferent correla- 
 tion is present. 
 
 (d) Fourth Possibility. There is a tendency 
 more or less pronounced for those good in draw- 
 ing to be good in description, or, on the contrary, 
 for those good in drawing to be poor in descrip- 
 tion. Such a tendency, depending upon its 
 strength, manifests itself by a certain proportion 
 of one group being good, or bad, as the case may 
 be, in the other. According to the strength of the 
 tendency it approaches plus 1, or +100%, if 
 positive, or minus 1, or — 100%, if negative. A 
 complete analysis of the results obtained in this 
 experiment will be necessary to detect partial 
 correlation. 
 
 (e) Fifth Possibility. A certain selected part of 
 one group is correlated with a certain part of the 
 other group, while the rest of the group is indiffer- 
 ently correlated. Thus the best ten in drawing 
 
126 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 may be very good in description, with all of the 
 others in the group scattering. This type of 
 correlation cannot be expressed by a simple co- 
 efficient, but must be shown by tabulations or 
 graphs of the entire series. The results of this 
 experiment give no evidence of this type of cor- 
 relation. 
 
 It is evident that such terms as good, poor, fair, 
 etc., secured from a brief inspection of compara- 
 tive data do not indicate the amount of correla- 
 tion with sufficient accuracy for scientific pur- 
 poses. We have, therefore, resorted to more 
 accurate methods of determining correlation. 
 
 (2) Theory of Correlation. The fundamental 
 factor in correlation, as shown by the rank method, 
 is the relative position of the same individual in 
 two series of rankings. For instance, Glass (see 
 Table V), who ranks II out of 51 in drawing 
 ability and 8 in description, differs in relative 
 position by only 3 points, which indicates a high 
 positive correlation. Adler, however, who is first 
 in drawing, ranks 43 in description, differing in 
 position by 42 points, which indicates a negative 
 correlation. 
 
 The rank differences, 3 and 42, are designated 
 D, and serve as an indication of the tendency of 
 correlation. A single D in a series of 51 D's 
 indicates but little, for it may be due entirely to 
 chance, just as the man who is first in wealth 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 127 
 
 among 51 may by pure chance be either second or 
 forty- third in weight. If, however, we obtain the 
 average of the 51 rank differences, we shall have a 
 figure which measures the degree of correlation 
 present. This measure is the Average Rank Dif- 
 ference, or, more simply, the Average D. In this 
 series (see Table V, column C) the Average D is 
 19.9. 
 
 The Average D due to pure chance is equal to 
 one-third of the number of subjects in a series, in 
 this case one- third of 51, or 17. This average is 
 called the Chance D. It means that if a pupil's 
 D is less than 17, it is likely that there is some com- 
 mon factor which favors positive correlation; if 
 the pupil's D is more than 17, it is probable that 
 there is a common factor interfering with positive 
 correlation and producing a negative correlation. 
 If now we contrast the Average D obtained for 
 the 51 pupils, 19.9, with the Chance D, 17, we must 
 conclude that within this group there is a tend- 
 ency for ability in drawing to interfere with ability 
 in description. The degree of correlation is indi- 
 cated by the amount of difference between the 
 Chance D and the Average D, in this case 17 — 19.9, 
 or — 2.9. This sum is not large enough to be par- 
 ticularly significant with as few as 51 subjects. As 
 a matter of fact, it is reduced by the results of the 
 other series. For a rapid and accurate method of 
 ascertaining the presence of correlation in a series 
 of pairings approximating 50, the author recom- 
 
128 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 mends the foregoing method. Reduced to formu- 
 lae, we have the following: 
 
 Average D = ^^; Chance D = |; in which S is 
 the symbol for summation, D is the numerical 
 difference between each corresponding pair of 
 ranks, and n is the number of pairs. If the 
 Average D is found to be within the range of 
 •f ± 2, there is no evidence of significant correla- 
 tion. 
 
 To find the numerical value of the correlation, 
 the following formula may be used: 
 
 This quantity should be doubled if negative, 
 which will obviate Lehman and Pederson's criti- 
 cism given to Spearman's "Foot-Rule" method. 
 This formula will give almost identically the same 
 results as Spearman's: 
 
 « 2 — I 
 
 in which g equals the numerical gain in rank of 
 
 those individuals who made a gain in the second 
 
 series over the first. 
 
 Correlation may also be computed by the 
 
 "Pearson Method Adapted to Rank Differences," 
 
 which gives more weight to the large D's. The 
 
 formula, in which r is the degree of correlation, is: 
 
 65(Z? J ) 
 
 r = I ; 
 
 n (n 2 — i) 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 129 
 
 Provision is made for variation due to chance by 
 use of the formula : 
 
 (1— n 2 ) 
 P.E.^.7063 ^7=^- 
 v n 
 
 If r is no greater than P.E., there is no indication 
 whatever of correlation. If r is greater than 3 
 P.E., the chances are 16 to 1 that an actual cor- 
 relation exists. 
 
 The correlations obtained by both the Spear- 
 man and Pearson methods are given in the follow- 
 ing results. The variations between them are 
 without particular significance for these experi- 
 ments. 
 
 5. Results and Conclusions. 
 
 (a) Correlation between Drawing and Descrip- 
 tion. The individual positions of the 51 high 
 school pupils, and the group correlation between 
 abilities in drawing and description are exhibited 
 in Table V. Tables VI and VII show similar 
 data for the group of 48 graduate students. Table 
 
 VI shows the description in serial arrangement 
 with the corresponding ranks in drawing. Table 
 
 VII compares the descriptions to the drawings in 
 serial order. Tables VIII and IX exhibit the cor- 
 relations of the three remaining groups of students. 
 
Table VI 
 
 Comparison of Abilities in Drawing and Description 
 48 Adult Students 
 ABC ABC 
 
 Rank in Rank in D or Dif- 
 
 Name Descrip- Drawing ference 
 
 tion in Rank 
 
 Rank in Rank in D or Dif- 
 Name Descrip- Drawing ference 
 tion in Rank 
 
 Cragun 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 Russ 
 
 2 
 
 32 
 
 30 
 
 Hughes 
 
 3 
 
 18 
 
 15 
 
 Hosmer 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 White 
 
 5 
 
 20 
 
 15 
 
 Carr 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 10 
 
 Geilen 
 
 7 
 
 27 
 
 20 
 
 George 
 
 8 
 
 36 
 
 28 
 
 Ganard 
 
 9 
 
 22 
 
 13 
 
 Wagner 
 
 10 
 
 25 
 
 15 
 
 Hubb 
 
 11 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 M'Cann 
 
 12 
 
 35 
 
 23 
 
 Dohert 
 
 13 
 
 10 
 
 3 
 
 Brown 
 
 14 
 
 19 
 
 5 
 
 Heig 
 
 15 
 
 39 
 
 24 
 
 Boden 
 
 16 
 
 1 
 
 15 
 
 Duffy 
 
 17 
 
 40 
 
 23 
 
 Hope 
 
 18 
 
 3 
 
 15 
 
 Buch 
 
 19 
 
 42 
 
 23 
 
 Moss 
 
 20 
 
 38 
 
 18 
 
 Kerst 
 
 21 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 Rhodes 
 
 22 
 
 26 
 
 4 
 
 Burg 
 
 23 
 
 17 
 
 6 
 
 Snod 
 
 24 
 
 43 
 
 19 
 
 (Continued 
 Cano 25 
 M'C'mb 26 
 Shield 27 
 Butler 28 
 Colpit 29 
 Ferry 30 
 Cato 31 
 Weber 32 
 Mitch 33 
 Coward 34 
 Harmon 35 
 Smith 36 
 Whitem 37 
 Allen 38 
 Jenn 39 
 Kenn 40 
 Yarbo 41 
 Hutch 42 
 Donson 43 
 Zeller 44 
 Thomas 45 
 Vogel 46 
 Cowan 47 
 Porter 48 
 
 jm 
 
 Delow) 
 
 41 
 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 44 
 
 16 
 
 12 
 
 17 
 
 46 
 
 16 
 
 29 
 
 2 
 
 11 
 
 21 
 
 2 
 
 31 
 
 23 
 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 30 
 
 14 
 
 22 
 
 28 
 
 9 
 
 33 
 
 5 
 
 24 
 
 15 
 
 48 
 
 8 
 
 45 
 
 4 
 
 3i 
 
 11 
 
 4 
 
 39 
 
 47 
 
 3 
 
 30 
 
 15 
 
 37 
 
 9 
 
 34 
 
 13 
 
 21 
 
 27 
 
 (Continued above) 
 
 48)712 
 
 r = .228 
 
 Average Rank Difference = 14.9 
 Chance Rank Difference =16. 
 
 P.E.y = .09 R = .079 
 
Table Vll 
 
 Comparison of Abilities in Drawing and Description 
 
 48 Adult Students 
 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 c 
 
 Rank in 
 
 Rank in 
 
 D or Dif- 
 
 Rank in 
 
 Rank in 
 
 D or Dif- 
 
 Name Drawing 
 
 Descrip- 
 
 ference 
 
 Name Descrip- 
 
 Drawing 
 
 ference 
 
 
 
 tion 
 
 in Rank 
 
 
 tion 
 
 
 in Rank 
 
 
 
 
 
 (Continued from below) 
 
 Boden 
 
 I 
 
 16 
 
 15 
 
 Wagner 
 
 25 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 Mitch 
 
 2 
 
 33 
 
 31 
 
 Rhodes 
 
 26 
 
 22 
 
 4 
 
 Hope 
 
 3 
 
 18 
 
 15 
 
 Geilen 
 
 27 
 
 7 
 
 20 
 
 Donson 
 
 4 
 
 43 
 
 39 
 
 Whitem 
 
 28 
 
 37 
 
 9 
 
 Harmon 
 
 5 
 
 35 
 
 30 
 
 Cato 
 
 29 
 
 3i 
 
 2 
 
 Hosmer 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 Thomas 
 
 30 
 
 45 
 
 15 
 
 Cragun 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 Hutch 
 
 31 
 
 42 
 
 11 
 
 M'C'mb 
 
 8 
 
 26 
 
 18 
 
 Russ 
 
 32 
 
 2 
 
 30 
 
 Hubb 
 
 9 
 
 11 
 
 2 
 
 Allen 
 
 33 
 
 38 
 
 5 
 
 Dohert 
 
 10 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 Cowan 
 
 34 
 
 47 
 
 13 
 
 Weber 
 
 11 
 
 32 
 
 21 
 
 M'Cann 
 
 35 
 
 12 
 
 23 
 
 Colpit 
 
 12 
 
 29 
 
 17 
 
 George 
 
 36 
 
 8 
 
 28 
 
 Kerst 
 
 13 
 
 21 
 
 8 
 
 Fogel 
 
 37 
 
 46 
 
 9 
 
 Smith 
 
 H 
 
 36 
 
 22 
 
 Moss 
 
 38 
 
 20 
 
 18 
 
 Shield 
 
 15 
 
 27 
 
 12 
 
 Heig 
 
 39 
 
 15 
 
 24 
 
 Carr 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 Duffy 
 
 40 
 
 17 
 
 23 
 
 Burg 
 
 17 
 
 23 
 
 6 
 
 Cano 
 
 41 
 
 25 
 
 16 
 
 Hughes 
 
 18 
 
 3 
 
 15 
 
 Buch 
 
 42 
 
 19 
 
 23 
 
 Brown 
 
 19 
 
 14 
 
 5 
 
 Snod 
 
 43 
 
 24 
 
 19 
 
 White 
 
 20 
 
 5 
 
 15 
 
 Butler 
 
 44 
 
 28 
 
 16 
 
 Porter 
 
 21 
 
 48 
 
 27 
 
 Yarbo 
 
 45 
 
 41 
 
 4 
 
 Ganard 
 
 22 
 
 9 
 
 13 
 
 Ferry 
 
 46 
 
 30 
 
 16 
 
 Cowart 
 
 23 
 
 34 
 
 11 
 
 Zeller 
 
 47 
 
 44 
 
 3 
 
 Jenn 
 
 24 
 
 39 
 
 15 
 
 Kenn 
 
 48 
 
 40 
 
 8 
 
 (Continued above) 
 
