CHAPTER VII_Special talents and defects

DRAWING

I. THE VARIOUS KINDS OF DRAWING

Manuel, who has made a careful psychological study of talent in drawing,

defines drawing as follows: “The term _drawing_ designates a process of

causing, by means of pencil, pen, brush, or other instrument, certain

lines or areas, or both, to appear on a given surface.” This definition

we may accept, if we add that the lines and areas are intended or can be

interpreted to signify something. We should not agree, for instance,

that the lines and areas which are caused to appear on the ground by the

scratching of a fowl should be included within the definition.

Having been thus defined, drawings may be classified into many kinds, in

accordance with the technique employed and the meaning conveyed. These

kinds are (1) copying, (2) representative drawing, (3) analytical or

diagrammatic drawing, (4) impressionistic drawing, (5) symbolic drawing,

and (6) caricature. This classification is exclusive of other forms of

graphic or representative expression, such as painting, sculpture, and

paper-cutting (used in the art of cutting silhouettes).

These various kinds of presentations differ as to the psychophysical

equipment constituting talent for them. It is therefore impossible, as

psychological study has proved, to discuss talent for drawing, without

specifying what kind of drawing is under consideration. Talent for

painting, sculpture, and cutting silhouettes has been little studied, so

that we are not in position to discuss these at the present time, either

as processes in themselves or as related to drawing.

The term _copying_ is self-explanatory. By _representative drawing_ is

meant a drawing having visual realism, which “looks like” that from

which it is drawn. _Analytical (diagrammatic) drawing_ is logical. It

may violate features essential to visual realism, stressing only aspects

from certain points of view, or abstracting a general principle. For

instance, the plan for the ground-floor of a house, or a schema of

arterial circulation, would be analytical. _Mechanical drawing_ comes

under this category, as does also, in a sense, _conventionalized

drawing_, for in conventionalized drawing some general principle or

pattern is abstracted from concrete instances, and is made the basis of

the design. A conventionalized bird does not look like any particular

bird ever seen by anyone, but, on the other hand, it looks like all

birds. It is a non-existent, composite, typical bird. _Impressionistic

drawing_ conveys an idea without much attention to visual realism. A

curve stands for a cloud, two vertical lines suggest trees, a few zigzag

marks indicate grass and flowers. In _symbolic drawing_ one thing is

drawn to represent another thing, as a crown is drawn to represent

royalty. Symbolic drawing does not, perhaps, deserve separate

classification, in a study of abilities, but for the present it seems

best to differentiate it. To originate symbolic drawings may call for

capacities not included in the other forms of graphic presentation.

Finally, _caricature_ is drawing that catches and exaggerates individual

peculiarities, most often with a result which is humorous or satirical.

The art of cartooning depends very largely on caricature and symbolism

for its effect. Cartoons interpret life. The successful cartoonist,

therefore, combines talent for drawing with a high degree of general

intelligence.

II. RAMIFICATIONS OF DRAWING THROUGH THE CURRICULUM

When we speak of drawing in the schools, there is a tendency to think

only of those performances which are taught and executed during the time

set aside for instruction by the teacher of drawing. But a little

reflection will show us to what an extent drawing ramifies through the

curriculum, and forms an element in achievement.

In geography map-drawing is required. In nature study, notebooks with

drawings of natural objects seen are frequently kept. In sciences taught

by the laboratory method drawing is an important element in success.

Zoölogy, physiology, and botany are especially taught through drawing.

In mechanics, and in engineering, drawing plays a prominent part. Thus

it comes about that school marks in all these subjects depend to some

extent on drawing of some kind. If psychological study shows capacity

for drawing to be largely or utterly dissociated from general

intelligence, the use of drawing to so great an extent, as a method of

recitation in the sciences especially, may be undesirable. The belief

that drawing used in this way fails to meet the need of many pupils,

otherwise apt in science, led Ayer to undertake the interesting

investigation to which it will be necessary to give our attention in

detail, throughout this chapter.

III. PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF TALENT IN DRAWING

It is quite interesting to notice that the analysis of ability in

reading, spelling, and arithmetic has been approached largely through

studies of the particularly deficient, while in the case of drawing and

music the approach has been through study of the gifted, to a greater

extent.

The psychographic study of individual talent in drawing was preceded by

many investigations of what children draw, at what ages various details

appear in drawings, how the drawings of one group compare with those of

another, and what people say about the drawings they make. These

studies, up to 1915, have been brought together by Ayer, and are so well

summarized by him in relation to the study of aptitude, that there is no

need to summarize them again. Those who desire to become familiar with

the whole literature of the psychology of drawing will do well to

consult Ayer’s work.

Several analyses of ability to draw have been undertaken, some through

study of the particularly deficient, some through study of the

conspicuously talented. Meumann thus states the causes of inefficiency

in drawing:

(1) The will to analyze and to notice forms and colors has not been

stimulated.

(2) The intention to analyze may be aroused, and yet the individual

may find the analysis too difficult. This is a matter of innate

talent.

(3) The memory of that to be represented may be deficient. It may be

incomplete or vague in form or in color. The memory of spatial

relations may be inadequate. This, too, is a matter of innate talent.

(4) There may be lack of ability to hold the image during the act of

drawing. This capacity is innate.

(5) The memory image and the perceptual image may not be coördinated

with the movements in drawing. This capacity is innate.

(6) The sight of the drawing in its imperfection as compared with the

memory image may disturb the image.

(7) The drawer may lack schemata on which to found his drawing.

(8) There may be failure to comprehend how one may project space in

three dimensions upon a plane.

(9) Manual skill may fail.

(10) There may be no artistic sense.

(11) Inability to draw may arise from a combination of various of

these deficiencies.

Manuel has offered the following analysis, after study of persons

especially talented:

The following characteristics, each an independent or partially

independent variable, seem closely related to ability in drawing:

(1) The ability mentally to note a visual form, and, by certain lines

and areas, to reproduce it or significant features of it.

(2) Ability to observe.

(3) Ability to select from a complex visual situation the most

representative and the most beautiful aspects.

(4) Memory for visual forms.

(5) Ability mentally to manipulate visual forms.

(6) Ability to control hand movements in accordance with visual

percept or image.

(7) Ability to invent, to bring together into new artistic

combinations the elements of different visual experiences.

(8) Ability to judge the beautiful in line, form, color, and

composition.

(9) Ability to discriminate differences in color.

(10) Ability to discriminate differences in visual magnitude.

(11) Acuity of vision.

(12) Interest in the act and products of drawing.

(13) General intelligence.

These two analyses may serve as samples, since they include practically

all the elements suggested by any other investigators. Jones has

recently furnished us with additional evidence that memory of objects

visually perceived and perception of perspective are probably important

contributors to drawing ability. Among 264 school children in the

seventh and eighth grades of the Evanston public schools, a correlation

was found of .83 between visual memory and ability to draw. Perception

of perspective and visual memory yielded a coefficient of .85.

As a result of administering more than twenty tests to 19 individuals

gifted in drawing, Manuel concludes that, “Persons talented in drawing

exhibit great individual differences in their psychophysical

characteristics.” Nevertheless, tests devised to measure status in the

traits listed in the analyses which have been made, would be expected to

yield, finally, a psychograph of talent in each of the various kinds of

drawing. Persons approximating these psychographs could then be

identified as talented in drawing, and those deviating widely from them

could be classified as deficient in ability to draw. The invention and

standardization of such tests is a matter for further research. At

present we have no means of gauging talent in drawing except by grading

a finished product on a scale of drawings, like Thorndike’s “Scale for

Measuring Achievement in Drawing.” Such a means does not always

adequately separate talent from training.

