Granting all this, it still remains obscure why there should be that degree of individualization of style that is actually observed even where similar technical processes prevail. The Indians of Guiana and the Indonesians use the same methods of weaving in rather broad, stiff materials. The technical conditions controlling their basketry work are practically the same. Nevertheless the styles of art they use are quite distinctive. We conclude from this that besides the influence of the technique there must be some other causes that determine the individual style of each area. I doubt very much that it will ever be possible to give a satisfactory explanation of the origin of these styles, just as little as we can discover all the psychological and historical conditions that determine the development of language, social structure, mythology or religion. All these are so exceedingly complex in their growth that even at best we can do no more than hope to unravel some of the threads that are woven into the present fabric and determine some of the lines of behavior that may help us to realize what is happening in the minds of the people. We have to turn our attention first of all to the artist himself. Heretofore we have considered only the work of art without any reference to the maker. Only in the case of slovenly work have we referred to the artisan. It has appeared that his behavior as revealed in his work helped us to understand the fate of the designs. We may hope, therefore, that in the broader question also knowledge of the attitude and actions of the artist will contribute to a clearer understanding of the history of art styles. Unfortunately, observations on this subject are very rare and unsatisfactory, for it requires an intimate knowledge of the people to understand the innermost thoughts and feelings of the artist. Even with thorough knowledge the problem is exceedingly difficult, for the mental processes of artistic production do not take place in the full light of consciousness. The highest type of artistic production is there, and its creator does not know whence it comes. It would be an error to assume that this attitude is absent among tribes whose artistic productions seem to us so much bound by a hard and fast style that there is little room for the expression of individual feeling and for the freedom of the creative genius. I recall the instance of an Indian from Vancouver Island who was suffering of a lingering malady that confined him to his bed. He had been a good painter but his productions did not differ stylistically in any way from those of his tribe. During his long illness he would sit on his bed, holding his brush between his lips, silent and apparently oblivious of his surroundings. He could hardly be induced to speak, but when he spoke he dilated upon his visions of designs that he could no longer execute. Undoubtedly his was the mind and the attitude of a true, inspired artist.