 48)712 
 
 .200 
 
 Average Rank Difference = 14.9 
 Average Chance Difference =16. 
 P.E. r = .09 R = .079 
 
Table VIII 
 
 Comparison of Abilities in Drawing and Description 
 50 College Students 
 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 c 
 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 c 
 
 Rank in 
 
 Rank in 
 
 D or Dif- 
 
 Rank in 
 
 Rank in 
 
 D or Dif- 
 
 Name Descrip- 
 
 Drawing 
 
 ference 
 
 Name Descrip- 
 
 Drawing 
 
 ference 
 
 
 tion 
 
 
 in Rank 
 
 tion 
 
 
 in Rank 
 
 
 
 
 
 (Continued from below) 
 
 Halm 
 
 I 
 
 43 
 
 42 
 
 Hone 
 
 26 
 
 32 
 
 6 
 
 Clark 
 
 2 
 
 45 
 
 43 
 
 Mclll 
 
 27 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 Bloys 
 
 3 
 
 36 
 
 33 
 
 Park 
 
 28 
 
 48 
 
 20 
 
 John 
 
 4 
 
 20 
 
 16 
 
 Huston 
 
 29 
 
 8 
 
 21 
 
 Lewis 
 
 5 
 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 Moss 
 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 I 
 
 Miller 
 
 6 
 
 47 
 
 4i 
 
 Tuny 
 
 3i 
 
 14 
 
 17 
 
 Cume 
 
 7 
 
 35 
 
 28 
 
 Webon 
 
 32 
 
 33 
 
 I 
 
 Duncam 8 
 
 39 
 
 3i 
 
 Scott 
 
 33 
 
 22 
 
 II 
 
 Mull 
 
 9 
 
 19 
 
 10 
 
 Rankin 
 
 34 
 
 28 
 
 6 
 
 Webb 
 
 10 
 
 49 
 
 39 
 
 Quinn 
 
 35 
 
 13 
 
 22 
 
 Alex 
 
 11 
 
 34 
 
 23 
 
 Bland 
 
 36 
 
 5 
 
 31 
 
 Crook 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 
 Erhart 
 
 37 
 
 23 
 
 14 
 
 Ever 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 Fite 
 
 38 
 
 37 
 
 1 
 
 Weir 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 Hug 
 
 39 
 
 4 
 
 35 
 
 Powe 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 1 
 
 Mill 
 
 40 
 
 50 
 
 10 
 
 Angus 
 
 16 
 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 Walters 
 
 4i 
 
 42 
 
 1 
 
 Cole 
 
 17 
 
 40 
 
 23 
 
 James 
 
 42 
 
 30 
 
 12 
 
 Mann 
 
 18 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 Coon 
 
 43 
 
 44 
 
 1 
 
 Oxly 
 
 19 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 River 
 
 44 
 
 23 
 
 21 
 
 Evert 
 
 20 
 
 46 
 
 26 
 
 Kalt 
 
 45 
 
 41 
 
 4 
 
 Fogal 
 
 21 
 
 17 
 
 4 
 
 Habt 
 
 46 
 
 18 
 
 28 
 
 Wills 
 
 22 
 
 24 
 
 2 
 
 Ellin 
 
 47 
 
 7 
 
 40 
 
 Woods 
 
 23 
 
 9 
 
 14 
 
 Peter 
 
 48 
 
 26 
 
 22 
 
 Austin 
 
 24 
 
 36 
 
 12 
 
 Doby 
 
 49 
 
 25 
 
 24 
 
 Cordy 
 
 25 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 Betts 
 
 50 
 
 29 
 
 21 
 
 (Continued above) 
 
 50)834 
 
 r — — .041 
 
 P.E. r = .1 
 
 Av. D. = 16.68 
 Chance D. = 16.66 
 R = — .001 
 
Table i£ 
 
 Comparison of Abilities in Drawing and Description 
 
 Group A, 30 College Students; 
 
 Group B, 31 College Students. 
 
 
 Group A 
 
 
 
 Group B 
 
 
 Rank in 
 
 Rank in 
 
 D 
 
 Rank in 
 
 Rank in 
 
 D 
 
 Drawing 
 
 Descrip- 
 tion 
 
 
 Drawing 
 
 Descrip- 
 tion 
 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 25 
 
 24 
 
 2 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 2 
 
 20 
 
 18 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 4 
 
 26 
 
 22 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 16 
 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 29 
 
 23 
 
 6 
 
 26 
 
 20 
 
 7 
 
 17 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 3i 
 
 23 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 28 
 
 18 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 
 13 
 
 2 
 
 12 
 
 14 
 
 2 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 28 
 
 15 
 
 13 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 
 23 
 
 7 
 
 14 
 
 16 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 20 
 
 5 
 
 15 
 
 14 
 
 1 
 
 16 
 
 24 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 29 
 
 13 
 
 17 
 
 21 
 
 4 
 
 17 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 18 
 
 27 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 19 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 19 
 
 27 
 
 8 
 
 20 
 
 25 
 
 5 
 
 20 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 21 
 
 19 
 
 2 
 
 21 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 22 
 
 1 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 21 
 
 1 
 
 23 
 
 15 
 
 8 
 
 23 
 
 6 
 
 17 
 
 24 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 24 
 
 30 
 
 6 
 
 25 
 
 4 
 
 21 
 
 25 
 
 17 
 
 8 
 
 26 
 
 22 
 
 4 
 
 26 
 
 23 
 
 3 
 
 27 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 27 
 
 12 
 
 15 
 
 28 
 
 8 
 
 20 
 
 28 
 
 24 
 
 4 
 
 29 
 
 10 
 
 19 
 
 29 
 
 22 
 
 7 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 19 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 18 
 
 13 
 
 30)286 
 il». p. = 9.53 
 
 Chance D. = 10.00 
 .074 R = .047 
 
 P.E. r = .12 
 
 31)296 
 
 Av. D. = 9.55 
 
 Chance D. = 10.33 
 
 r = .151 i? = .076 
 
 P.E. r = .12 
 
134 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 The names of the subjects are omitted in Table 
 IX. The figures indicate the rank of the indi- 
 viduals in the series stated at the head of the 
 column. 
 
 The amount of correlation discovered between 
 drawing and description in the five groups of sub- 
 jects who were tested in Experiment I is shown in 
 Summary form in Table X. The Av. D., the 
 Chance D., the degree of correlation by the Pear- 
 son method (r), its Probable Error (P. E. r ), and 
 the degree of correlation by the Spearman method 
 (R), is given for each group, together with the 
 averages of the five groups. 
 
 Table X 
 
 Correlation between Drawing and Description 
 
 
 Number 
 
 Average 
 
 Chance 
 
 r 
 
 P.E.r 
 
 R 
 
 
 Subjects 
 
 RankZ? 
 
 RankD 
 
 
 
 
 (I) 
 
 5i 
 
 19.90 
 
 17.00 
 
 — .271 
 
 .09 
 
 — . 172 
 
 (2) 
 
 48 
 
 14.90 
 
 16.00 
 
 .200 
 
 .09 
 
 .079 
 
 (3) 
 
 50 
 
 16.68 
 
 16.66 
 
 — .041 
 
 .10 
 
 — .001 
 
 (4) 
 
 30 
 
 9-53 
 
 10.00 
 
 .074 
 
 . 12 
 
 .047 
 
 (5) 
 
 3i 
 210 
 
 9-55 
 
 10.33 
 
 •151 
 
 . 12 
 .O48 
 
 .076 
 
 All 
 
 70.56 
 
 70.00 
 
 .023 
 
 .006 
 
 Conclusion. The combined results of the tests 
 taken by the 210 subjects show that there is no 
 correlation between ability in representative draw- 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 13S 
 
 ing and ability in description. This is evidenced 
 by the average of the coefficients of correlation 
 determined by the Pearson method (.023), that 
 determined by the Spearman method (.006), and 
 by the equivalence of the Chance D's and the 
 Average D's. A pupil who is good in description 
 is not necessarily good in drawing. He may be 
 either good, medium, or poor, as chance wills it. 
 Because a pupil can not draw well is not a sign 
 that he cannot describe an object well. There is 
 nothing in common between the two processes 
 which justifies using them for the same purpose 
 in laboratory teaching. 
 
 (b) Correlation between Diagramming-Drawing 
 and Diagramming-Description. The correlation 
 between abilities in diagramming and drawing and 
 between diagramming and description was esti- 
 mated for the group of 51 high school students in 
 exactly the same manner as has been described 
 for the drawing-description correlation. The fol- 
 lowing degrees of correlation were established : 
 
 Diagramming-Drawing r = — .052 
 
 Diagramming-Description r - .231 
 
 Ability in diagramming (which is a type of 
 analytical drawing) is not, therefore, correlated 
 with ability in representative drawing. On the 
 other hand, the processes of diagramming and 
 description exhibit a positive correlation (.231) 
 
136 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 which, although small, is significant of the pres- 
 ence of a common factor between the two. It is 
 evident from the results of Experiment I that the 
 process of representative drawing is similar neither 
 to description nor to diagramming. The pro- 
 cesses of diagramming and description, on the 
 contrary, show an intimacy of relationship which 
 is indicative of an inherent similarity between the 
 two. This contrast will receive further emphasis 
 by the results of the experiments to follow. 
 
 Experiment II. Drawing and School Grades. 
 
 i. Problem. To evaluate the correlation be- 
 tween achievement in "school" Drawing and 
 achievement in other school subjects. 
 
 2. Materials. The materials included the final 
 grades received by 141 normal school students for 
 one year's work in various school subjects includ- 
 ing Drawing. All students were required to take 
 Drawing two times per week throughout the year. 
 The total number of grades, exclusive of Drawing, 
 includes 810 individual marks in 28 school subjects 
 taught by 15 different teachers. 
 
 3. Method of Procedure. It was necessary to 
 adjust the method of correlation to the system of 
 grading in use at the normal school from which 
 the statistics were secured. The different grades 
 assigned under this sytem are 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, and o. 
 The grades run by theoretically equal steps from 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 137 
 
 5 for the best grade of work down to o for the 
 poorest. It was necessary to shift the marks of 
 four of the fifteen teachers one point in order to 
 make the correlations upon the basis of actually 
 parallel rankings. 
 
 Table XI exhibits the method of tabulation 
 and correlation which was followed for all school 
 subjects. The 21 members of the class in Latin 
 are ranked as they stood in the six grades which 
 are possible in Drawing. The rank in Latin is 
 placed directly opposite the rank in Drawing. 
 The difference between the two gives the Rank 
 Difference (d). Following this in the last vertical 
 column is the product of the Rank Difference 
 squared (d 2 ), which is required in the computa- 
 tion of the correlation by the (adapted) Pearson 
 formula, 
 
 6S(d) 
 
 r = 1 
 
 N(n 2 — 1) 
 
 It is necessary to remember that the number of 
 cases differs from the number of ranks. The 
 number of cases (N) varies with the class (in this 
 case, 21); the number of ranks (n) is always 6. 
 
