2-8: Discussion

The analysis of the drawings of the present archive confirms that similar basic graphic aspects as well as similar drawing models related to the early human figure drawing occur in very different contexts of picture production. Most importantly, the single graphic forms as well as their combination in terms of graphic models which are described in the literature for contexts in Europe and North America, can be found in a quasi-identical manner in most of the other contexts documented by Gilles Porte. Where they were not found (above all concerning Type I), this may be only a consequence of the group of children documented, (e.g., because of the small number of children, or of their age distribution, or of the fact that only one drawing per child is documented).

The analysis of the drawings of the present archive also indicates similar developmental tendencies of early human figure drawing occurring in very different contexts of picture production, although less obvious. However, this may again be a consequence of the procedure of picture collection, which lacks systemacy concerning this aspect.

These findings by no means contradict context-specific aspects. However, as mentioned in chapter 1-3, we assume the graphic aspects and drawing models not directly related to the concrete context of picture production as being structurally more basic and as underlying the context-dependent "coded" aspects.

As also said, we do not consider this cross-cultural finding to be an indication of "universality": the observation of similar graphic aspects and drawing models for very different contexts of picture production does by itself neither provide proof for a time-independent early graphic development nor provide proof for a "natural" basis of the early graphic structure (see chapter 2-1). To avoid misunderstandings and referring to our earlier statements (see Maurer et al., 2009b): empirically establishing a cross-contextual aspect of picture genesis and consequently rejecting a fundamental cultural coding of all pictures in all of their aspects does not mean insisting on a historical and socio-biological perspective (both adjectives are borrowed from Mitchell; see Mitchell 1986, p. 37) and arguing that pictures are natural because they are not coded. Referring to the cross-cultural aspect of picture genesis means reopening the question of how to understand quasi-equal picture qualities for different contexts of their production.

This may be said not only for early pictures of children, but for pictures as such: referring to the cross-cultural aspect of picture genesis means also reopening the question of the syntactic dimension of pictures emphasising on the genetic character of pictures as such.