[307] itself--not at all visible. You are in it, but you don't go beyond it. And if you go beyond it to something else, as in symbolistic art, then it is bad art. This was the second reason. But both reasons fell down in the course of more intensive reflection and of discussions in mutual seminars at Columbia University which I had together with my friend and philosophical critic Jack Randall^a [John H. Randall, Jr.], whom some of you know. In these discussions, which lasted for several semesters, I finally was convinced that the definition of symbol^b as I gave it to you last Tuesday (the pointing-beyond-itself, the figurative character, the participation in the power of that which IS symbolized, the opening up of a reality which otherwise is not opened up but closed, the opening up of levels of the soul)---that all these characteristics also fit the artistic realm, so that my hesitation could be overcome. Now the first

argument against it was easily dismissed simply by saying that if every artistic expression has symbolic character, it is INDEED bad art to invent special symbols which immediately bring you OUT of the real realm of reality which is the material for every symbolism. So that argument didn't stand. The other argument didn't stand either: if we define sharply what it means, "pointing beyond," "going beyond"---and this analysis I will now give youI [sic.] will start with that art^c which is more my hobby, the visual arts, and especially painting. I know certainly that this is not the hobby of Americans, especially Protestant Americans, where especially music and poetry are predominant. Nevertheless, just for this reason it is good that I try to use the visual arts as my main