The hope that psychographs of ability to draw may be platted in future

does not mean that psychologists expect to find complete similarity

among those talented in drawing. Individuality is as intrinsic in

drawing as it is in handwriting. As a signature can be used for

identification in the hands of experts, so a picture bears the mark of

the particular psychophysical constitution that produced it. The

ordinary reader of current fiction knows, by inspection, whether a given

illustration has been made by May Wilson Preston or by Tony Sarg,

without seeing the signature. The drawings of Clarence Day are

inimitable.

IV. RELATIONS BETWEEN APTITUDE IN DRAWING AND GENERAL INTELLIGENCE

As long ago as 1903, Fischlovitz studied 350 high school freshmen, to

obtain the correlation between ability to draw and ability in other high

school studies. Correlations were computed between grades in drawing and

in other subjects. The conclusion was that, “Ability in drawing is

correlated to a greater degree with some of the subjects than with

others, but in no case is the correlation very strong, and that ability

in drawing is more of a special ability.”

Some years later, Elderton obtained a correlation of .416 between grades

in drawing and grades in classics, for one class, and of −.313 between

the grades in the same studies, in another class. The subjects were here

19 boys in each of two classes in an English public school. Ivanof found

among Swiss children a tendency for the able in drawing to include

somewhat more good all-round pupils than were included among the pupils

at large, and an opposite tendency among those poor in drawing. The

figures show, however, many pupils strong in general work listed among

those poor in drawing. Ayer obtained a correlation of .66 between grades

in drawing and other subjects, for 141 normal school students.

As Ayer points out, these methods are very crude as means of determining

to what extent drawing is a special ability. In the first place, since

drawing is used as a form of recitation in various school subjects, we

are obtaining to some extent a self-correlation in subjects like science

and geography. In the second place, grades in drawing do not specify

_what kind_ of drawing is graded. In the case of Ayer’s normal school

students, special inquiry showed that the grades in drawing were

computed from heterogeneous factors, including (_a_) ability in

representative drawing, (_b_) ability in designing, (_c_) ability in

artistic discrimination, (_d_) ability with color, washes, shading,

etc., (_e_) attendance, (_f_) discipline, (_g_) vocational interest.

School marks do not, therefore, isolate ability in any one kind of

drawing, from a medley of other relevant and irrelevant factors, the

mark being bestowed upon the total composite of factors.

Much more reliable as a method of research is the method of tests. In

Simpson’s data, already quoted, it is seen that drawing lengths shows

very slight coherence with other abilities. Other similar fragmentary

suggestive facts may be found, scattered through the literature. In 1916

Ayer undertook a well-planned investigation to determine how two kinds

of drawing, (1) representative drawing and (2) analytical drawing, are

related to (_a_) ability in verbal description and (_b_) achievement in

school subjects on the whole.

A turkey feather was drawn representatively, drawn analytically, and

described verbally by 51 high school pupils. Twenty-four hours after the

analytical drawing, the pupils were again required to make a diagram of

the feather and to answer questions about its parts. The results of

these various efforts were then scored by ten competent judges

independently, to obtain a final score for each pupil in each test.

The table, from Ayer, on page 149, shows the rank obtained by each pupil

in each kind of performance. The pupil who stands first in memory stands

thirty-eighth in representative drawing, and so forth down the series,

for each pupil.

In the following table, from Ayer, we see the coefficients of

correlation found between the various functions tested, as computed from

the ranks listed in the table on page 149.

TABLE FROM AYER

Showing correlations in case of representative drawing, retention,

diagramming (analytical drawing), and description.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

ABILITIES CORRELATED COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION

(PEARSON)

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Representative drawing and description .023

Diagramming and representative drawing −.052

Diagramming and description .231

Representative drawing and retention −.022

Description and retention .234

Analytical drawing and retention .433

TABLE FROM AYER

Rank in retention, representative drawing, description, and analytical

drawing, as tested in the case of 51 students in a first year high

school class in general science.

