sidered the by-products of man's slowly evolving intellectual powers. With little knowledge and few
facts to reason with, primitive man's endeavor to explain the universe was largely swayed by his emo-
tions. What beliefs he developed served to assuage his fears and thereby to contribute to his sense of
security. Frequently the personified forces of nature were induced to serve his needs. In primitive cul-
tures ritual was as important as belief, and art occupied a prominent place in ritual. Often, therefore,
it is not art that is limited, but the underlying belief for which it serves as a vehicle. Although primi-
tive art is admired today and is readily adapted by modern artists, we have no comparable admiration
for magic, known to us as superstition, that once impelled the primitive artist.

We see the effects of belief in the relative development of the major arts of painting, sculpture
and architecture in primitive cultures. Architecture seems eminently practical to us, and we might
assume that necessity would have led to its early development. Sculpture and painting we might regard
as luxury products which would arrive late in history. On the contrary, architecture was the last to
develop, and its major structural problems were not solved until the Roman period, while painting
began in the Ice Age, and sculpture, at least as carving, was widely distributed in early art. As we see
it today, monumental architecture aims to create ground plans to serve many human needs and to
enclose space to unite under one roof a large number of people. Simple plans, and the post and lintel
system, served all pre-Roman cultures, including Sumer, Egypt, India and Greece, as well as ancient
Mexico. Pyramids and ziggurats, though impressive and ornate, were essentially glorified hills with
a stone facing and a small chamber for the statue of the god; in Egypt pyramids were tombs. Every-
where such structures served the purposes of religious ceremonials held in the open; they were of no
practical use.

Painting in primitive art was limited to representation in one plane; it did not advance to repre-
sentation of space. Depth, through perspective, and a full visual effect were not attempted, though
Aztec manuscript illustration was veering in that direction at the time of the Spanish Conquest.

Primitive sculpture in Maya reliefs attained some freedom of movement and even showed initial
stages promising further development. Aztec sculpture hardly aspired to that stage where the figure
is infused with life, revealing an activity stirring from within. Basically, primitive man can be said
to have been limited by his superstitions in reacting creatively to many aspects of his environment.
That, more than any other factor, accounts for the particular directions of his art. Since he was im-
pelled to act along comparatively narrow paths, his lack of inner freedom precluded that broader
creativity open to the individual today.

We have forceful proof, however, that intellectual limitation did not prevent the creation of
significant art. All art of the past has worked within its own style; it has always developed competence,
often distinction, whatever its limitation and restrictions. There is a presumption that the power of
tradition in primitive art operated as a handicap to originality and the development of individuality.
But historic art in nonprimitive periods has also stressed tradition. It will be noted that an insistence
on a maximum of originality and a strong emphasis on the individuality of the artist are more charac-
teristic of our own time than of any previous period. We cannot properly divide art into primitive and
civilized; the difference is one of philosophy and not of art, which is essentially an integrated whole.
The modern artist consciously seeks aesthetic values; primitive art used them primarily to give intelli-
gible form to religious concepts.

-8-