DECORATIVE ART OF TUE INDIANS. 497 



tail of the land-otter (Fig. 12, a), the hood of the raven (Fig. 12, h), 

 the butterfly (Fig. 12, c), or, when given a rectangular form (Fig. 12, 

 d), waves and floating objects. It is evident, in view of the data here 

 discussed, that these must be different interpretations of motives of 

 similar origin. 



We conclude from all this that the explanation of designs is 

 secondary almost throughout and due to a late association of ideas 

 and forms, and that as a rule a gradual transition from realistic 

 motives to geometric forms did not take place. The two groups of 

 ])henomena — interpretation and style — appear to be independent. We 

 may say that it is a general law that designs are considered significant. 

 Diflierent tribes may interpret the same style by distinct groups of 

 ideas. On the other hand, certain groups of ideas may be spread over 

 tribes whose decorative art follows different styles, so that the same 

 ideas are expressed by different styles of art. 



We may express this fact also by saying that the history of the 

 artistic development of a people, and the style that they have developed 

 at any given time, predetermine the method by which they express their 

 ideas in decorative art; and that the type of ideas that a people is 

 accustomed to express by means of decorative art predetermines the 

 explanation that will be given to a new design. It would therefore 

 seem that there are certain typical associations between ideas and 

 forms which become established, and which are used for artistic ex- 

 pression. The idea which a design expresses at the present time is 

 not necessarily a clew to its history. It seems probable that idea and 

 style exist independently, and influence each other constantly. 



For the present it remains an open question, why the tendency to 

 form associations between certain ideas and decorative motives is so 

 strong among all primitive people. The tendency is evidently similar 

 to that observed among children who enjoy interpreting simple forms 

 as objects to which the form has a slight resemblance; and this, 

 in turn, may bear some relation to the peculiar character of realism 

 in primitive art, to which I believe Von den Steinen* was the first to 

 draw attention. The primitive artist does not attempt to draw what 

 he sees, but merely combines what are to his mind the characteristic 

 features of an object, without regard to their actual space relation in 

 the visual image. For this reason he may also be more ready than we 

 are to consider some characteristic feature as symbolic of an object, 

 and thus associate forms and objects in ways that seem to us un- 

 expected. 



It may be worth while to mention one general point of view that 

 is suggested by our remarks. The explanations of decorative design 



* ' Unter den Natur-volkern Central-Brasiliens,' pp. 250 fl". 

 VOL. I.XIII. — 32. 



