[328] and simply call it non-naturalistic. We have that in primitive art, we have it in the whole Byzantine period, we have it in the archaic Greek period, we have it in the Romanesque and largely still in the Gothic period. And we have a reaction of it against the natural and idealistic forms of the Renaissance in Baroque art. Then we have it again, after an increasing victory of naturalism, according to the technical-scientific world in which we live, the new and very powerful reaction against naturalism, from a non-naturalistic art in the 20th century, since 1900 almost exactly. Now this induces me also to give to all this quite another name, namely existentialistic art.^a The reason for this, I will show you later on. All this shows that we have two different ways. Now what does expressionistic^b or

non-naturalistic art do? In order to produce artistic symbols, it disrupts the naturalistic worldview. All primitive figures---take African masks, or figures, of men and women, or of animals---do not show show [sic.] the natural forms of things, but they show the forms of things in which the power of life, of vitality, which characterizes these primitive people, are expressed. And so you can go through. In early Greek art, we have not goddesses which are beautiful women, but who are really goddesses through which holiness shines in their ground, to which you go and which you do not observe as an object in time and space. Or in the Byzantine art, where the spiritual always shines through everything physical, as in the mosaics. Or the Romanesque art.

Now this shows that we have to make a distinction of types of art ^cfrom the point of view of religion and art, according to the two principles: the one is non-naturalistic against naturalistic;