[349] given and therefore should not be a matter of expressionistic art^a at all but should always be preserved in terms of its natural form which is given by God^b. Now I would say: this is not a real argument, because it is given by God but it EXPRESSES something--that is its greatness, not its always-similar natural forms. And this expression can be intensive to such a degree that the similarity with the

individual almost disappears. But I leave this open as a problem to your thinking about it. 9) Henry Moore^c: FAMILY GROUP--He has done with the human body^d what I showed you in the picture before: he has taken away for sculptural expression all the naturalistic elements which characterize the surface of the human body, as we see it, and has so to speak banished the bodily existence of man for the sake of structure in which the empty spaces (e.g. Moore's RECLINING FIGURE) produce a special feeling of disruptedness [sic.] on the one side, but of fundamental structures of being on the other side. And the fact that Henry Moore is considered, even in conservative England, as one of the greatest, or practically the greatest, sculptor of today shows that people feel that simply a copy of the human body in terms of scriptural means, is not the answer to the questions of our time--we must penetrate in[to] deeper structure elements.

III: NATURALISTIC STYLE & RELIGIOUS SUBJECT MATTER: 10) Giotto^e, SAINT FRANCIS AND THE BIRDS--This is certainly not yet naturalistic style. Here I want to say something about transitions. Sometimes the transitory moments in history^f are the most important ones. Here the expressionistic^g power of being^h is seen in everything,