Dear Father Louis: I have read your paper twice and have read it carefully. I believe
it a very good paper. Of course you speak of things so close to my mind and heart that
however, I am

I cannot help findéng evrything most interesting. I had to realize/how far/from rendering
the pertinent facts of my own paper on Classic Art, in philosophical terms . My termino
logy seemed so simple so earthy to me, yet it is not the one in common use and therefore
not easily understandable. Yet when I say: In order to understand modern art we must cast
off all the strange notions of the artist as a genius, a prophet, a redeemer, I should
figegeadily understood. And also: it is the emptiness of all space relations which consti—
tute the core of Classfl:Art, etc, etc., and finally my insistence that all "art work" should
be undertaken for the higher glory of God makes it clear how much I agree with you. And
it was Fiedler who, more than 80 years ago in his last fragment said, that the subject-
object relation may be a necessary crutch for establishing scientific method, but in all

L is either created or
other human endeavors where' raV’truth :/ revealede, it make neither sense nor has it
any value ; on the contraryy—and Suzuki makes that very clear too. Not being a child
of my age or society I may bluntly add that I consider Picasso an able experimenter
but in no ways an artist. And I also wish that the terms beauty and creativity should be
banned for at least a generation from that glib use of which you speak. Even in your
paper, so clear and candid, that word beauty stands there as an opaque spot. It would be
better not to use it at all. If we would make a clear and valid distinction between
aesthetic and artistic values we would not need that word. It belongs to a much higher

level, and should not be used so carelessly.

I am sorry I cannot dedicate the book on chinese characters to you for it has been in-

scribed by a freind of mine. But you can keep it as long as you want, and I hope it will

be of some use to you.