Ernst Grosse[10] expresses similar views in somewhat different form. He stresses the practical purpose of artistic forms which appears to him as primary. However, he assumes that these forms, while devoted first of all to practical purposes, are intended at the same time to serve an esthetic need that is felt by the people. Thus, he says, that primitive ornament is by origin and by its fundamental nature not intended as decorative but as a practically significant mark or symbol, that is to say as expressive. If I understand him correctly this practical significance implies some kind of meaning inherent in the form. [10] Ernst Grosse, Die Anfänge der Kunst, 1894, p. 292. Emil Stephan[11] concludes from his detailed discussion of Melanesian art that technical motives offer no sufficient explanation for the origin of artistic forms (pp. 52 et seq.). He considers all ornament as representative and sees the origin of art in that unconscious mental process by which the form appears as distinct from the content of the visual impression, and in the desire to give permanence to the form (p. 51). For this reason he considers the artistic forms also as equivalents of the way in which the form appears to the primitive artist. [11] Emil Stephan, Südseekunst, Berlin, 1907. Alfred C. Haddon[12] and W. H. Holmes[13] seek the origin of all decorative art in realism. They discuss the transfer of technical forms to ornament but they see in these also results of the endeavor to reproduce realistic form, namely; technical details. Henry Balfour[14] agrees, on the whole, with this position but he stresses also the development of decorative motives from the actual use of technical processes. [12] Alfred C. Haddon, Evolution in Art, London 1895. [13] W. H. Holmes, Origin and Development of Form in Ceramic Art, Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology, Vol. 4, 1886, pp. 443 et seq. [14] Henry Balfour, The Evolution of Decorative Art, London 1893. Gottfried Semper[15] emphasizes the importance of the form as determined by the manner of use. He also stresses the influence of designs developed in weaving and of their transfer upon other forms of technique, particularly upon architectural forms. [15] Gottfried Semper, Der Stil in den Technischen und Tektonischen Künsten, 1860. Alois Riegl[16] is also inclined to stress the representative character of the most ancient art forms, basing his argument essentially upon the realistic paleolithic carvings and paintings. He sees the most important step forward in the attempt to show the animals in outline, on a two-dimensional surface which necessitates the substitution of an ideal line for the three-dimensional form that is given to us by every day experience. He assumes that geometric ornament developed from the treatment of the line, obtained by the process just mentioned, according to formal principles. [16] Alois Riegl, Stilfragen, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1923, pp. 2 et seq.