Mount

Hannah Mount
Professor Shoppa
Philosophy: The Pursuit of Wisdom
13 December, 2014
Art Redefined
Clive Bells The Aesthetic Hypothesis states that the aesthetic experience is
the evocation of a very refined emotion: the appreciation of significant form in a work
of art (The Problems of Philosophy, 391). That very refined emotion is the
Aesthetic Emotion, which is caused by a common quality that all art has. Bell has
determined this common quality to be something he calls Significant Form. In The
Aesthetic Hypothesis, Significant Form is defined as the relationship between
combinations of colors and lines and how they stir ones Aesthetic Emotions. At one
point Bell discusses why he doesnt use the word beauty in his analysis of
aesthetics and how there are two different types of beauty: one applies to the manon-the-street and the other to the artist. Bell labels these two types of people as
though theyre mutually exclusive and cannot both utilize those two types of beauty
when describing something. By labeling people and what actual beauty is in such a
manner, Bell really negates the true purpose of art. He has turned art into a formula
instead of the subjective entity it originated as.
Bell says, all systems of aesthetics must be based on personal experience
that is to say, they must be subjective (The Problems of Philosophy, 393).
Translation: what is art, is really in the eye of the beholder. He then glosses over the
question why are we so profoundly moved by forms related in a particular way?

Mount 2

(The Problems of Philosophy, 393) His answer is, that that is the business of the artist
to combine and arrange forms to move us. Since art becomes something designed to
move us, there is a science to it that will automatically elicit that Aesthetic Emotion
from us, rather than it was created in the hopes of eliciting that response. British artist
Martin Creed in a New York Times article said, Im just making a painting or a
sculpture or whatever it may be. Im not making art, because art would seem to me to
be in the eye of the beholder. This is an artist who creates things simply for the sake
of them existing, some of his most famous works are as simple as a crumpled sheet of
paper. Hes not making art with an end goal in mind, like making people feel that
Aesthetic Emotion that Bell is convinced determines whether or not something is art.
Art should not be defined by the general response it receives. For example, a movie
is a movie regardless of how people feel about it, a movie does not start being called
something else simply because it didnt receive a positive response. Theres also the
idea that art can induce a negative response from the audience, Bells theory at least
implies that the Aesthetic Emotion is a pleasant one.
The definition of art is, the expression or application of human creative skill
and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing
works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. A TED
(Technology, Entertainment, and Design) conversation online asked the man-on-thestreet what they thought art was. The first responder, Alan, said that, Art is a
spiritual journey. It is not materialistic, or even rational. And neither should it be.
Bell states that he doesnt use the word beauty in his hypothesis because it doesnt
mean the same thing to the man-on-the-street as it does to an artist. With Alans

Mount 3

remark in mind, how do we discern one from the other? Looking at the very
definition of art, no part of it specifies how much creative skill a human must have to
produce art nor what criteria a person must meet to be considered an artist, no matter
what medium they are working in. Another user under the name Fritzie put it this
way, In other words the range of what people may consider art is very large.
Worrying about definitions in this case mainly serves to categorize people in a way
that doesn't seem to have any purpose other than possibly to annoy those who
consider themselves artists while someone else excludes them. Bell begins to not
only tell us what constitutes as art but who gets to be an artist based on his definition
of Significant Form and Aesthetic Emotion. There is not a set rule that separates the
man-on-the-street from the artist when theyre looking at the same source of
beauty. Artist Jackson Pollock said, When I say artist I mean the one who is
building things some with a brush some with a shovel some choose a pen.
User Allen said when commenting on the TED conversation, Much of
modern art, architecture and music seems to have developed into a cult of ugliness,
shock, anger, brutality, discord and just plain silliness - based on motives that are
clearly ulterior, and emanating from a part of the mind that should never have been let
loose on anything even remotely artistic. Beauty has somehow become a dirty word.
Bell of course missed out on the most shocking modern art of today, but nowadays all
of Bells ideas about the separation of art and artists has become blurred. Art is not
like math, the same rules do not always apply, everything is constantly changing and
undergoing innovations. And while he may have had a point about beauty with
regard to sexuality not being art, but if there is beauty, there is art. There must be a

