Bell's Argument In The Aesthetic Hypothesis

The foundation of Bell’s argument in The Aesthetic Hypothesis is based on a personal experience. More specifically, a “personal experience of a peculiar emotion” in which the “objects that provoke this emotion we call works of art.”1 According to Bell, this is not an assumption, but instead fact. His essay does not argue the validity of aesthetic emotions in relation to art, but instead he focuses his work on identifying the common quality that provokes this emotion, what he calls Significant Form.
Using Bell’s logic, three things are then required to identify a work of art: the aesthetic emotion, the sensitive viewer who feels this emotion, and Significant Form in the object that provokes the emotion. Thus, it is critical to the foundation
of Bell’s argument to provide objective criteria about these three components. If aesthetic emotion, the sensitive viewer, and Significant Form cannot be defined independently of one another, Bell’s theory is flawed by circular reasoning.2 Additionally, if Bell’s hypothesis lacks objective criteria, it is impossible to logically refute. It can then be argued that the theory is meaningless because every possible observation, supported or unsupported, would confirm it.2
When Bell first explains the aesthetic emotion, he calls it a “particular kind of emotion provoked by works of visual art.”1 He continues to say that every work produces a different type of aesthetic emotion and each one is a personal experience, unique to the viewer. Thus, Bell avoids having to explain what the actual emotion feels like, as the experience would be different depending on the individual. However, once Bell introduces Significant Form as the quality that provokes this aesthetic emotion, his lack of clarity becomes an issue.

“... lines and colours combined in a particular way, certain forms and relations of forms, stir our aesthetic emotions. These relations and combinations of lines and colours, these aesthetically moving forms, I call “Significant Form”; and Significant Form’ is the one common quality to all works of visual art.” (Bell 108)

According to Bell’s definition, art is the product of a “particular” emotion provoked by lines, colors, and shapes combined in a “particular” way.
The irony of this definition is that the word particular, which means ‘dealing with or giving details,’ actually has the opposite effect in Bell’s context. Bell attempts to clarify his theory by using examples of art which he claims contain Significant Form, such as Sta. Sophia and the windows at Chartes, Giottos’ frescoes at Padua, and the masterpieces of Cezanne.1 However, he still provides no detail of what the particular arrangement of lines, colors, and shapes is in these examples that produces the aesthetic emotion. Without giving any insight or description about the ‘particular’ emotion or form, Bell’s theory is vague, and arguably circular. British philosopher Nigel Warburton argues this point in “Philosophy the Basics”

“{The Significant Form Theory}... seems only to be saying that the aesthetic emotion is produced by an aesthetic-emotion-producing property about which nothing more can be said. This is like explaining how a sleeping tablet works by referring to its sleep-inducing property. It is a circular argument because that which is supposed to be explained is used in the explanation.” (Warburton 122)
Bell attempts to refine his definition by contrasting an aesthetic emotion
against
“ordinary human emotion.” He uses ‘descriptive paintings’ to explain the difference, what he describes as “paintings in which forms are used not as objects of emotion but as means of suggesting emotion or conveying information.”1 According to Bell, ‘descriptive paintings’ have the ability to move us, but they are not works of art because they do not move us aesthetically. “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.”1
Although this provides more criteria to further understand an aesthetic emotion, it also opens up another major issue in Bell’s theory, the assumption that form is independent of content. Bell writes, “To appreciate a work of art we need bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions.”1 Because art is defined by Bell as aesthetic emotion produced by significant form irrespective of content, it follows that art is independent of time and place, representation and symbolism, artistic motive (other than significant form) and life.
The challenge of content vs. form is a popular debate among art critics, and one of the most controversial beliefs upheld by Bell. In his book, Thinking Art, Philosopher Antoon van den Braembussche challenges Bell’s theory by using the artist, Cézanne.3 Bell greatly admired Cézanne’s work, despite the fact Cézanne used representative form in most of his paintings. This alone does not refute Bell’s theory, as Bell would argue “...if a representative form has value, it is as form, not as representation. The representative form in a work of art may or may not be harmful, always it is irrelevant.”1 However Van den Braembussche argues it is nearly impossible to completely separate form from representation:

“It seems difficult, if not impossible, to see only forms - lines and colors - in figurative paintings without also interpreting them as forms of something. Even if we agree that the painting in its entirety and as such is not an imitation of reality, we still see the painting’s pictorial elements as a representation…” (Van den Braembussche 77)

This logic could also be applied to time and place as well as artistic motive. For example, it seems inaccurate to argue that contextually religious art is entirely independent from content, when the artist’s primary function at the time was religious symbolism. If color was chosen to symbolize specific elements in a piece, then it follows that content is if not a part of, at least impactful on the form. The same applies to time and place. Is it possible to completely ignore the time period a work of art was created? It could be argued that elements and characteristics of the time period are represented within the Significant Form.
Although valid points can be made to both support and challenge Bell’s logic, the true weakness of his argument is his inability to explain Significant Form and aesthetic emotions in an objective manner. A theory supported only by subjective criteria is not only difficult to understand, but it is also difficult to refute. How can Bell prove that form is independent of content, when the basis of his argument is centered around personal taste? Nonetheless, Bell’s work in “The Aesthetics Essay” has provided particular insight into understanding the elements of art. Although his theory may not fully answer the question “what is art?” his argument most definitely addresses the major issues that limit this answer.