 4. Results. A summary of the results obtained 
 from the entire 810 pairings is exhibited in Table 
 XII. The several classes are grouped under the 
 titles of Manual Training, Mathematics, Foreign 
 Languages, Household Arts, English, Music, Edu- 
 
138 
 
 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 Table XI 
 
 Correlation between Achievement in Drawing and Achieve- 
 ment in Latin as Shown by School Grades 
 
 
 Rank In 
 
 
 
 Name 
 
 Drawing 
 
 Latin 
 
 J 
 
 0)a 
 
 Haulot 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 Mullen 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 Thiel 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 Wier 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 Tomkins 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 McComb 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 Austin 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 Behn 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 Corbin 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 Lassator 
 
 4 
 
 i 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 Fogal 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 Pitts 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 White 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 Powell 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 Hodnett 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 Osley 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 Kittle 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 Weather 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 Blount 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 Bloys 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 Johnson 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 N= 21 
 
 
 5(d) 
 
 = 25 
 
 53 = S(d*) 
 
 *■ . — T 
 
 6 S (<P) 
 
 —r? T 
 
 6x53 
 
 , cAfi 
 
 JV (n«— i) 
 
 21x35 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 
 
 139 
 
 Table XII 
 
 Correlation Between Achievement in Drawing and Other 
 School Subjects as Shown by School Grades 
 
 
 
 
 Rank Difference 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Number 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Subject 
 
 Students 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 S(d) 
 
 R 
 
 r 
 
 Man. Tr. 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 30 
 
 .16 
 
 .28 
 
 Mathematics 
 
 98 
 
 19 
 
 45 
 
 18 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 132 
 
 •33 
 
 •49 
 
 Fgn. Lang. 
 
 39 
 
 11 
 
 15 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 49 
 
 •37 
 
 •57 
 
 Home Econ. 
 
 no 
 
 21 
 
 58 
 
 26 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 126 
 
 •43 
 
 .66 
 
 English 
 
 144 
 
 36 
 
 67 
 
 3i 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 159 
 
 •47 
 
 .68 
 
 Music 
 
 134 
 
 38 
 
 58 
 
 32 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 142 
 
 •47 
 
 .68 
 
 Education 
 
 116 
 
 31 
 
 55 
 
 22 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 123 
 
 •57 
 
 •73 
 
 History 
 
 35 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 .60 
 
 .80 
 
 Science 
 
 116 
 
 4i 
 
 60 
 
 12 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 93 
 
 .60 
 
 .80 
 
 All 
 
 810 216 372 160 54 7 
 
 •45 -66 
 
 cation, History, and Science. The degrees of 
 correlations between the various school subjects 
 and Drawing are shown in the last two columns 
 by the Spearman and Pearson methods, respect- 
 ively. 
 
 5. Special Observations. Any legitimate inter- 
 pretation of the foregoing array of statistics must 
 take into account the complexity of factors which 
 enter into the assignment of school grades. Spec- 
 ial inquiry shows that the grades in Drawing were 
 
140 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 computed from a number of separate factors. 
 These include (a) ability in representative draw- 
 ing, (b) ability in designing, (c) ability in artistic 
 discrimination, (d) ability with color, washes, 
 shading, etc., (e) attendance, (f) discipline, and 
 (g) vocational interest. 
 
 Without taking into account the possibility of 
 similar heterogeneity in the grading of other 
 classes, it is evident that the gross correlations 
 found for achievement in school Drawing do not 
 necessarily apply to its individual factors. As a 
 check upon the factor of ability in representative 
 drawing, the drawings of the 51 high school 
 students, which were secured in Part I of Test No. 
 1, were compared directly to the class standings 
 of the same students. Two correlations were 
 computed by the methods previously described; 
 one with grades in Science, and one with the aver- 
 age of the class standings in Science, English, 
 Latin, and Mathematics. In neither case was 
 correlation between representative drawing and achieve- 
 ment in school subjects shown. 
 
 6. Conclusion. Achievement in Drawing is 
 highly correlated with achievement in other 
 school subjects, averaging nearly 70 per cent, 
 positive. This is, no doubt, due to the fact that 
 the standard of drawing instruction calls for a 
 variety of mental and motor processes which are 
 the same as, or similar to, those found in other 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 141 
 
 school subjects. Ability in representative draw- 
 ing is not correlated with achievement in school 
 subjects when it is isolated from the other factors 
 of school Drawing. 1 
 
 Experiment III. Retention and the Devices 
 Used to Secure It. 
 
 1. Problem. To determine the correlation be- 
 tween retention and representative drawing, de- 
 scription, and analytical drawing. 
 
 Two special tests were used for the solution of 
 this problem. Each consisted of an unannounced 
 examination given to test the student's memory 
 of the characteristics of an object which had 
 been drawn, described, or diagrammed previously. 
 
 2. Method of Procedure. Test No. 1. Sub- 
 jects. 51 students in a first-year high school class 
 in General Science. (See Experiment I.) 
 
 Twenty-four hours after the analytical study of 
 the feather previously described, the pupils were 
 given the following examination: 
 
 1. Make a simple diagram of a feather, 
 showing and labeling the parts visible to the 
 naked eye. 
 
 2. (a) What difference is there in the two 
 sides of a feather? (b) What difference is there 
 between the upper and lower surfaces? 
 
 1 See also Albien's experiment, p. 36. 
 
142 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 3. Explain in detail how the various parts of 
 a feather are held together. 
 
 4. Distinguish two kinds of barbules as to 
 their shape and position. 
 
 3. Method of Scoring. The examination papers 
 were carefully scored on a basis of points similar 
 to that described for the scoring of descriptions 
 and diagrammatic drawings. (See Experiment 
 I.) The pupils were then ranked according to 
 the degree of merit of their answers to the ques- 
 tions of the test. As the questions involve the 
 recall of the essential characteristics of the feather, 
 the results exhibit the comparative amount of 
 retention possessed by each student. By com- 
 paring the position of an individual pupil in reten- 
 tion with his position in representative drawing, 
 description, ' or analytical drawing, it is possible 
 to determine the degree of correlation present 
 between retention and each of the devices used to 
 secure it. 
 
 4. Results of Test No. 1. Table XIII shows in 
 detail the correlation which exists between these 
 several devices and retention. Considered as a 
 measure of the group as a whole, the individual 
 tabulations in Table XIII may be reduced to the 
 following general correlations: 
 
 Representative Drawing and Retention . . r ■=■ — .022 
 
 Description and Retention r ■= .234 
 
 Analytical Drawing and Retention r = .433 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 
 
 143 
 
 Table XIII 
 
 Correlation between Retention and Representative Drawing, 
 
 Description, and Analytical Drawing 
 
 Rank 
 
 Rank 
 
 Rank 
 
 Rank 
 
 Rank 
 
 Rank 
 
 Rank 
 
 Rank 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 Memo- 
 
 Draw- 
 
 Des- 
 
 Dia- 
 
 Memo- 
 
 Draw- 
 
 Des- 
 
 Dia- 
 
 ry 
 
 ing 
 
 crip- 
 tion 
 
 gram 
 
 ry 
 
 ing 
 
 crip- 
 tion 
 
 gram 
 
 I 
 
 38 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 (Continued from below) 
 
 2 
 
 41 
 
 14 
 
 5 
 
 26 
 
 24 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 37 
 
 I 
 
 14 
 
 27 
 
 6 
 
 32 
 
 47 
 
 4 
 
 22 
 
 30 
 
 4i 
 
 28 
 
 16 
 
 34 
 
 18 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 46 
 
 4 
 
 29 
 
 20 
 
 31 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 17 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 30 
 
 4 
 
 50 
 
 22 
 
 7 
 
 48 
 
 22 
 
 43 
 
 31 
 
 44 
 
 18 
 
 40 
 
 8 
 
 27 
 
 19 
 
 6 
 
 32 
 
 19 
 
 4 
 
 17 
 
 9 
 
 42 
 
 6 
 
 27 
 
 33 
 
 13 
 
 48 
 
 45 
 
 10 
 
 39 
 
 9 
 
 31 
 
 34 
 
 33 
 
 16 
 
 33 
 
 11 
 
 31 
 
 44 
 
 19 
 
 35 
 
 11 
 
 8 
 
 44 
 
 12 
 
 36 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 36 
 
 23 
 
 47 
 
 36 
 
 13 
 
 18 
 
 41 
 
 26 
 
 37 
 
 1 
 
 43 
 
 38 
 
 14 
 
 21 
 
 29 
 
 12 
 
 38 
 
 43 
 
 33 
 
 29 
 
 15 
 
 9 
 
 38 
 
 23 
 
 39 
 
 8 
 
 36 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 35 
 
 13 
 
 35 
 
 40 
 
 29 
 
 42 
 
 21 
 
 17 
 
 5i 
 
 37 
 
 24 
 
 41 
 
 30 
 
 3 
 
 46 
 
 18 
 
 25 
 
 35 
 
 39 
 
 42 
 
 2 
 
 26 
 
 42 
 
 19 
 
 10 
 
 24 
 
 34 
 
 43 
 
 47 
 
 28 
 
 28 
 
 20 
 
 26 
 
 5 
 
 25 
 
 44 
 
 32 
 
 21 
 
 7 
 
 21 
 
 12 
 
 17 
 
 30 
 
 45 
 
 15 
 
 27 
 
 20 
 
 22 
 
 28 
 
 49 
 
 51 
 
 46 
 
 46 
 
 39 
 
 47 
 
 23 
 
 34 
 
 25 
 
 13 
 
 47 
 
 49 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 24 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 15 
 
 48 
 
 50 
 
 40 
 
 50 
 
 25 
 
 45 
 
 45 
 
 3 
 
 49 
 
 5 
 
 45 
 
 30 
 
 
 (Continued above) 
 
 50 
 
 40 
 
 23 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 
 
 51 
 
 14 
 
 51 
 
 49 
 
144 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 5. Conclusion. There is no correlation between 
 skill in representative drawing and subsequent 
 retention of the essential characteristics of the 
 object drawn. There is noticeable correlation 
 (.243) between ability in description and reten- 
 tion. There is marked correlation (433) between 
 ability in analytical drawing and subsequent re- 
 tention. These facts are of the utmost importance 
 to laboratory teaching and will receive further 
 comment in the concluding chapter. 
 
 6. Method of Procedure. Test No. 2. Subjects. 
 61 college students. 
 
 It is frequently held that, whatever else may be 
 lacking, the process of drawing compels the obser- 
 vation of form and color. In view of this claim, 
 a special test was devised to compare the amounts 
 of retention of this type secured by the devices 
 of drawing and description. 
 
 The subjects of the test were divided into two 
 groups, A and B, of 30 and 31 members, respect- 
 ively. Each member of Group A was given a 
 triangular metallic object (see Figure 3), desig- 
 nated as the "triangle." Each member of Group 
 B was given a small metallic sash-lift (see Figure 
 4). They were given similar drawing materials 
 and instructed as follows: 
 
 Part I. 
 
 Write your name at the top of the page of 
 ^rawing paper. Place the object in position as 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 145 
 
 directed and draw it so that it may be identi- 
 fied by your drawing. (Time allowed, 8 min- 
 utes.) 
 
 The members of Group A exchanged objects 
 with Group B, and all were directed: 
 
 Part II. 
 
 Write your name at the top of he page. 
 Place the object in position as directed and 
 describe it so that it may be identified by your 
 description. (Time allowed, 8 minutes.) 
 
 The danger of mental superiority on the part 
 of one group over the other was obviated by the 
 exchange of objects between the two parts of the 
 experiment, which permitted all of the subjects 
 both to draw and to describe. 
 
