[327] on the anticipatory function^a of which I spoke, where nature is idealized, but it remains nature. This is unfortunately the predominant way in which parochial newspapers still believe that Christianity should be presented to the poor people. Then I would also call impressionism naturalistic art^b, but it is naturalism^c of a special kind, of the third type, namely in contrast to the ordinary naturalism which is objective, the impressionistic naturalism is subjective. Zola^d, when he fought for the French impressionists, has said: a work of art is nature seen through a temperament. This means: through the subjectivity of the artist's seeing and receiving. This certainly is an excellent description of impressionism and shows that here objective and subjective nature, man's optical and psychological structure, work together to produce these pictures which, when they first occurred---and idealistic naturalism was still

most powerful---were attacked and thrown out of the exhibitions. Today they are classics, even for the most conservative critics of art. But all of them belong to naturalism in the larger sense of the word. The opposite is NON-naturalistic. Most of primitive art is non-naturalistic. Here the semantic problem has induced me to use that negative term "non-naturalistic." I would call it expressionistic, ^ebut unfortunately that word has been used by the German expressionists in the first decades of the 20th century. So it must be liberated from this extreme limited use. And if

you sometimes hear, instead of using the clumsy word "non-naturalistic" the quick word "expressionistic," I mean it in the sense of non-naturalistic generally, and include all non-naturalistic art from the very primitive to the present-day abstract, under this term. But let us perhaps not complicate the matter