Bell

Clive Bell was a scholar of the arts and an artist himself. His idea of art and why we find it appealing is extremely interesting. He believed that appealing art that made us feel "aesthetic emotion" had significant form. This significant form was a product of all the lines, colors, textures, and shapes that make up a picture. Each of these things produces or causes an emotion within us which he called "aesthetic emotion". This combination of textures and lines does not simply convey emotion, but stir it up in the receiver or the art. Bell also made the assertion that all art that has significant form causes this emotion in "anyone capable of feeling it." This idea that some have this ability to feel while others do not is also intriguing. Again, the question comes up of who gets to decide which art has significant form and produces aesthetic emotion. If someone does not feel emotion when they look at the art does this mean they are not capable of these lofty and elusive artistic emotions or does the art simply not have the significant form that produces these emotions? Bell slightly implies in this essay and his other writings that the people who can feel these aesthetic emotions and determine whether an art form has significant form are of his stature and intelligence, coming off a bit pretentious. He even states that some of his friends are not able to feel aesthetic emotion. Is this to say that the only art that has significant form when Bell or people Bell respects? These unanswerable questions show us that it is impossible to define art. Even if you create a formula like Bell did, determining who gets to decide or decipher this formula becomes the problem. There is no true and through way to determine art from non-art. And there is certainly no way to determine good art from bad art. So what is this obsession with defining art, what is it in us that drives us to pick apart every little thing in this world?