 Five days later the same subjects (one absent) 
 were given an unannounced examination to test 
 their retention of the elements of form and color 
 which had characterized the two objects. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 Directions after passing paper: "I am about 
 to ask you a series of questions concerning the 
 objects which you drew and described five days 
 ago. I am extremely anxious that no one shall 
 in any way be aided by any other student, so 
 I shall insist that you keep your eyes away 
 from the work of other students, and that you 
 neither make comments nor ask questions 
 which may be in the least suggestive to other 
 members of the class." 
 
146 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 The questions below were then read and 
 answered one at a time, each student writing his 
 answer. When necessary, the exact meanings of 
 the directions were illustrated by diagrams on the 
 blackboard. 
 
 Set I. Sash-lift. 
 
 Write your name at the top of the page. 
 State whether you drew or described the sash- 
 lift. 
 
 1. Draw a line indicating the greatest width 
 of the flat part of the sash-lift. 
 
 2. Draw a line indicating the least width of 
 the sash-lift. 
 
 3. What is the ratio of the thickness of the 
 material at the edge of the object, to that of 
 the edge of a half-dollar; approximately, (a) 
 two times as thick, (b) one and a half times as 
 thick, (c) as thick, (d) two-thirds as thick, (e) 
 one-half as thick, or (f) one-fourth as thick. 
 (Each student was given a half-dollar for com- 
 parison at this point.) 
 
 4. Were the holes in the flat part, (a) nearer 
 to the edges of the sides, (b) the base, or (c) 
 were they the same distance from each? 
 
 5. (a) Draw a circle indicating the size of 
 the upper opening of one of the holes; (b) also 
 a circle indicating the size of the lower opening. 
 (The outside of the pencil mark is to be taken 
 in these questions.) (c) Draw a line indicating 
 the distance on the upper surface of the sash- 
 lift between the two holes (measuring from 
 inner edges). 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 147 
 
 6. Was the upper surface (a) polished approxi- 
 mately smooth, or (b) were there numerous 
 slight indentations or abrasions upon it? 
 
 7. Was the exact contour of the upper part 
 of the finger piece from the front (a) regularly 
 rounding, or (b) somewhat flattened? 
 
 8. State the color of the following areas of 
 the sash-lift. (A diagram was drawn on the 
 board and lettered, which divided the front 
 and back surfaces of the sash-lift in six parts 
 each. Two of these parts in the original were 
 copper-colored, the remainder nearly black.) 
 
 Set II. Triangle. 
 
 Write your name at the top of the page. 
 State whether you drew or described the tri- 
 angular object. 
 
 1. Draw a line indicating the exact length of 
 one side of the object from tip to tip. 
 
 2. Draw a line indicating the exact length of 
 one of the outer sides of one of the inner tri- 
 angles. 
 
 3. What is the ratio of the thickness of the 
 material at the edge of the object, to that of 
 the edge of a ten-cent piece; approximately, 
 (a) two times as thick, (b) one and a half times 
 as thick, (c) as thick, (d) two-thirds as thick, 
 (e) one-half as thick, (f) one-fourth as thick. 
 (Each student was given a ten-cent piece for 
 comparison.) 
 
 4. Were the three sides of the inner triangles 
 (a) equal in length; (b) equally curving; (c) 
 parallel, or askew, with the near sides of the 
 outer triangle? 
 
148 THE PS YCHOL OG Y OF DRA WING 
 
 5. (a) Draw a circle, the outer edge of which 
 indicates the exact size of the hole in the center 
 of the triangle, (b) Draw a line indicating the 
 exact distance from the edge of the hole in the 
 center to the nearest point of one of the sides 
 of the triangle. 
 
 6. Was the surface of the object (a) polished 
 approximately smooth, or (b) were there slight 
 indentations or abrasions upon it? 
 
 7. Were the outer points of the triangle (a) 
 regularly rounded, or (b) somewhat flattened? 
 
 8. (a) Were the lines which delineated the 
 various triangular figures on the concave side of 
 the object grooves or ridges? (b) On the con- 
 vex side? 
 
 7. Results of Test No. 2. The results obtained 
 from the foregoing test were concrete in character 
 and readily submitted to objective measurement, 
 which was carried out with accuracy and detail. 
 The average error or percentage correct of each 
 detail of the test was computed for both drawers 
 and describers. The tabulated results are exhib- 
 ited in Tables XIV, XV, and XVI. 
 
 Drawing proves to be no better than descrip- 
 tion as a device for securing retention of surface 
 dimensions. It was 6% less efficient than descrip- 
 tion with fine dimensions, and markedly inferior 
 with the dimension of thickness. In the total 
 recall of all dimensions, based upon 330 judg- 
 ments, description surpassed drawing by over 
 6%. 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 149 
 
 Table XIV 
 Memory for Surface Dimensions 
 
 Gross Dimensions Average Error Made by 
 
 Drawers Describers 
 
 Length of sash-lift 14. 7% 17.0% 
 
 Width of sash-lift 18.7% 15-7% 
 
 Length side triangle 11.6% 9-5% 
 
 Side inner triangle 26.7% 27.7% 
 
 Average total *7-9% 17-7% 
 
 Fine Dimensions 
 
 Between holes 71 . 0% 47. 0% 
 
 Triangle hole 38.0% 34-1% 
 
 Center to edge 46. 0% 60. 0% 
 
 Upper hole 23.0% 19-7% 
 
 Under hole 32.4% 22.0% 
 
 Average total 1 . 42. 1 % 36. 6% 
 
 Thickness 
 
 Triangle 41-9% 41-4% 
 
 Sash-lift 97-0% 56. 0% 
 
 Final average error. ... 38. 3% 31.8% 
 
 Neither drawing nor description exhibited 
 marked superiority in the retention of the ele- 
 ments of general design. 
 
 The process of description is markedly superior 
 to that of drawing as a device for securing reten- 
 tion of color. The ratio of correct judgment is 
 nearly 2 to 1 in favor of the pupils who made 
 descriptions of the objects. 
 
150 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 Table XV 
 
 Memory for General Design 
 
 Drawers Describers 
 
 Rights Rights 
 
 Contour of: 
 
 Sash-lift 22% 35% 
 
 Triangle 73% 70% 
 
 Position of: 
 
 Sash-lift holes 20% 50% 
 
 Triangle holes 73% 65% 
 
 Surface Markings: 
 
 Grooves, etc 93% 93% 
 
 Abrasions, Triangle 93% 93% 
 
 Abrasions, Sash-lift 90% 89% 
 
 Final average rights 67% 7 J % 
 
 Table XVI 
 Memory for Color 
 
 Drawers Describers 
 
 Rights Rights 
 
 Number seen 77-0% 100.0% 
 
 Position 3.0% 55-0% 
 
 Areas 38.8% 71-3% 
 
 Average rights 39-6% 75-4% 
 
 8. Conclusion. The results of Experiment III 
 give positive evidence that representative draw- 
 ing is not a successful device for securing the 
 analytical observation necessary to successful 
 retention. Even in its own domain of form and 
 dimension it is no better than, and in all probabil- 
 ity not equal to, the process of description. 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 151 
 
 Experiment IV. Analysis of Observation 
 During Representative Drawing and 
 Description. 
 
 1. Problem. To determine the direction of 
 attention during drawing and description. 
 
 2. Method of Procedure. Subjects. 48 univers- 
 ity graduate students. (See Test No. 2, p. 91). 
 Immediately after spending seven minutes each in 
 describing and drawing a microscope clip, the 
 subjects of this experiment were given the follow- 
 ing directions: 
 
 Directions. Introspect carefully, and pro- 
 ceed as follows: 
 
 State in writing as definitely as possible any 
 differences which distinguished your consider- 
 ation of the object (a) while drawing it from 
 that (b) while describing it, such as: 
 
 1. Aspects or characteristics of the object 
 which held your attention during (a) and (b) 
 above. 
 
 2. Kind of mental analysis of the object or 
 mental procedure during (a) and (b). 
 
 3. Difficulties in the technique of expression 
 during (a) and (b). 
 
 4. Any other specific difference which you 
 may have experienced. 
 
 The majority of these subjects had had con- 
 siderable training in psychology and were able to 
 make a satisfactory psychological analysis of their 
 previous attempts at observation. The follow- 
 ing summary presents the results obtained from 
 
152 
 
 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 the foregoing introspections. It has been veri- 
 fied frequently since the original experiment. 
 
 3. Results. 
 
 Analysis of Description and Drawing 
 Scope of Attention 
 
 Description 
 
 of 
 
 I . Many categories 
 characteristics, such as: 
 
 (a) spatial, 
 
 (b) visual, 
 
 (c) nomenclature, 
 
 (d) classification, 
 
 (e) material, 
 
 (f) use, 
 
 (g) construction, 
 (h) kinaesthetic, 
 (i) aesthetic, etc. 
 
 3. Absolute circles, angles, 
 dimensions, etc. 
 
 3. All parts significant. 
 
 4. Object dynamic. 
 
 Drawing 
 
 1. Characteristics limited 
 to three categories: 
 
 (a) spatial; — proportions, 
 
 (b) visual; — appearance, 
 
 (c) aesthetic; — beauty. 
 
 2. Circles, etc., modified 
 by distance and perspective. 
 
 3. Surface view significant. 
 
 4. Object static. 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 
 
 153 
 
 Type of Mental Analysis 
 
 Description 
 
 1. Dealing with concepts. 
 
 2. Rational analysis and 
 synthesis. 
 
 3. Constant comparison 
 with previous knowledge; 
 "association." 
 
 4. A sequence of ideas and 
 definitions logically devel- 
 oped into a whole. 
 
 5. Many categories of 
 thought. Desire to dissect. 
 
 6. Mental activity more 
 intense. 
 
 7. Various types of imag- 
 ery used. 
 
 Drawing 
 
 1. Dealing with percepts. 
 
 2. Imitative reproduc- 
 tion. 
 
 3. Constant comparison 
 with appearance of resulting 
 drawing; "isolation." 
 
 4. Any part may be drawn 
 into the whole at any time. 
 
 5. Two groups present in 
 class: 
 
 (a) limited categories — 
 
 geometrical, 
 (b) trial by error methods. 
 
 6. Mental activity relieved 
 by motor. 
 
 7. Visual imagery used. 
 
 Difficulties 
 
 Description 
 
 1. Lack of proper words 
 to express meanings realized. 
 
 2. Not knowing how to 
 be definite. 
 
 3. Failure to think of at- 
 tributes. 
 
 4. Incompleteness. 
 
 5. Difficulties with organi- 
 zation of elements into a 
 logical whole. 
 
 Drawing 
 
 1. Lack of control of hand 
 in attempting lines. 
 
 2. Not knowing how to 
 produce three-dimension ef- 
 fects. 
 
 3. Failure to select ele- 
 ments of form. 
 
 4. Incorrectness. 
 
 5. Difficulties of organiz- 
 ing details into a unified 
 whole. 
 
154 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 Experiment V. The Effect of Analytical 
 Observation upon Drawing. 
 
 i. Problem. To determine the effect of analyt- 
 ical observation upon ability in representative 
 drawing. 
 
 2. Method of Procedure. Subjects. 16 gradu- 
 ate students. A stuffed bird, the black-crowned 
 night heron, was placed before a group of students 
 for study. The students had never seen this 
 species of bird before and none of them was 
 acquainted with the methods of bird study. 
 They were first acquainted with enough anatom- 
 ical terms to enable them to follow the directions. 
 The class was then divided equally into two groups. 
 A and B. The members of both groups were 
 given the following directions: 
 
 Directions. Answer the following questions 
 on the paper supplied: 
 
 1. What is the shape of the bird's bill? 
 
 2. What is the condition of the crown? The 
 forehead? 
 
 3. What is the position of the wings at rest 
 with reference to the body and tail? 
 
 4. The knee is concealed by the plumage. 
 The first visible joint is the heel. The bone 
 connecting the heel and the foot is the meta- 
 tarsus. Which way does the heel bend? 
 
