Potential problem's with Bell's definition

                Bell feels that significant form is some mysterious combinations of lines shape and colors that produces a peculiar response in people. He cannot even describe the response beyond a “you know it if you feel it” definition. He cannot describe what significant form is and he cannot describe the emotional response it causes. This starts to sound nothing like a definition and moves in the direction that art is indefinable. People respond differently to different works of art so it would be nearly impossible to come up with a consensus on works of art. An answer for this would be to find people particularly sensitive to significant form, assuming there really is such a thing and such people, and then have them decide what art for the rest of us is. Then art becomes very elitist. Only the special people get to choose what art is. Bell considered himself one of these special people and this means he would be one of the few privileged people who got to decide what art is. His view increases his own importance and that makes it suspect as well as its complete lack of clarity. Also, if we determined that two people were sensitive and so they were judging a work of art, we would encounter a problem when they disagreed. Experts disagree regularly and one could easily find what they define as “aesthetic emotion” where another does not. Does this mean that the latter is not as sensitive? If we decided that was so, then art critics might be inclined to say there was aesthetic emotion where they did not feel any so that they do not risk their position as “sensitive.” Then the poor folks that suffer from a lack of sensitivity would be looking at things they have been told are art and are not and experts would be questioning themselves and their opinions constantly trying to figure out where they missed something.

                Do you think Bell’s ideas could have real world application?     

Bell and Art

                Clive Bell argues that art produces an aesthetic emotion that is separate from nature. He cannot describe this emotion or how it is different. He simply says that you know it when you feel it and if you do not then there is something lacking in you. This places the reader at an unfair disadvantage because they cannot disprove him without saying that they do not feel this emotion and that makes them insensitive. We used the example of the butterfly and cathedral in class and said that if you do not feel different emotions for each then you lack this sensitivity. This example is probably not the best one available because even people who lacked this supposed sensitivity would feel differently when looking at a butterfly and cathedral. A butterfly is delicate and simple in its beauty and a cathedral is imposing and intricately detailed. If one is to simply look at a piece of art and a part of nature and see if their emotions are different in order to evaluate Bell’s idea then the other variables need to be limited. Emotions are complicated so it would be impossible to limit all the outside variables but if we compared something like a cathedral and a mountain the ordinary emotions might be closer. Then feeling something separate for the art piece might mean more. Even this does not really work because people might feel differently for anything manmade verse nature. There might be some ingrained pride for something created by the human species rather than the more random beauty of nature. Then the separation in emotional impact would not be contained to art. Also, if you feel a special emotion for something made by people does that make it art? Say there is something about my bookcase that makes me feel the same way that I might about art. Is my bookcase then art? I suppose that it must have significant form for me to feel that way. Then we recognize art through this emotion and therefore this art has significant form. If that is true couldn’t they be correlated rather than cause each other. What if, for example, Freud was correct and we like art because we are able to express and feel our repressed desires? Then art still has lines, colors and shape but the quality that provokes this emotion is different. Bell said that significant form is the only quality that all art shares, but that could just mean he did not see the other quality or qualities that do exist in all art.

                Could aesthetic emotion exist without significant form?      

Response to Gina's question

                I think people should try to express their emotions as often as possible and if they can best express them through art they should do so. I do wonder if it would be healthier to discuss emotions/ unconscious needs with someone and try to figure out where they are coming from with the clarity of dialogue. Art is by necessity more vague because the unconscious desires must remain vague for other people to appreciate them. Dialogue does require speaking with a knowledgeable person who is non-judgmental. This may not be easily possible making art the next best option. I think that allowing unconscious desires to build without expression would lead to negative emotional states, perhaps depression or seemingly irrational anger. Art could serve as a cathartic method of expressing these desires so that they do not constantly impede our daily lives. On the other hand constantly looking for these emotional states in order to produce art might make us unhappy. If one is constantly looking at things that their mind seeks to repress seems like a form of torture. Expressing hidden emotions/desires through art is not separate from repressing emotions for a societal standard because artists repress their emotions whenever they are not creating art. People are probably better off with a sometime outlet that they can then return to society having expressed their emotions. People in society also get the chance to see the art and let themselves feel their own emotions that they would usually try to repress.

                Assuming Freud was right could art exist that does not express any unconscious needs or would all art need to express unconscious need?