usually discovers the presence of parts and forms drawn from nature, from objects.
As the imitation of natural forms forms no part of the definition of pure art how is it these objective representations creep in?
The origin of painting was the same as that of the other arts, and of every human action. It was purely practical.
If a native hunter chases game for days, he is induced to do so by hunger.
If today a princely hunter chases game, he is induced to do so by the desire for enjoyment. Just as hunger is of bodily value, here the enjoyment is of aesthetic value.
If a savage requires artificial sounds for his dance, he is induced thereto by sexual impulse. The artificial sounds, from which through centuries the music of today developed, moved savages to an expression of passion in the form of dancing.
If the man of today attends a concert he is not seeking the music for practical results, but pleasure.
Also here the original practical motive changed to the aesthetic. That means that also here the practical want of the body changed to that of the soul.
During this progress toward refinement (or spirituality) of the most simple practical (or bodily) wants, two consequences are to be noticed throughout: The separation of the spiritual from the bodily element and its further independent development through the different arts.
Here the above mentioned laws (of the inner element and the form) gradually apply with ever increasing force, until finally out of each art comes a pure art.