═════════════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════

RANK IN MEMORY │ RANK IN DRAWING │ RANK IN │ RANK IN DIAGRAM

│ │ DESCRIPTION │

─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────

1│ 38│ 2│ 1

2│ 41│ 14│ 5

3│ 37│ 1│ 14

4│ 22│ 30│ 41

5│ 7│ 46│ 4

6│ 17│ 20│ 10

7│ 48│ 22│ 43

8│ 27│ 19│ 6

9│ 42│ 6│ 27

10│ 39│ 9│ 31

11│ 31│ 44│ 19

12│ 36│ 10│ 9

13│ 18│ 41│ 26

14│ 21│ 29│ 12

15│ 9│ 38│ 23

16│ 35│ 13│ 35

17│ 51│ 37│ 24

18│ 25│ 35│ 39

19│ 10│ 24│ 34

20│ 26│ 5│ 25

21│ 12│ 17│ 30

22│ 28│ 49│ 51

23│ 34│ 25│ 13

24│ 3│ 12│ 15

25│ 45│ 45│ 3

26│ 24│ 7│ 2

27│ 6│ 32│ 47

28│ 16│ 34│ 18

29│ 20│ 31│ 8

30│ 4│ 50│ 22

31│ 44│ 18│ 40

32│ 19│ 4│ 17

33│ 13│ 48│ 45

34│ 33│ 16│ 33

35│ 11│ 8│ 44

36│ 23│ 47│ 36

37│ 1│ 43│ 38

38│ 43│ 33│ 29

39│ 8│ 36│ 11

40│ 29│ 42│ 21

41│ 30│ 3│ 46

42│ 2│ 26│ 42

43│ 47│ 28│ 28

44│ 32│ 21│ 7

45│ 15│ 27│ 20

46│ 46│ 39│ 47

47│ 49│ 11│ 16

48│ 50│ 40│ 50

49│ 5│ 45│ 30

50│ 40│ 23│ 48

51│ 14│ 51│ 49

═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════

The correlation between representative drawing and verbal description is

practically zero. From knowledge of ability in one of these functions,

among high school students, no inference can be made concerning the

other. Ability in diagramming (a kind of analytical drawing) is also not

correlated with representative drawing. On the other hand, the processes

of diagramming and description exhibit a slight tendency to positive

coherence, as do description and retention. Analytical drawing and

retention have a decided tendency to cohere, with a coefficient of .433.

In order to check his finding that school marks in drawing correlate

well with school marks in other subjects, Ayer correlated the scores of

these 51 high school pupils in _representative drawing_, with their

school marks and found an absence of relationship. “Ability in

representative drawing is not correlated with achievement in school

subjects, when it is isolated from the other factors of school drawing.”

Ayer concludes that different kinds of drawing are differently

correlated with general intelligence, and that it is necessary to

isolate the various kinds in determining the relationship. Analytical

drawing is a better indication of a pupil’s general grasp of subject

matter than is representative drawing. He recommends “that the device of

representative drawing shall be supplanted in laboratory teaching,”

since it appears to be a highly specialized function.

The question of the relationship between general intelligence and

ability to draw has also been investigated by Manuel, who took the IQ of

each of his talented subjects by means of Stanford-Binet. These were

pupils in elementary school, high school, and college. This means of

measuring general intelligence was ill adapted to its purpose in the

case of the college students and, also, probably in the case of many of

the high school students among his subjects, as the scale will not

measure the intelligence of very superior adolescents and adults.

Because of its limitations, the most intelligent adult in the world

cannot show an IQ of more than about 120 on it. Therefore some of

Manuel’s older subjects may have been much more intelligent than appears

on the record. The range of intelligence among those talented in drawing

may be even greater than the record shows. The tests as they stand show

that superior ability in drawing may accompany any degree of general

intelligence from very superior to very inferior. “We conclude therefore

that a certain elementary ability in graphic representation, such as is

required for success in elementary school drawing, is independent, or

partially independent, of general intelligence.”

It should be stated that presence of talent in drawing in the case of

these individuals was determined in part by testimony of teachers of

art, and in part by two tests, (1) the drawing of a house from memory,

and (2) the drawing of a wooden cart from the object. Both of these

would be classified as _representative drawings_.

