[310] ("great" always means simply "artistic" here)---I don't want to graduate the artists, but there is so much nonsense or [pomp] in the SO-CALLED "artistic" realm that I must use an adjective, either "genuine" or "great", or I should simply say, in an academic lecture, "artistic," and then the word is really defined. What's REALLY art^a? If you listen to such a piece of music, something happens to you which is very badly characterized by the word "emotion^b." Of course emotion is everywhere, in everything we do, even sometimes when I give a lecture! But emotion in itself is nothing if it is

not impregnated with meaning. And it is emotion united with meaning, with the experience of meaning. It is an encounter with one's own being and the being of one's world, which happens if you listen to this music. Certainly there is emotion in it, but emotion doesn't define it. So we have in the artistic symbols the characteristics of symbol ^cgenerally. They point beyond themselves, they open up levels of reality which otherwise are closed, they open up levels of the soul which otherwise are not conscious. And also the last point, which I didn't mention yet: participation^d in the power of that which they symbolize. I expressed that when I said this realm which is opened up by a landscape of Ruisdael^e is not something BESIDE the painted landscape, but it is in it, with it, and under it; it is inseparably united with it, so that a landscape participates in the power of that which it represents in itself.

Now this has a lot of consequences. The first thing I want to do now is to show you, in the different arts, the symbols^f which are used, the categories of symbols, not the individual symbols---every color spot in a picture is a symbol in itself in relation to others---but categories of