- So f.i. “God,” then “magic,” “religious,” etc. I would propose the term “numinous” instead of “magic” or “religious,” which are prejudiced in a very definite way.
Any convinced Christian of today would contest your assumption that his religion is not dynamic.
Though I think that such a statement, namely the feebleness of our religion, is not unfair.
- ·It is rather conspicuous that the creators of modern art are unconscious about the meaning of their creations.
What modern art-forms represent is questionable.
It is certainly something which transcends any hitherto valid form of understanding.
Your general conclusion that contemporary Western artists unconsciously depict God’s image is questionable, as it is by no means certain that any inconceivability could be called “God,” unless one calls everything “God,” as everything ends in inconceivability.
But wh en one calls everything which is inconceivable “God,” then the term “God” loses all sense.
According to my view, one should rather say that the term “God” should only be applied in case of numinous inconceivability.
Since the term “God” always includes the meaning of an insurmountably strong affect of collective nature, I am not convinced that every piece of modern art is living up to such a postulate.
Very often indeed it is easy to see that very inferior factors have been at work.
Excuse the long delay of my answer.
C.G. Jung ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 511-512