DOI article:
Roland Rood, The Evolution of Art from Writing to Photography
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30576#0062
A manually made transcription or edition is also available for this page. Please change to the tab "transrciption" or "edition."
phonetic-writing, symbols, etc. In phonetic-writing (sound-writing) a picture
stands for the sound of the spoken word, as the picture of the bird in Figure
III is meant to represent not a kingfisher, but a chief of that name. On the
face of it picture-writing was cumbersome and slow, so naturally in time
symbols began to be substituted for pictures of actual things, as well as for
sound-pictures; and in this transition period referred to, we find records
written in a mixture of hieroglyphics (which were already themselves to a
certain extent symbolistic) and hieratic. But my object is not to show how
the writing of to-day evolved from the writing of our savage forefathers
(which matter may easily be studied in works on the evolution of language),
but how the art of to-day evolved from picture-writing. An example,
suggestive of how the hieroglyphic changed into modern writing is given in
Figure IV.
As I have already said, these early Egyptian inscriptions, although in
cases appearing to us possibly to have been executed with a decorative idea,
were in reality done in a purely literary spirit, that is, with the intention of
conveying to the spectator literary, historic and didactic truths, rather than
pictorial truths. And the same was the object of the Babylonian, Assyrian,
Persian and other allied inscriptions. But there came a time when the deco-
rative sense started to develop ; possibly not in its purest form, and maybe
under the pressure of kings and rich persons, who, being prompted by
vanity and desiring to have such records as concerned themselves executed
in a more pretentious manner, had the hieroglyphics elaborately drawn, and
also colored—just as in later days Gothic initials were colored. So to-day
we find certain Egyptian walls and surfaces covered with what to the layman
may appear a mixture of pictures and writing, but which in truth is pure
writing. In this way and in this spirit was executed the first likeness of
man and of woman. It is, however, most important in studying Egyptian
picture-writing ever to bear in mind that it was produced by the priests,
scribes, authors and literary men, and that their object was to appeal to the
mind through identically the same channels and brain-reactions as do the
writers of to-day; and that the artist proper, he who plays on the human
consciousness through line and masses of color, he whose thoughts are pecu-
liar to and only expressible in pigment, was as yet unborn, or say rather,
untaught and silent. But in the course of natural evolution, when the lit-
erary men had begun to simplify their picture-symbols, when there was
more wealth and consequent love of luxury, there began to exist a demand
for the artist, for him who could embellish surfaces, for him who could tell
those truths that the literary man could not. But, and here is the most
interesting and crucial point in the whole evolution of art, this artist proper
worked in exactly the same way that the literary man wrote, he worked as
did the scribes and priests: he drew as he did not see nature, he drew as his
cave-dwelling ancestors had done. His masses of color were flat, they
came to sharp edges, heavily outlined; he saw no shadows and seemed to
feel only the thing itself and not the appearance it had : he was totally
oblivious to the appearance of the retinal image in his eye.
32
stands for the sound of the spoken word, as the picture of the bird in Figure
III is meant to represent not a kingfisher, but a chief of that name. On the
face of it picture-writing was cumbersome and slow, so naturally in time
symbols began to be substituted for pictures of actual things, as well as for
sound-pictures; and in this transition period referred to, we find records
written in a mixture of hieroglyphics (which were already themselves to a
certain extent symbolistic) and hieratic. But my object is not to show how
the writing of to-day evolved from the writing of our savage forefathers
(which matter may easily be studied in works on the evolution of language),
but how the art of to-day evolved from picture-writing. An example,
suggestive of how the hieroglyphic changed into modern writing is given in
Figure IV.
As I have already said, these early Egyptian inscriptions, although in
cases appearing to us possibly to have been executed with a decorative idea,
were in reality done in a purely literary spirit, that is, with the intention of
conveying to the spectator literary, historic and didactic truths, rather than
pictorial truths. And the same was the object of the Babylonian, Assyrian,
Persian and other allied inscriptions. But there came a time when the deco-
rative sense started to develop ; possibly not in its purest form, and maybe
under the pressure of kings and rich persons, who, being prompted by
vanity and desiring to have such records as concerned themselves executed
in a more pretentious manner, had the hieroglyphics elaborately drawn, and
also colored—just as in later days Gothic initials were colored. So to-day
we find certain Egyptian walls and surfaces covered with what to the layman
may appear a mixture of pictures and writing, but which in truth is pure
writing. In this way and in this spirit was executed the first likeness of
man and of woman. It is, however, most important in studying Egyptian
picture-writing ever to bear in mind that it was produced by the priests,
scribes, authors and literary men, and that their object was to appeal to the
mind through identically the same channels and brain-reactions as do the
writers of to-day; and that the artist proper, he who plays on the human
consciousness through line and masses of color, he whose thoughts are pecu-
liar to and only expressible in pigment, was as yet unborn, or say rather,
untaught and silent. But in the course of natural evolution, when the lit-
erary men had begun to simplify their picture-symbols, when there was
more wealth and consequent love of luxury, there began to exist a demand
for the artist, for him who could embellish surfaces, for him who could tell
those truths that the literary man could not. But, and here is the most
interesting and crucial point in the whole evolution of art, this artist proper
worked in exactly the same way that the literary man wrote, he worked as
did the scribes and priests: he drew as he did not see nature, he drew as his
cave-dwelling ancestors had done. His masses of color were flat, they
came to sharp edges, heavily outlined; he saw no shadows and seemed to
feel only the thing itself and not the appearance it had : he was totally
oblivious to the appearance of the retinal image in his eye.
32