 Each group was then given a special direction 
 for observation which was not given to the other 
 group. The directions follow: 
 
THE EXPERIMENTS 155 
 
 Group A. Note carefully the comparative 
 lengths of the bill and meta-tarsus. 
 
 Group B. Note carefully the number and 
 comparative lengths of the front and hind toes. 
 
 Finally, both groups were given the following 
 direction : 
 
 Direction. Make a drawing of the night 
 heron. Draw the bird in any convenient posi- 
 tion. 
 
 3. Results. The parts to which attention had 
 previously been called were more accurately 
 drawn than the parts which had not received 
 mention. Group A, which had been directed to 
 observe the comparative lengths of the bill and 
 metatarsus, drew this feature with much greater 
 accuracy than Group B, which had not received 
 this instruction. Table XVII gives the compar- 
 ative measurements of the drawings of the two 
 groups for this feature. Other features exhibited 
 similar results. 
 
156 
 
 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 Table XVII 
 
 Comparative Length of a Bird's Bill and Meta-tarsus Drawn 
 with and without Previous Analytical Study. The Bill and 
 Meta-tarsus are Actually of Equal Length. 
 
 Group A (After analysis) 
 
 Student 
 
 Length Meta- 
 of bill tarsus 
 
 Group B (Without analysis) 
 
 Student 
 
 Length 
 of bill 
 
 Meta- 
 tarsus 
 
 A.K 25 mm. 24 mm. 
 
 L.M.. 
 F.P... 
 F.S... 
 R.C.. 
 E.W.. 
 W.M. 
 J.S... 
 
 25 
 20 
 
 9 
 •25 
 ■30 
 24 
 •19 
 
 28 
 20 
 
 9 
 20 
 
 32 
 25 
 17 
 
 A.P 14 mm. 
 
 L.W.. 
 C.R.. 
 H.M. 
 J.P... 
 O.P.. 
 E.B.. 
 S.J... 
 
 ■35 
 •35 
 .18 
 
 • 4 
 ■25 
 .28 
 
 15 
 
 40 
 58 
 45 
 
 8 
 
 35 
 35 
 25 
 
 4. Conclusion. Analytical observation improves 
 the ability to make a representative drawing. 
 Greater accuracy of dimension is exhibited after 
 such study. Group A, above, after having their 
 attention directed to the comparative length of 
 the bird's bill and meta-tarsus, drew it with ap- 
 proximate accuracy. Group B, without such 
 directed attention, made errors anywhere from 15 
 to 250 per cent. 
 
Chapter VII 
 FINAL CONCLUSIONS 
 
 J. The Psychological Analysis of Drawing. 
 
 The psychological analysis of drawing shows 
 that the process of graphical expression is subject 
 to the influence of three interrelated factors, (i) 
 a preconceived purpose, (2) ability to see, and (3) 
 ability to represent. 
 
 1 . The Preconceived Purpose. The preconceived 
 purpose of drawing varies with the individual 
 and the occasion. It may be (a) to fix an object 
 in consciousness, (b) to catalogue items of informa- 
 tion, (c) to make a visual representation, (d) to 
 interpret an artistic sentiment, or (e) to illustrate 
 a scientific concept. One decides to sketch a 
 route to the next village, another to record the 
 parts in an automobile wheel, a third to draw a 
 picture of his house, a fourth to interpret the 
 tragedy of war, and a fifth to demonstrate the 
 action of a force-pump. Then follow, each sub- 
 ject to the original intent of the effort, the direc- 
 tion of attention, the play of memory, the marshal- 
 ling of ideas, the choice of interpretation, and the 
 guidance of the hand. Whatever it may be, the 
 purpose of the moment dominates the entire pro- 
 cess of graphical expression. 
 
 J57 
 
158 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 2. The Ability to See. (See pp. 97-99.) The 
 ability to discriminate the particular character- 
 istics of an object which should be shown in a draw- 
 ing depends upon both native talent and train- 
 ing. 1 A certain inherent perspicacity for, and a 
 predisposed tendency toward, analytical observa- 
 tion are fundamental and peculiar to each type 
 of drawing. One individual may be given to the 
 type of analysis which is demanded by artistic 
 drawing, another to the analysis required by 
 scientific drawing, and a third to that necessi- 
 tated by representative drawing. Each procliv- 
 ity favors one type of drawing and interferes more 
 or less with the others. 
 
 On the other hand, the ability to see with dis- 
 crimination may be greatly improved by train- 
 ing. (See p. 103.) One learns by experience to 
 discover more readily the lines which exhibit 
 artistic beauty, is taught to discriminate charac- 
 teristics which are scientifically important, or 
 comes in the course of training to recognize ele- 
 ments of form which carry representative value. 
 Successful training in any one or all of these is not 
 impossible to any normal child. 
 
 3. Ability to Represent. Given the same pre- 
 conceived purpose and ability to see discriminat- 
 ingly, achievement in drawing depends upon a 
 number of closely interrelated factors. 
 
 1 See footnote, p. 100. 
 
FINAL CONCLUSIONS 159 
 
 (a) Visual Imagery. The clearness of visual 
 imagery, particularly in memory drawing, is of 
 great importance to accurate representation and 
 is subject to great individual variation. With 
 different individuals the drawing image may be 
 (1) clear and distinct, (2) vague and incomplete, 
 (3) distinct, but inaccurate, or (4) changeable and 
 evanescent when the act of drawing begins. (See 
 PP- 93, 94, and 99.) 
 
 (b) Reflection. Knowledge of the physical char- 
 acteristics of an object may serve to strengthen 
 the visual image or even to substitute for it, as 
 when one recalls that an object is just twice as 
 long as it is broad. (See pp. 93-95.) 
 
 (c) Memory Devices. The memory may be 
 fortified by the acquisition of drawing schemata 
 of common objects. The possession of a typical 
 dog schema, for instance, is of great service when 
 one attempts to make a drawing of the village 
 bulldog "Buster." (See p. 100.) 
 
 (d) Hand Control. The control of the hand 
 movements when making regular lines which co- 
 ordinate with the image or percept of the object 
 fundamental to accurate drawing. (See pp. 99-100.) 
 
 (e) Principles of Drawing. An acquired knowl- 
 edge of drawing is necessary for the purposes of 
 visual representation. (See p. 100.) 
 
160 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 (f) Synthetic Capacity. All drawing depends 
 upon a final synthesis of the elements which have 
 been isolated during the analysis which precedes 
 the use of the pencil. (See p. 76.) One of the 
 earliest of the child's difficulties with drawing is 
 his incapacity to assemble parts into a synthesized 
 whole. He is unable, for instance, to arrange 
 the human features which he knows as separate 
 units into a uniform face. Later on, synthetic 
 incapacity remains to mar the symmetry of visual 
 representation. Many drawers never see the 
 "whole" object well enough to fit in the parts 
 symmetrically. Finally, it is synthetic incapacity 
 that sets the limits to the artistic interpretation 
 of beauty and the scientific discovery of law. 
 
 II. Adaptation of Laboratory Teaching. 
 
 The psychological analysis of the drawing act 
 shows that there is great variation among differ- 
 ent individuals in ability to draw and in the man- 
 ner in which graphic expression is utilized. Labor- 
 atory procedure must be adapted to these varia- 
 tions before the highest type of instruction is 
 attainable. 
 
 One of the earliest necessities, therefore, in 
 science teaching is a study of the graphic propensi- 
 ties of individual students. This may be done 
 by subjecting them to tests similar to those de- 
 scribed in Chapters V and VI. The teacher should 
 
FINAL CONCLUSIONS 161 
 
 know the degree of ability and the cause for the 
 superiority or the deficiency of every student in 
 description and in representative, memory, and 
 analytical drawing. Means should then be taken 
 to improve defective ability whenever possible by 
 special training and, whenever impossible, to 
 adjust laboratory practice to the capability of the 
 student. 
 
 Improvement in the art of scientific expression 
 may be secured through the co-operation of 
 teachers of English and Drawing. The descrip- 
 tions resulting from the foregoing experimental 
 tests indicate that many of the subjects have had 
 deficient training in accuracy of verbal expres- 
 sion. (See Test No. 2, p. 113.) General terms 
 and figures of speech often deceive both writer 
 and reader as to the actual lack of any genuinely 
 specific statements. Each reader supplies a dif- 
 ferent set of imagery, which proves frequently 
 upon psychological analysis to be widely removed 
 from the reality of the original material. The 
 pupil's description of a feather usually reads well 
 if no check is made upon what is specifically said, 
 because the reader unconsciously fills in the gaps 
 with his own previous knowledge. It is different 
 with a strange object like a microscope-clip. 
 For most persons the expression "microscope- 
 clip" fails to arouse any image or tendency to 
 react toward it, and the student feels at once his 
 
162 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 need for specific terms of description. One college 
 graduate was unable to write a single word of 
 description about the microscope-clip, and a num- 
 ber of others were practically helpless. Without 
 question training in scientific expression is a 
 legitimate, and should become a regular, part of 
 the work in English. 
 
 Achievement in scientific expression is similarly 
 closely related to Drawing instruction. More- 
 over, the development of skill in analytical "see- 
 ing" is essential to the interests of artistic expres- 
 sion itself. (See pp. 96 ff.) Drawing from mem- 
 ory, appreciation of the scientific principles of 
 drawing, ability to modify representative draw- 
 ings so as to express some aesthetic ideal or to 
 interpret or emphasize some salient aspect of an 
 object or scene — one and all are dependent upon 
 analytical observation. It is, therefore, not only 
 important to the interests of science, but desir- 
 able from the artistic point of view, that pupils 
 learn early to analyze with discrimination for 
 each type of graphical expression, whether it be 
 visual representation, artistic interpretation, or 
 scientific illustration. 
 
 III. Analytical Observation. 1 
 
 Laboratory procedure makes use of three devices 
 to stimulate analytical observation, (1) repre- 
 
 1 See p. 5 for definition of analytical observation. 
 
FINAL CONCLUSIONS 163 
 
 sentative drawing, (2) description, and (3) analyt- 
 ical drawing. 
 
 I. Representative Drawing. 1 Representative 
 drawing does not insure a consideration of the 
 scientific aspects, or an analytical study of an 
 object. (See Experiment IV, p. 150.) The pre- 
 conceived purpose of reproducing a visual copy 
 narrows the scope of observation, and the atten- 
 tion, at best, is directed to items of form and 
 color. There is nothing to call up associations 
 which have to do with scientific ends. The atten- 
 tion is, in fact, kept away from the associations 
 that have to do with science as such. Even in 
 :he province of form, sustained attention is not 
 necessary. The pupil's drawing is always subject 
 to direct comparison with the object at hand, so 
 that extended study and reflection over its pro- 
 portions are not necessary. It is a waste of time 
 for the interests of scientific thinking to require 
 pupils to spend extended periods of time at repre- 
 sentative drawing. In fact, it is worse than a 
 waste of time, for it encourages bad habits of 
 analytical study which are opposed to interests 
 of scientific thinking and constructive research. 
 It is no wonder that so few of our picture-laden 
 notebooks give evidence of scientific grasp or 
 initiative. The excessive use of representative 
 drawing is a serious pedagogical formalism which 
 
 1 See p. 6. 
 
164 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 produces copyists instead of scientists and which 
 creates distaste instead of enthusiasm for science, 
 
 2. Description. The preconceived purpose of 
 description gives a much broader direction to at- 
 tention. (See Experiment IV, p. 150.) The at- 
 tempt to describe an object directs attention to a 
 large number of its characteristics and initiates an 
 effort toward an analysis in terms of the subject's 
 own knowledge and previous experience. The 
 student who attempts to describe a feather thinks 
 of its color, its shape, its use ; all he has ever known 
 or thought about it is subject to the play of his 
 reflection. The attitude of mind brought about 
 is ideal, but for purposes of scientific analysis it 
 lacks specific direction. The pupil is frequently 
 unable to determine what characteristics of the 
 object are of scientific importance. He not un- 
 likely devotes the major portion of his time to 
 describing the intricate color pattern of the feather, 
 and may overlook entirely the structural elements 
 which adapt the feather to the service of protec- 
 tion or of flight. It is necessary, therefore, to 
 supplement and direct the pupil's attempt at 
 description. 
 
