On "Formalism"

Clive Bell believes in Significant Form. This much is clear from his writing. And of course, in his mystical elitism, he sets it up so we can't argue with him. Which won't stop me.

Let us begin by dissecting his argument. "All sensitive people agree that there is a peculiar emotion provoked by works of art." I'll skip past the fallacy of making such a blanket statement and argue with the concept that all sensitive people would agree. First of all... it's a major attack against anyone who might not feel this "peculiar emotion." Does that mean that you're not sensitive, you Philistine? Clive Bell would probably say so. After all, he is among the "elite few," those "sensitive people." Arrogant p...erson.

"The best opinion is on my side." Because, of course, if YOU say your opinion is best, that must make it a fact. Rather than show WHY your opinion is best, you just say that it is. Great way to win an argument, Mr. Bell. Now please stop throwing up these straw men as the foundation of your entire line of philosophical thought.

"This emotion is not disputed by anyone capable of feeling it." Because of course, it's so easy to match a feeling exactly, and it's so DISTINCT from the emotions of life. If this is some secret sort of emotion, summoned up by "mystical, unknown" qualities... how can you be certain that it truly IS separate from the emotions of life?

"A painter too feeble to create forms that provoke more than a little aesthetic emotion will try to eke that little out by suggesting the emotions of life." And what harm, pray tell, is there in suggesting the emotions of life? I always thought of art as something that should help us to EXPLORE those emotions, not ESCAPE them, as Bell suggests "Significant Form" does.

The idea of a completely separate set of emotions, this "aesthetic emotion," is frankly absurd. Why would it only be summoned forth by this "Significant Form," under these whacky "mystical, unknown" forces? Artists are not unique among the species in that they have this sort of hidden talent to tap into this unknown force. Rather, they capture the emotions of life. The idea that FORM comes before EMOTION is as ridiculous as Bell's argument. What, now, arrogant dead guy? What NOW?

On Art, Ideas, and Emotion

Tolstoy states that art, in its most basic form, is the communication of feelings, in contrast to the communication of ideas. But are the two necessarily separate?

In a theoretical sense, it is perfectly logical to say that the communication of emotion is separate from the communication of ideas. Put it in to practice, however, and the distinction becomes MUCH harder to maintain.

Many of the tools at our disposal - language, color, actions - can serve both purposes. In practice, it is often extremely difficult to differentiate what is merely "thought" versus was is "emotion." Indeed, much artwork shows not only "emotion," as Tolstoy states, but it communicates IDEAS.

This is not to say that ALL art communicates ideas. A painting of a sunset may not communicate any sort of specific IDEA, but it potentially evokes EMOTION.

By contrast, some "Art" may be all about the idea and devoid of emotion. Much of the artwork produced in the Soviet Union under the Communist regime did not communicate emotion so much as the IDEA of the united worker.

Some "art" may even lack both emotion and idea. The white canvas is something I must return to for this. It conveys no emotion, no real idea, and yet, someone considers it "art." Whether this is a valid claim is something I will not explore... yet.

So, my dear readers, I ask you to ponder this: Is Art Emotion, Idea, both, or neither? Or can it be all of the above? I believe that the fifth option is most correct: Art is Emotion, Idea, Both, AND Neither.