Where representative drawing has been isolated for study in relation to

general intelligence, no results contradictory to the conclusions stated

above have been reported. Earlier investigators had declared that great

talent for graphic expression is closely connected with good

intellectual endowment in children, but that “the reverse of this does

not hold true.” This conclusion will probably be shown to be well

founded in future researches carried out by modern test methods. “Great

talent” includes much more than mere ability to “see and make” an

object. As Manuel says, “Before one gets very far in art expression, a

great number of supplementary factors must be brought to the support of

the ability to represent graphically simple objects. Even the technique

itself becomes progressively more difficult.... General intelligence

conditions the ability of drawers (_a_) to acquire the advanced

technique into which conceptual factors enter, and (_b_) to create

original drawings of merit.”

Manuel also gave tests of linguistic ability in the course of his study

and found no essential relationship between ability to draw and ability

to manage words. “Linguistic ability is no index of ability or lack of

ability in graphic representation,” but linguistic ability correlates

well with general intelligence (as has been previously emphasized in

this volume).

For purposes of educational and vocational guidance we now need

especially studies of the relationship between general intelligence and

kinds of drawing other than the representative. We require studies of

the extent to which copying, analytical drawing, symbolic drawing, and

caricature are correlated with general mental capacity. It may be

predicted with some confidence that research in unselected groups will

finally show copying and representative drawing to be slightly

correlated with general intelligence. Analytical and symbolic drawing

are probably significantly correlated with general intelligence, while

caricature is doubtless very closely correlated with intellectual

capacity.

We need also researches bearing upon the relationship between ability in

painting, sculpture, and pattern-cutting, and general intelligence. To

what extent are painters and sculptors of high repute also gifted with

superior intellectual acumen? Popular opinion would have it that the

“artistic mind” is antagonistic in its organization to the “scientific

mind.” Probably here as elsewhere uncontrolled speculation leads to

false conclusions. Probably those who achieve eminence in the arts are,

on the whole, as highly endowed with general intelligence as are those

who win eminence in other kinds of careers. Greatness in graphic

portrayal almost certainly results only when there is a rare combination

of highly specialized capacity for representative drawing, and very high

IQ, in the same individual.

Fortunately for all, modern life calls for all forms of talent in

drawing, in all degrees of combination with general intelligence. Sign

painters, copyists, designers, draughtsmen, architects, illustrators,

and creative interpreters of human faces and of human life are all

needed. Persons skilled in drawing are essential to mechanical and

industrial development in society, for everything made must first be

drawn, from the motor of an airplane to the fancy buttons on a child’s

coat.

V. THE COLOR-BLIND

Between 3 and 5 per cent of boys, and apparently fewer girls, inherit a

special defect of vision, called “color blindness.” A color-blind child

may be gifted in drawing, except in color drawing, but he will be

incompetent as a painter.

There are several forms of this special defect. Very rarely it may

happen that no discrimination among colors is possible, the world

appearing, as in a photograph, to consist only of light and shade. In

the late evening, or in any sufficient dimness, color is not perceived

by ordinary eyes. Those who are blind to all colors do not see color

with the brightening of the light, as ordinarily happens.

The most common form of color blindness is, however, that in which only

red-green sensations are absent, other colors being distinguishable.

There is no disease present in such cases. The defect is hereditary, and

consists in deviation from the typical in structure of the retina. The

eyes of color-blind persons are as healthy and normal as those of

others, in respect to functions other than acting as receptors for

certain waves of light.

A few cases of blue-yellow color blindness have been reported, these

resulting from pathological causes.

A color-blind child does not, of course, know from his own experience

that he is so. He supposes that everyone sees what he sees, until

informed by test or disaster of his deviation from the usual.

Color blindness seems to bear no relation to intelligence, so that in

drawing where color is used teachers will find a certain percentage of

generally very able children producing absurd results. A color-blind

child with a great gift for drawing, may succeed in etching or in black

and white work of various kinds, as has been shown by the actual rise to

eminence of etchers who are color-blind.