 3. Analytical Drawing. 1 The preconceived pur- 
 pose of analytical drawing supplies the direction 
 of attention which is lacking in spontaneous 
 description. The attention is directed to the 
 
 1 See pp. 6-8 for definition of analytical drawing. 
 
FINAL CONCLUSIONS 165 
 
 particular characteristics of the object which are 
 of immediate scientific concern. The successful 
 type, schematic, or diagrammatic drawing cannot 
 be made without analytical study. The student 
 who attempts to make a diagrammatic drawing 
 showing how the parts of a wing feather are held 
 together has before him a definite problem in 
 analysis which necessitates sustained mental ef- 
 fort to the end of the process of representation. 
 (See Experiment I, p. 107.) 
 
 IV. Laboratory Records. 
 
 1. Representative Drawings. The results of the 
 various special tests show that representative 
 drawings do not afford a measure of the pupil's 
 progress or an adequate record of the work which 
 he has accomplished. 
 
 2. Description. Description is a desirable record 
 of the work of the pupil. It covers a wide range 
 of observation and lacks only in the matter of the 
 extra time required for the preparation of accurate 
 and comprehensive statements, and for the teacher 
 to make critical inspection. 
 
 3. Analytical Drawings. Analytical drawings 
 are ideal records of work accomplished and should 
 be used wherever adaptable to the laboratory 
 exercise. They require but a minimum of time for 
 execution, can be made without exceptional skill 
 of hand, and may be readily inspected. 
 
166 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 V. Retention. 
 
 i. Representative Drawing. Representative 
 drawing does not aid the memory. (See results of 
 Experiment III.) As far as scientific concepts 
 are concerned, it interferes with it. Many indi- 
 viduals who can make excellent representative 
 drawings are unable to remember what the object 
 looks like. They fail in the attempt to draw from 
 memory because of faulty and inaccurate observa- 
 tion. Memory tests show that there is no corre- 
 lation between retention and ability in represent- 
 ative drawing. (See p. 142.) 
 
 2. Description. Description aids retention by 
 establishing numerous secondary associations dur- 
 ing the period of observation and writing. (See 
 pp. 142 and 152-153.) Subsequent recall is greatly 
 facilitated by the number and strength of these 
 associations. 
 
 3. Analytical Drawing. Analytical drawing aids 
 retention in the same manner as does description. 
 Ability in analytical drawing is positively corre- 
 lated with retention. (See p. 142.) The visual 
 memory of the analytical schema serves as an 
 additional support for the recall of associated 
 ideas. 
 
 4. Memory Drawings. The attempt to draw 
 from memory tests the retention of space and 
 form relationships. (See pp. 98 ff.) By means 
 of subsequent comparison of the defective memory 
 
FINAL CONCLUSIONS 167 
 
 drawing with the real object, the attention is 
 directed to the things which had escaped recall 
 while drawing. For instance, one attempts to 
 draw his watch from memory and puts the second 
 dial near the center. He then compares his draw- 
 ing with the watch. What happens? He immedi- 
 ately scrutinizes the characteristic which his 
 earlier observation has failed to fix correctly in 
 memory. Thus the attempt to draw from mem- 
 ory supplies the direction of attention to the 
 visual characteristics of an object which is lacking 
 in representative drawing. 
 
 VI. Recommendations. 
 
 1. It is recommended that the directions of 
 laboratory teaching shall be specifically adapted 
 to the scientific purport of the hour. The direc- 
 tions given for the conduct of Parts III and IV 
 of Test No. 1, Experiment I, in the preceding 
 chapter, are suggested as typical of the proper 
 laboratory procedure. (See pp. in ff.) 
 
 2. It is recommended that science teachers 
 shall make an early study of their pupils to dis- 
 cover individual variations in skill at graphic 
 expression, and that laboratory instruction shall 
 be adapted to the needs and capabilities of the 
 individual members of the classes. 
 
 3. It is recommended that special attention 
 shall be given to training pupils in the art of 
 
168 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 scientific expression by teachers of English and 
 Drawing. 
 
 4. It is recommended that the device of repre- 
 sentative drawing shall be supplanted in labora- 
 tory teaching by the use of description, memory 
 drawing, and analytical drawing. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 1. Albien, Gustav. "Der Anteil der nachkonstruierenden 
 
 Tatigkeit des Auges und der Apperception an dem 
 Behalten und der Wiedergabe einfacher Formen." 
 Zeitschrift fur experimentelle Padagogik. V. u. VI. 
 Bd. 1907. (Thirty-four plates in) Gratisbeilage, Bd. 
 VI. 
 
 An experimental study of the drawing act of great 
 value. The author also reviews the history of the 
 methods of education in drawing and gives a lengthy 
 analytical discussion of the drawing act. 
 
 2. Bailey, Henry Turner. Article on "Drawing." 
 
 Monroe's Cyclopedia of Education. (Macmillan, 
 1912.) II. 366. 
 On the educational values of drawing. 
 
 3. Bailey, Henry Turner. "Report on Industrial Draw- 
 
 ing in Fifty-eighth Annual Report of the Board of 
 Education." (Massachusetts. 1893-94.) Boston, 
 
 1895- 
 
 4. Baldwin, James M. "Mental Development in the 
 
 Child and the Race." (Macmillan, New York, 1895.) 
 
 5. Balfour, H. "The Evolution of Decorative Art." 
 
 (Macmillan, 1893.) 
 
 6. Ballard, P. B. "What Children Like to Draw." 
 
 Journal of Experimental Pedagogy. 1913. 2: 127- 
 129. 
 
 7.. Barnes, Earl. "A Study of Children's Drawings." 
 Pedagogical Seminary. December, 1893, pp. 451-463. 
 One of the earliest attempts to interpret large 
 groups of children's drawings. 
 
 8. Barnes, Earl. "Child Study in Relation to Elemen- 
 tary Art Education." In "Art Education in the 
 Public Schools of the United States." (Haney. 
 
 169 
 
176 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 American Art Annual. New York, 1908.) pp. 101- 
 
 132. 
 
 The author gives a comprehensive review of the 
 literature of children's drawings with special refer- 
 ence to the pedagogy of drawing. 
 9. Barnes, Earl. "Studies in Education." (Stanford 
 University and Philadelphia. 1897, 1902.) Vols. 
 I and II. 
 
 A series of short articles, both statistical and inter- 
 pretive, on children's drawings. 
 
 10. Bastin, E. S. "Laboratory Exercises in Botany." 
 
 (Saunders, 1895.) 
 
 11. Bechterew, W. V. "Objektive Psychologie." (Teub- 
 
 ner, Leipsig, 1913.) p. 392, ff. 
 
 12. Bechterew, W. V. "Recherches Objectives sur 
 
 l'Evolution du Dessin chez l'Enfant." Journal de 
 Psychologie Normale et Pathologique. V. 5. 191 1. 
 
 A good description of the drawings of the patho- 
 logically degenerate. 
 
 13. Bergen, J. "Note-book to Accompany Botany Texts." 
 
 (Ginn, 1904.) 
 
 14. Bigelow, M. A. "The Teaching of Zoology." (In 
 
 Lloyd and Bigelow, "The Teaching of Biology." 
 Longmans, 1907.) 
 
 15. Binet, Alfred. "Interpretation des Dessins." Revue 
 
 Philosophique. December, 1890. 
 
 16. Broerman, E. "L'Ecole dans la Nature." Revue de 
 
 l'lnstitut International d'Art Public. VII et VIII. 
 December, 1909. 
 
 Contains: (a) International Inquiry on children's 
 drawings; (b) Prehistoric drawings; (c) Free drawings 
 of our children; (d) Reform of drawing instruction 
 in France. 
 
 17. Brown, Elmer E. "Notes on Children's Drawings." 
 
 (University of California. 1897.) Vol. II, No. I. 
 
 Interprets four biographical studies of children's 
 drawings. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 171 
 
 18. Brown, William. "The Essentials of Mental Measure- 
 
 ment." (Cambridge University Press. 1911.) Part 
 II, Correlation. 
 
 An excellent discussion of the mathematical theory 
 of correlation. 
 
 19. Burk, Frederick. "The Genetic versus the Logical 
 
 Order in Drawing." Pedagogical Seminary. Sep- 
 tember, 1902. 
 
 Includes a summary of studies in children's draw- 
 ings and discusses pedagodical applications. 
 
 20. Chamberlain, A. F. "The Child. A Study in the 
 
 Evolution of Man." (Scribners, New York, 1900.) 
 Chapter VI. The Arts of Childhood. 
 
 An interesting treatment of children's drawings 
 which includes numerous ethnological comparisons. 
 
 21. Claparede Ed. (et Geux.) "Plan d'Experiences 
 
 Collectives sur le Dessin des Enfants." Archives de 
 Psychologie. Janvier, 1907. pp. 276-278. 
 
 22. Clark, A. B. "The Child's Attitude toward Perspec- 
 
 tive Problems." (Stanford University Studies in 
 Education, 1897.) Vol. I, pp. 283-294. 
 
 23. Clarke, I. E. "Art and Industry." (United States 
 
 Bureau of Education. 1885-89.) Part I. 
 
 An excellent source of information concerning the 
 early development of industrial drawing in the United 
 States. 
 
 24. Cooke, Ebenezer. "Art Teaching and Child Nature." 
 
 Journal of Education, London. December, 1885. 
 January, 1886. 
 
 An early treatment of children's drawings which 
 has had considerable influence upon educational 
 practice. 
 
 25. Conn, H. W. "Biology." 1912. 
 
 26. Curtis. "Laboratory Directions in General Zoology. " 
 
 1912. 
 
 27. Danzel, T. W. "Die Anfange der Schrift." (Voigt- 
 
 lander , Leipsig,^ 1 9 1 2 .) 
 
172 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 28. Duck, J. "Uber das zeichnerische und kiinstlerische 
 
 Interesse der Schuler." Zeitschrift fur experimen- 
 telle Psychologic 13. 19. 12. 
 
 The author gives particular emphasis to the 
 changes of interest which occur at puberty. 
 
 29. Elderton, Ethel. "On the Association of Drawing 
 
 with Other Capacities in School Children." Biome- 
 trika, 1909-10. pp. 222 ff. 
 
 30. Farnum, Royal B. "Present Status of Drawing and 
 
 Art in the Elementary and Secondary Schools of the 
 United States." (Bulletin, 1914, No. 13. United 
 States Bureau of Education.) 
 
 Contains a fund of excellent source material. 
 Includes: (a) Historical development; (b) Aims and 
 scope in art teaching; (c) Organization, methods, and 
 outlines; (d) Application and correlation; (e) Pic- 
 ture study and school decoration; (f) Materials and 
 equipment; (g) Art clubs and associations. 
 
 31. Findley, Miss M. E. "Design in the Art Training of 
 
 Young Children." Child Life, London, 1906-7. 
 
 32. Fitz, H. T. "Freehand Drawing in Education." 
 
 Popular Science Monthly. Vol. 36, pp. 397-400. 
 
