[342] QN: To what extent is modern so-called art-photography not photography^a? PT: It is applied art, I would say. It is first of all photography, but then the photographer has learned to see faces through the eyes of the previous artistic works and is able to give to the photographs twists which are at least quasi-artistic, but they never can replace the art because they are bound to the moment, and the highest thing they can do is to bring out, in an impressionistic way, a special moment with artistic elements. The substance of photography remains photography.

=The transition to the second realm: 20) TOLEDO, El Greco^b--Now we come to that which I call non-naturalistic style and secular^c subject matter. You can all see this in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Here you have a nature in which obviously the uncanny, the dark, the terrifying shines through not by the fact that he has painted a thunderstorm--that can be done in a quite different way--

but by the art in which the naturalistic elements of a city are transformed into a visionary reality. 21) Goya^d, CITY ON A ROCK--This also is obviously not naturalistic, it is a fantastic imagination, and the fantastic element is increased by the three demonic animal figures on the right upper part which go around this city, which ITSELF is neither Heavenly nor Hell, but is in some way between them, and gives us a feeling of something which is trans-naturalistic, as Mannerism and Baroque were. 22) Cézanne^e--Now we are in the modern period--we start with 1900, Cézanne, and we start with STILL LIFE. I will show you first a few more still lifes. Go through them. 23) Braque--Cézanne is more important, in the development.