[296] scientific work; it is a work of art^a. And by the work of art, if it is really a work of ART---and there are great works of art in the naturalistic line---it becomes something else. This "something else" is the discovery of the artistic dimension, about which I will speak later. The naturalisti^bc art^c has the predominant emphasis on the cognitive^d element of art, on grasping reality, and fog forgets (this is the criticism which has often been made against it---and rightly)

that the ARTISTIC form of grasping reality is not the ordinary form of scientific or daily-life approach but is another one, which is determined and should be determined by the artistic dimension. Now what this is I will discuss later when I come to artistic symbols. The second function of art^e is the anticipatory ^fone. This is the idealistic form, which has taken this element as the predominant one. What does that mean? The sharpest expression of this was given in the Neo-Kantian school ^gof the 19th century, which is the classical school of bourgeois idealism and was predominant in all the Continental universities at least since the second half of the 19th century.

In this school, the following construction was made. From Kant^h one learned that there is theoretical reason--- describing the laws of nature; it has nothing to do with the other side: practical reason---describing the unconditional demand of the moral or, as he called it, the categorical, imperative. Then there was a third, and this one was Kantⁱ's critique of judgment, power of judgment, in which he deals with some realities in which the purely theoretical, namely the world as seen by Newton^j and Descartes^k, is reconciled with the ethical realm, namely man's unconditional responsibility for his action under the categorical imperative.