 A statistical account of the failure of the average 
 school child to draw. 
 
 33. Ganong, W. F. "The Teaching Botanist." (Macmil- 
 
 lan, 1900.) 
 
 34. Gennep, A. Van. "Dessins d'Enfant et Dessins Pre- 
 
 historique." Archives de Psychologic X. Febru- 
 ary, 1911. 
 
 35. Gotze, Karl. "Das Kind als Kiinstler." (Hamburg, 
 
 (1898.) 
 
 36. Grosse, E. "Die Anfange der Kunst." (Leipsig, 1894.) 
 
 (Also, ''The Beginnings of Art." Appleton, 1897.) 
 
 37. Grosser, H m und Stern, W. "Das freie Zeichnen und 
 
 Formen des Kindes." (Barth, Leipsig, 1913.) 
 
 Contains a number of separate treatments of 
 drawing and modeling. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 173 
 
 38. Haddon, A. C. "Evolution in Art: As Illustrated by 
 
 the Life-histories of Designs." (Scribners, 1914.) 
 
 An excellent ethnological treatment of the evolu- 
 tion of drawing as a decorative art. 
 
 39. Hall, E. H. "The Teaching of Physics." (In Smith 
 
 and Hall, "The Teaching of Chemistry and Physics," 
 Longmans, 1904.) 
 
 40. Hall, G. Stanley. "Contents of Children's Minds on 
 
 Entering School." Pedagogical Seminary. 1902. 
 
 41. Haney, James P. "The Development of Art Educa- 
 
 tion in the Public Schools." (In "Art Education in 
 the Public Schools of the United States." Edited by 
 J. P. Haney. American Art Annual. 1908.) pp. 
 21-77. 
 
 A useful historical treatment of the development of 
 drawing in the public schools of the United States. 
 
 42. Hardest. "Laboratory Guide for Histology." 1908. 
 
 43. Hind, C. Lewis. "The Education of the Artist." 
 
 (London. 1907.) 
 
 Contains an interesting discussion of the training 
 of the artist, given chiefly from the point of view of 
 the author's experience. 
 
 44. Hogan, Louise. "A Study of a Child." New York. 
 
 1898. 
 
 45. Holmes, W. H. "Origin and Development of Form and 
 
 Ornament in Ceramic Art." (Fourth Annual Report 
 
 of the Bureau of Ethnology, Washington, 1886.) 
 
 An excellent and frequently quoted source of 
 materials. 
 
 46. Howells, W. D. "A Little Girl among the Old Mas- 
 
 ters." (New York. 1876.) 
 
 Records the artistic development of a girl living 
 in the midst of European art galleries. 
 
 47. Ivanof, E. "Recherches experimentales sur le Dessin 
 
 des Ecoliers de la Suisse romande. Correlation entre 
 1' Aptitude au Dessin et les Autres Aptitudes." Ar- 
 
174 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 chives de Psychologie. VIII, No. 30. Decembre, 
 1908. pp. 97-156. 
 
 An elaborate analysis of the drawings collected 
 from the inquiry instigated by Claparede and Geux, 
 with special reference to the correlation between 
 ability in drawing and other school subjects. 
 
 48. Jessup, Walter A. "The Social Factors Affecting 
 
 Special Supervision in the Public Schools of the 
 United States." (Teachers College, Columbia Uni- 
 versity, 1911.) Chapter III, "Drawing," pp. 18-31. 
 
 49. Johonot, J. "Principles and Practice of Teaching." 
 
 (Appleton, 1878.) 
 
 50. Judd, C. H., and Cowling, D. J. "Studies in Percep- 
 
 tual Development." Psychological Review. 1897. 
 An experimental study of attempts to draw a 
 simple figure from memory. 
 
 51. Karrenberg, C. "Der Mensch als Zeichenobjekt." 
 
 (Quelle and Meyer, Leipsig, 1910.) 
 
 52. Katz, David. "Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Kinder- 
 
 zeichnungen." Zeitschrift fiir Psychologie u. Phys. 
 der Sinnesorgane. 1906. pp. 241-256. 
 
 A study of the perceptual process of children dur- 
 ing attempts to make drawings of pasteboard geo- 
 metrical figures. 
 
 53. Katzaroff, M. D. "Qu'est-ce les Enfants Dessinent?" 
 
 Archives de Psychologie. IX. pp. 125-133. 
 
 54. Kerschensteiner, George. "Die Entwickelung der 
 
 zeichnerischen Begabung." (Gerber, Munich, 1905.) 
 
 An elaborate and important inquiry involving some 
 300,000 drawings of school children. One of the 
 most influential works on the practical applications 
 to teaching. Contains a wealth of discursive, sta- 
 tistical, and illustrative material. 
 
 55. Kik, C. "Die iibernormale Zeichenbegabung bei 
 
 Kindern." Zeitschrift fiir angew. Psychologie. II. 
 1908. pp. 92-149. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 175 
 
 Contains a detailed treatment of the artistic ability 
 of thirteen exceptionally gifted drawers. Gives 
 particular emphasis to the relation of special merit 
 in drawing to intellectual ability. 
 
 56. "Kind, Das, und die Schule." Katalog zur Ausstellung 
 
 Kind und Schule auf der Buchgewerbe-Ausstellung, 
 Leipsig, 1914. (Diirr, Leipsig, 1914.) 
 
 An important treatment of drawing, reading, 
 modeling, writing, etc. 
 
 57. Koch-Grunberg, Theodor. "Anfange der Kunst im 
 
 Urwald." (Berlin, 1906.) 
 
 Contains an interesting comparison of the draw- 
 ings of children and primitive peoples. 
 
 58. Kohler. Zeitschrift fur angewannte Psychologie u. 
 
 Psychologie Sammelforsch. t Band I, 1908. 
 See Stern, — Kohler, — Verworn. 
 
 59. Kretzschmar, J. "Sammlungen freier Kinderzeich- 
 
 nungen." Zeitschrift fur angewannte Psychologie. 
 1910, 3. pp. 459-463. 
 
 60. Lamprecht, Karl. "Les Dessins d'Enfants comme 
 
 Source Historique. Bulletin de l'Academie Royale 
 de Belgique, nos 9-10, pp. 457-469. 1906. 
 
 Gives the method of a research which has been 
 carried out on a vast international scale. 
 
 61. Levinstein, Siegfried. "Kinderzeichnungen bis zum 
 
 14 Lebensjahr. Mit Parallelen aus der Urgeschichte, 
 Kulturgeschichte und Volkerkunde." (Voigtlander, 
 Leipsig, 1905.) 169 pages, 85 plates, 18 graphs. 
 
 An important statistical research with an added 
 extended bibliography. Chapter I, The human 
 figure; II, Animals and plants; III, Perspective and 
 colors; IV, Stories; V, Drawing as a language; VI, 
 Parallels with historical and ethnographical develop- 
 ment; VII, Drawings of Esquimaux; VIII, Pedagogi- 
 cal conclusions. 
 
 62. Lindner, Rudolph. "Das Lesenlernen in der Taub- 
 
 stummenschule. Das Kind und die Schule." Kata- 
 log zur Kinder- Abteilung der Leipsiger Buchgewerbe 
 Ausstellung. 19 14. p. 248, ff. 
 
176 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 63. Lobsien, M. "Kinderzeichnung und Kunstkanon." 
 
 Zeitschrift fur padag. Psychologic 1905. pp. 393- 
 404. 
 
 Contains a comparison of children's drawings to 
 the canons of classic art. 
 
 64. Locke, Josephine, C. "With What Should Drawing 
 
 Begin?" (Proceedings of the National Educational 
 Association, 1893.) pp. 491 ff. 
 
 65. Lukens, H. T. "A Study of Children's Drawings in 
 
 the Early Years." Pedagogical Seminary. October, 
 1896. 
 
 Contains a summary of the studies in children's 
 drawings up to 1896. 
 
 66. Luquet, M. G. "Les Dessins d'un Enfant." (Alcan, 
 
 Paris, 1913.) 150 plates. 262 pages. 
 
 Contains a very complete analytical account of 
 the drawings of a little girl from the age of three to 
 nine years. The best biographical study to date. 
 
 67. Maitland, Louise. "What Children Draw to Please 
 
 Themselves." Inland Educator. September, 1895. 
 
 68. Maxwell, W. H. "The New Course of Study." 1904. 
 
 69. Messmer, O. "Zur Psychologie des Lesens bei Kindern 
 
 und Erwachsenen." Archiv f. d. ges. Psychologie. 
 II. 
 
 70. Meumann, Ernst. "Ein Programm zur psycholo- 
 
 gischen Untersuchung des Zeichnens." Zeitschrift 
 fur pad. Psychologie. 1912. 
 
 71. Meumann, Ernst. "Die Analyse des Zeichnens und 
 
 des Modellierens." In "Vorlesungen zur Einfiihrung 
 in die Experimentelle Podagogik." (Englemann, 
 Leipsig, 1914.) 00. 693-775. 
 
 Contains the most elaborate analysis of the psy- 
 chology of drawing to date. Includes: 1, The de- 
 velopment of drawing and the gift of drawing in the 
 child; 2, Analysis of the gift for drawing; 3, The de- 
 velopment of4the child's understanding of pictures 
 and sculpture. 
 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 177 
 
 72. Moore, K. C. "The Mental Development of a Child." 
 
 The Psychological Review. October, 1896. 
 
 73. O'Shea, M. V. "Children's Expression through Draw- 
 
 ing." (Proceedings of the National Educational 
 Association, 1894.) pp. 1015-1023. 
 
 74. Pappenheim, Karl. "Bemerkungen iiber Kinder- 
 
 zeichnungen." Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psy- 
 chologic March, 1891. 
 
 75. Partridge, Sophie. "Children's Drawings." The 
 
 Paidologist, London, November, 1904. 
 An elaborate objective study of children's drawings. 
 
 76. Patridge, Lena. "Children's Drawings of Men and 
 
 Women." (Stanford University Studies in Educa- 
 tion, 1900.) Vol. II, pp. 163-179. 
 
 77. Passy, Jacques. "Notes sur les Dessins des Enfants." 
 
 Revue Philosophique. December, 1891. pp. 614- 
 621. 
 
 78. Perez, Bernard. "L'Art et la Poesie chez l'Enfant." 
 
 Paris, 1888. 
 
 79. Peter, Rudolph. "Beitrage zur Analyse der zeich- 
 
 nerischen Begabung." Zeitschrift fur Padagogische 
 Psychologic Jarg. XV. February, 1914. 
 
 80. Preyer, Wilhelm. "The Mind of the Child." (Trans- 
 
 lated by W. H. Brown. New York, 1899.) 
 
 81. Probst, M. "Les Dessins des Enfants Kabyles. " 
 
 Archives de Psychologic 6:131-140. 1906. 
 
 An interesting study of the drawings of children 
 
 who had not been subject to the influence of a civilized 
 
 environment. 
 182. . "Report of Schools of Erie, Pennsylvania." 
 
 1877-78. 
 83. Ricci, Carrado. "L'Arte dei Bambini." (Bologna, 
 
 1887.) 
 
 An early and much quoted objective study of 
 children's drawings. It is translated in part in the 
 Pedagogical Seminary for October, 1895. 
 
178 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 84. Rooper, T. G. "Drawing in Primary Schools." New 
 
 York, 1894. 
 
 85. Rosen. "Darstellende Kunst im Kindesalter der Volk- 
 
 er." Zeitschrift fur angewannte Psychologie. I, 
 p. 93, ff. 
 
 86. Rouma, G. "Le Langage Graphique de l'Enfant." 
 
 (Alcan, Paris, 1913.) 
 