Mount 4

distinction between what is created solely for a sexual purpose and what is created
with sexuality as a byproduct of it. Michelangelos David, for example, is a
depiction of a character from the Old Testament, clearly any sexuality derived from
this stature was completely unintentional. There is beauty in the human form, which
is why it is so frequently depicted in works of art, Roman art is most recognized for
its realism. The Romans really admired the beauty of the human body regardless of
how old or young, so sexuality had next to nothing to do with their intentions. So to
say that any hint of sexuality in a work of art determines whether a piece should be
classified as art or not and to neglect the use of the word beauty in the definition of
art is ridiculous. American poet Ralph Emerson once said, Love of beauty is taste.
The creation of beauty is art.
Later in his hypothesis, Bell narrows his definition of art again: Portraits of
psychological and historical value, topographical works, pictures that tell stories and
suggest situationsThey interest us; they may move us too in a hundred different
ways, but they do not move us aesthetically. According to my hypothesis they are not
works of art. They leave untouched our aesthetic emotions because it is not their
forms but the ideas or information suggested or conveyed by their forms that affect
us. (The Problems of Philosophy, 394) So unless something produces that specific
feeling he refers to as the Aesthetic Emotion, its not art. The definition of aesthetic
is, concerned with beauty, or the appreciation of beauty. It seems rather impossible
that aesthetic can be classified as any sort of emotion, its more of a thought that a
person can have and while the definition says appreciation of beauty, appreciative
would be the emotion, not aesthetic. While emotions are hard to define, its also hard

Mount 5

to understand what Bell means by Aesthetic Emotion, it sounds so ambiguous. It

would make more sense to say that there are emotions that can be classified as
Aesthetic Emotions, for example: a feeling of happiness/sadness/fear etc. that was
instigated by some form of art. The only criteria for having an Aesthetic Emotion
should be that it was prompted by an interaction with some kind of art. That also
seems like an ambiguous definition, but art in itself is ambiguous. Art is the way
people express themselves, who has the right to define what counts as proper selfexpression? American artist Elbert Hubbard put it best, art is not a thing, it is a
way.
Clive Bell is of the mind that anything that conveys information cannot
possibly be art because anything informative will not inspire that Aesthetic Emotion
that he holds so dear. He specifically criticizes the Italian Futurists of the early 20th
century saying, they use form, not to provoke aesthetic emotions, but to convey
information and ideas (The Problems of Philosophy, 395) Can conveying
information not be done in such a manner as to be classified as art? And as much as
Bell wanted to ignore the artists intentions as being a part of his hypothesis, he is just
making an assumption that all the artist wanted to do was inform the audience. The
Guggenheim Museum had an exhibition on Italian Futurism earlier this year and on
their website they explained what Futurism was, To be a Futurist in the Italy of the
early 20th century was to be modern, young, and insurgent. Inspired by the markers
of modernitythe industrial city, machines, speed, and flightFuturisms adherents
exalted the new and the disruptive. They sought to revitalize what they determined to
be a static, decaying culture and an impotent nation that looked to the past for its

Mount 6

identity. Based on that explanation, it would be fair to say that the Futurists looked
to inspire people, give them a new appreciation for their homeland by provoking that
Aesthetic Emotion and presenting a new set of possibilities for what art could be and
what Italy could be. Bell was of the mind that to associate art with politics is always
a mistake. (The Problems of Philosophy, 395) He said that in reference to the
Futurists, viewing their end goal as changing the way people think rather than feel,
either way though, the goal of art is to inspire people whether that be emotionally or
mentally. Art could be seen as even more effective if it can inform and inspire at the
same time. Artists like Rini Templeton, Favianna Rodriguez, and Josh MacPhee use
their power to create to be activists, to bring to light important issues that may
otherwise not get the exposure they deserve. Their purpose is to inform, but by using
art as their vehicle for information they also inspire people to feel for their cause not
just acknowledge its existence. Art is not a one trick pony, it can make a person feel
and think.
Bell really downplays the power art has over human beings, it would be nice
to assume he thinks art is important since he developed and wrote a hypothesis about
aesthetics but at the same time he doesnt fully consider the potential art has. And
that doesnt just apply to visual arts (which is the only art form Bell really addresses),
it goes for theatre, dance, poetry etc. It is next to impossible to analyze something so
subjective and dissect it to this degree without losing the very essence of the thing
that is being analyzed. Bell has lost the essence of art in his quest to justify it. There
is no one who has the right to decide what art means and why exists except for the
person who created it.

Mount 7

Works Cited

"Italian Futurism." Italian Futurism, 19091944: Reconstructing the Universe. The

Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 2014. Web. 16 Dec. 2014.

"Ralph Waldo Emerson." BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc, 2014. 14 December 2014.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ralphwaldo136914.html\

Nayeri, Farah. "When Art Is Beside the Point." The New York Times. The New York
Times, 24 Jan. 2014. Web. 14 Dec. 2014.

Park, Rosa, Allan Macdougall, and Fritzie. "What Is Art to You? | A Conversation on
TED.com." Web log post. What Is Art to You? | A Conversation on
TED.com. N.p., 15 July 2012. Web. 14 Dec. 2014.