VI. ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

The facts which have been set forth in regard to ability in drawing will

be further illuminated by concrete cases. In Figure 19 we have

reproduced the psychograph of a child in the elementary school, E 1,

showing talent in representative drawing combined with very inferior

intelligence.

E 1 was a pupil in the sixth grade, at the time when this psychograph

was made. She was nearly 14 years old, and therefore distinctly retarded

in school status. In spite of her general incompetence, her drawing

teacher placed her near the top of her grade in native ability to draw.

The child is described as not original. “She can follow better than she

can originate.” “Apparently her talent for drawing is inherited. Her

father is a tailor. He enjoys drawing and lettering. Her mother takes

great interest in the children’s drawings, and an aunt has made

paintings of some interest. An older brother of E 1 is reported as very

good (original and true) in drawing. She has also two younger sisters

and a younger brother who are good in drawing.”

Figure 20 shows a copy of a man’s portrait, done by a 14-year-old boy,

of IQ near 70. This boy was incapable of normal progress through the

school curriculum. Being “left back” repeatedly, he became a truant and

otherwise delinquent. His ability for and interest in drawing are highly

specialized. Figure 21 shows drawings of movement (not copied) by the

same boy.

[Illustration:

FIG. 19.—Showing the psychograph of a stupid child, who has a special

ability in representative drawing. (From Manuel’s _A Study of Talent

in Drawing_. Reproduced by courtesy of The Public School Publishing

Company.)

]

The special ability in paper-cutting of a feeble-minded man, “Dick,” is

illustrated in Figure 22. At the time these silhouettes were cut, this

man was 28 years old, strong and healthy, with a mental level of 6 years

4 months, and IQ 39 (Stanford-Binet). He has been an inmate of an

institution for mental defectives for seventeen years, as his general

intelligence is insufficient for any kind of unsupervised career. He has

never been able to learn to read or write.

[Illustration:

FIG. 20.—Showing special ability in drawing, of a 14-year-old boy, of

IQ near 70. The portrait is a copy.

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 21.—Showing special ability in drawing of a 14-year-old boy, of

IQ near 70.

]

This man is greatly interested in animals, and after being taken to the

circus sometime ago, became a nuisance in his preoccupation with what he

had seen there. In cutting the silhouettes, he merely takes a sheet of

paper in one hand, a pair of scissors in the other, and cuts absolutely

“free-hand,” without reference to any preliminary patterning or

draughting, either from memory or from a model. The performance is

accompanied by many naïvely vain remarks, calling attention to his skill

and the quality of the product. He can also draw, as is shown in Figure

23. He has never had any special training so far as known.

For the sake of contrast, we have presented, in Figure 24, the attempts

of two university professors to cut an elephant from paper, as did

“Dick” in Figure 22. These two professors are both doctors of

philosophy, distinguished in their respective fields for research. Yet

they are greatly surpassed by “Dick” in ability to cut silhouettes.

VII. INHERITANCE OF TALENT IN DRAWING

A comprehensive study of the inheritance of talent in drawing is yet to

be made. Manuel took the family history of the pupils studied by him,

and found artistic ability of some kind among close relatives in almost

all cases. The gift showed itself in early childhood in these talented

persons, and there is every reason to believe that it was bestowed by

the conditions of near ancestry.

VIII. GENERAL SUMMARY

It is clear that talent for representative drawing arises from a happy

combination of a great many variable functions; and that this

combination may occur in persons of superior, average, or inferior

intelligence. Likewise, conspicuous lack of this talent is compatible

with intelligence of almost any degree. Therefore, many children

considered by their teachers of drawing to be pupils of ability, will be

rated as but mediocre, or as inferior, by other teachers. This will be

true especially to the extent that drawing as a subject of instruction

is limited to _representative drawing_.

[Illustration:

FIG. 22.—Showing the special ability to cut silhouettes, of a

feeble-minded man, inmate of an institution for mental defectives.