 The most comprehensive treatment of children's 
 drawings from the development viewpoint to date. 
 Contains a preliminary chapter on methods of study, 
 an excellent bibliography, and many graphs, tables 
 figures, and plates. 
 
 87. Ruttmann, W. J. "Die Ergebnisse der bisherigen 
 
 Untersuchungen zur Psychologie des Zeichnens." 
 (Wunderlich, Leipsig, 191 1.) 
 
 Contains an excellent analytical summary of the 
 important statistical and experimental studies of the 
 psychology of drawing to 191 1. 
 
 88. Sargent, Walter. "Fine and Industrial Arts in Ele- 
 
 mentary Schools." (Ginn, 1912.) 
 
 89. Sargent, Walter. "Problems in the Experimental 
 
 Pedagogy of Drawing." Journal of Educational 
 Psychology. May, 1912. 
 
 90. Schuyten. "Het oorspronkelijk teekenen als bijdrage 
 
 tot kinderanalyse." Paedolog. Jaarb. II. 1901. 
 pp. 1 12-126. 
 
 Attempts to measure the artistic development of 
 the child on the basis of the degree of perfection of 
 his drawings as compared to classic standards. 
 
 91. Shinn, M. W. "Notes on the Development of a Child." 
 
 (University of California Studies, Berkeley, 1899.) 
 
 92. Simpson, B. R. "Correlation of Mental Abilities." 
 
 (Columbia University, 1912.) 
 
 93. Spearman, C. "Footrule for Measuring Correlation." 
 
 British Journal of Psychology. 1906. pp. 89-109. 
 
 94. Spencer, H. "Education." (Appleton, 1861.) 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 179 
 
 95. Stern, C. u. W. "Die zeichnerische Entwickelung eines 
 
 Knaben." Zeitschrift fiir angewannte Psychologie. 
 
 III. yi. 1909. 
 
 A study in the early developmental period of drawing. 
 
 96. Stern, W. "Spezielle Beschreibung der Ausstellung 
 
 freier Kinderzeichnungen aus Breslau." Bericht 
 iiber den Kongres fiir Kinderforschung und Jugend- 
 fiirsorge in Berlin. (1-4 October, 1906.) pp. 411-417. 
 
 97. Stern, — Kohler, — Verworn. "Sammlungen freier 
 
 Kinderzeichnungen." Zeitschrift fiir angewannte 
 Psychologie. Sammelf. Band, I, 1908, pp. 179- 
 187-472-476. Band II, Heft 1 and 2. 
 
 Includes a discussion of the collections of children's 
 drawings then in existence. 
 
 98. Stiehler, Georg. "Beitragzur Psychologie und Meth- 
 
 odik des Zeichnenunterrichts. (Osterwieck, Leipsig, 
 1913.) 104 pages. 
 
 An attempt to base drawing instruction upon ex- 
 perimental psychology. Contains many excellent 
 and practical suggestions. 
 
 99. Stone, J. M. "The Relation of Nature Study to Draw- 
 
 ing in the Public School." (Proceedings of the 
 National Educational Association, 1900.) p. 524, ff. 
 
 100. Sully, James. "Studies of Childhood." (Appleton, 
 
 1908.) 
 
 101. Tanner, Anna E. "The Child." (Rand, McNally, 
 
 New York, 1904.) pp. 373-392. 
 
 102. Terman, L. M. "Genius and Stupidity." Pedagogical 
 
 Seminary, 1906. 
 
 103. Thorndike, Edward L. "The Measurement of Achieve- 
 
 ment in Drawing." Teachers College Record. 
 November, 19 13. 
 
 Contains a scale for the measurement of ability 
 in representative drawing together with a discussion 
 of the method of constructing the scale. 
 
i8o THE PS YCHOLOG Y OF DRA WING 
 
 104. . "University of Chicago Entrance Requirements." 
 1912. 
 
 105. Verwoen, Max. "Zur Psychologie der primitiven 
 
 Kunst." (Fisher, Jena, 1908.) 
 
 106. Wagner, P. A. "Das freie zeichnen von Volksschul- 
 
 kindern." Zeitschrift fur angewannte Psychologie. 
 1913. 8: 1-30. 
 
 Contains Stern's statistical investigation, Classi- 
 fication made of the classes of possible motives, and 
 percentages of frequency are given for representations 
 of movement, human figure, indications of humor, etc. 
 Four stages of development are recognized. 
 
 107. Whipple, G. M. "Manual of Mental and Physical 
 
 Tests." (Warwick and York, 1910.) 
 
 108. Wilson, T. "Prehistoric Art." (Report of the United 
 
 States Nat. Mus., 1896.) pp. 325-644. 
 
 109. Wundt, Wilhelm. "Volkerpsychologie." (Engelmann, 
 
 Leipsig, 1900-09.) 
 no. Yule, G. U. "An Introduction to the Theory of 
 Statistics." (Griffen, 1912.) 
 
INDEX 
 
 Page 
 
 Albien, G 41, 64, 87, 92, 141 
 
 Analysis of drawing 46, 67, 87, 107, 157 
 
 Analytical drawing 2, 6, 164 
 
 Analytical observation 5, 98, 162 
 
 Analytical study 156 
 
 Attention, direction of 151 
 
 Average Rank Difference 127 
 
 Bailey, H. T 52 
 
 Barnes, E 18, 19 
 
 Bastin, E. S 56 
 
 Becterew, W. V 77 
 
 Bergen, J ' 56 
 
 Bibliographical survey 15 
 
 Bigelow, M. A 57 
 
 Biographical method 36 
 
 Bird, study of 154 
 
 Brown, E. E 37 
 
 Burk, F 73 
 
 Chance Difference 127 
 
 Claparede, E 25 
 
 Clark, A. B 22 
 
 Clark, I. E 51 
 
 Comparative products method 33 
 
 Conn, H. W 56 
 
 Constructive drawing 93 
 
 Correlation 9, 65 
 
 method of determining 121 
 
 rank method 122 
 
 181 
 
i82 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 theory of 126 
 
 with drawing 61, 107, 139, 143 
 
 Cultural values of drawing 49 
 
 Description 164 
 
 and observation 151 
 
 and retention 142 
 
 as a laboratory device 2 
 
 relation to drawing 107, 124, 130, 134 
 
 Developmental stages 70, 73 
 
 Diagram 1 13, 120 
 
 Diagramming and description 107, 135 
 
 Diagramming and representation 107, 135 
 
 Difficulties of drawing 97, 153 
 
 Drawing, aesthetic values of 51, 53 
 
 analysis of 67, 87, 151 
 
 analytical 6, 164 
 
 and intellectual development 49 
 
 as a language 52, 79, 83 
 
 as mental discipline 51 
 
 bibliographical survey of 15 
 
 correlations 61 
 
 cultural values of 49, 53 
 
 difficulties of 97, 153 
 
 freehand 54 
 
 industrial values of 49 
 
 involuntary 76 
 
 memory {see Memory drawing) ; . 2 
 
 representative {see Representative drawing) 2 
 
 scientific value of 53 
 
 spontaneous 8, 67 
 
 stages of 70, 73 , 76 
 
 types of 92 
 
 university entrance requirements 54 
 
INDEX 183 
 
 Elderton, E 59 
 
 Experimental method 39 
 
 Experiments, special 107, 156 
 
 Farnum, R. B 50, 53 
 
 Feather, study of 108 
 
 Fixating seeing 42 
 
 Ganong, W. F 56, 57 
 
 General ability, and special 10, 64 
 
 relation to drawing 58 
 
 General intelligence 64 
 
 Gross products, method 16 
 
 studies in 67 
 
 Haddon, A. C 34, 80, 82 
 
 Hall, E. H 57 
 
 Haney, J. P 49 
 
 Hans Guck-in-die-Luft 20, 31, 72 
 
 Hogan, L 38 
 
 Human form 69 
 
 Industrial values of drawing 49 
 
 Intellectual development 49 
 
 Introspection 10, 151 
 
 Ivanof , E 26, 60 
 
 Jessup, W 50 
 
 Johnny Head-In-The-Air 20, 31 
 
 Johonot, J 56 
 
 Judd, C. H 40, 89, 91 
 
 Karrenberg, C 103 
 
 Katz, D 40 
 
 Kerschensteiner, G 28, 36, 64, 74, 77, 82 
 
 Kik, C 31, 62 
 
184 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 Laboratory, aims 107 
 
 drawing 4, 163, 165 
 
 procedure .3, 162 
 
 method 1 
 
 records 2, 134, 165 
 
 teaching 1, 160 
 
 Lamprecht, K 30 
 
 Language and drawing 52, 79, 83, 161 
 
 Levinstein, S 34, 36, 68, 69, 72, 79 
 
 Lindner, R 36 
 
 Lobsien, M 36 
 
 Lukens, H. T 38, 79 
 
 Luquet, M. G 38, 58, 69, 75, 78, 82 
 
 Maitland, L 18, 67 
 
 Maxwell, W. H 56 
 
 Memory drawing 8, 43, 46, 99, 101, 159 
 
 Memory, for color 150 
 
 for dimensions 149 
 
 for general design 150 
 
 Mental analysis 10, 153 
 
 Messmer, 95 
 
 Methods of research 9, 15 
 
 Meumann, E 41, 45, 66, 74, 80, 97, 100 
 
 Motion, representation of 7 1 
 
 Objective methods 15 
 
 Observation 54, 96 
 
 analysis of 151 
 
 analytical 2, 11, 154 
 
 Patridge, L 22, 168 
 
 Pearson method 128 
 
 Perceptual development 91 
 
 Peter, R 45 
 
INDEX 185 
 
 Preconceived purpose 89, 157 
 
 Probst, M 24, 68 
 
 Psychological analysis 4, 107, 157 
 
 Rank method 122 
 
 Realim, logical and visual 76, 78, 82 
 
 Recommendations 167 
 
 Reflection 159 
 
 Representative drawing 43, 46, 103, 163 
 
 ability in 158 
 
 analysis 151 
 
 and retention 142 
 
 as a laboratory device 2 
 
 definition of 6 
 
 relation to description 107 
 
 relation to diagramming 107 
 
 Retention, and description 141 
 
 and drawing 142 
 
 devices for 141 
 
 in laboratory procedure 3 
 
 types of 100 
 
 Ricci, C 17 
 
 Rouma, G 16, 18, 26, 36, 59, 64, 66, 69, 70, 78, 83 
 
 Ruttmann, W. J 16, 18, 33 
 
 Sargent, W 52 
 
 Sash-lift, study of 144 
 
 Schema 8, 74, 100, 159 
 
 School grades 136 
 
 Schuyten, H 23, 36 
 
 Scientific expression 162 
 
 Scientific values of drawing 55 
 
 Scoring methods 1 14, 142 
 
 Seeing ability 158 
 
 Simpson, B. R 65 
 
186 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DRAWING 
 
 Smith, W 50 
 
 Spearman method 128 
 
 Special aptitudes 58 
 
 Special products method 18 
 
 Speech and drawing 79 
 
 Spencer, H 56 
 
 Stages of drawing 70, 73, 74, 76, 79 
 
 Stern.W 32, 38 
 
 Stiehler, G 44, 66, 77 
 
 Subjective methods 16 
 
 Synthetic incapacity 76, 82, 160 
 
 Terman, L. M 64 
 
 Tests, analytic 9 
 
 Thorndike, E. L 77 
 
 Triangle, study of 144 
 
 Types of drawing 72, 92 
 
 Types of reading 95 
 
 Verworn, M 75 
 
 Visual drawing 92 
 
 Visual imagery 99, 159 
 
 Wagner, F. H 32 
 
 Wundt, W 35 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: Nov. 2004 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township. PA 16066