Part 1 (1/2)

Art

by Clive Bell

PREFACE

In this little book I have tried to develop a complete theory of visual art I have put forward an hypothesis by reference to which the respectability, though not the validity, of all aesthetic judght of which the history of art froible, by adopting which we give intellectual backing to an almost universal and immemorial conviction

Everyone in his heart believes that there is a real distinction betorks of art and all other objects; this belief my hypothesis justifies

We all feel that art is i it so In fact, the great merit of this hypothesis of mine is that it seems to explain e know to be true Anyone who is curious to discover e call a Persian carpet or a fresob Piero della Francesca a work of art, and a portrait-bust of Hadrian or a popular problem-picture rubbish, will here find satisfaction He will find, too, that to the fanificent design,” ”anised,”

”sensitive,”--is given, what such ter In a word, my hypothesis works; that is unusual: to some it has seemed not only workable but true; that is miraculous alh one may develop a theory adequately, one cannot pretend to develop it exhaustively My book is a sieneralisation about the nature of art that shall be at once true, coherent, and coht a theory which should explain the whole of est a solution of every problem, but I have not attempted to answer in detail all the questions that proposed the its slenderest ramifications The science of aesthetics is a complex business and so is the history of art;sih I have indicated very clearly, and even repetitiously, what I take to be essential in a work of art, I have not discussed as fully as I ht have done the relation of the essential to the unessential There is a great deal more to be said about the mind of the artist and the nature of the artistic probleist, and an expert in human limitations to tell us how far the unessential is a necessary means to the essential--to tell us whether it is easy or difficult or i in the ladder by which he has climbed to the stars

My first chapter epito strands of cloudy speculation which, condensed to solid argument, would still fill two or three stout volumes: some day, perhaps, I shall write one of theh to provoke me As for my third chapter--a sketch of the history of fourteen hundred years--that it is a si Here I have used a series of historical generalisations to illustrate ain, I believe in my theory, and am persuaded that anyone ill consider the history of art in its light will find that history ly admit that in fact the contrasts are less violent, the hills less precipitous, than they must be made to appear in a chart of this sort Doubtless it would be well if this chapter also were expanded into half a dozen readable volumes, but that it cannot be until the learned authorities have learnt to write or some writer has learnt to be patient

Those conversations and discussions that have tempered and burnished the theories advanced in my first chapter have been carried on for the er Fry, to whom, therefore, I owe a debt that defies exact computation In the first place, I can thank hiazine_, for permission to reprint some part of an essay contributed by ed, I co The first ti between Cae and London, we fell into talk about contemporary art and its relation to all other art; it see about the sa ever since, but my friends assure me that it is not quite so bad as that Mr

Fry, I remember, had recently becouin, Matisse: I enjoyed the advantage of a longer acquaintance Already, however, Mr Fry had published his _Essay in Aesthetics_, which, to , was the most helpful contribution to the science that had been ood deal about that essay, and then we discussed the possibility of a ”Post-Impressionist” Exhibition at the Grafton Galleries We did not call it ”Post-Impressionist”; the as invented later by Mr Fry, which makes me think it a little hard that the more advanced critics should so often upbraid hi what ”Post-Impressionism”

, more or less aree profoundly I like to think that I have not inal position, but I must confess that the cautious doubts and reservations that have insinuated themselves into this Preface are all indirect consequences of eneral ideas and fundaled for hours about particular works of art In such cases the extent to which one ment of the other cannot possibly be appraised, nor need it be: neither of us, I think, covets the doubtful honours of proselytism Surely whoever appreciates a fine work of artthat he has made a discovery? Nevertheless, since all artistic theories are based on aesthetic judgments of another, he may affect, indirectly, some of his theories; and it is certain that soeneralisations have been modified, and even demolished, by Mr Fry His task was not arduous: he had merely to confront o into ecstasies, and then to prove by the ed to a period which I had concluded, on the highest _a priori_ grounds, to be utterly barren I can only hope that Mr Fry's scholarshi+p has been as profitable to h France, Italy, and the near East, suffering acutely, not always, I aeneralisation with a fact forfeits all claies of polite society

I have to thank my friend Mr Vernon Rendall for permission to make what use I chose of the articles I have contributed from time to tis by law to the proprietors of other papers I herewith offer the custonier, M Druet, and Mr

Kevorkian, of the Persian Art Gallery, since it is they who havehe likes for his ton, and Mr Joyce of the British Museum, I owe a h to read both the MS and proof of this book; she has corrected so offences against Christian charity You round of inadvertence or haste

CLIVE BELL

November 1913

I

THE AESTHETIC HYPOTHESIS

It is improbable that more nonsense has been written about aesthetics than about anything else: the literature of the subject is not large enough for that It is certain, however, that about no subject hich I am acquainted has so little been said that is at all to the purpose The explanation is discoverable He ould elaborate a plausible theory of aesthetics must possess two qualities--artistic sensibility and a turn for clear thinking Without sensibility a man can have no aesthetic experience, and, obviously, theories not based on broad and deep aesthetic experience are worthless Only those for whom art is a constant source of passionate emotion can possess the data from which profitable theories may be deduced; but to deduce profitable theories even from accurate data involves a certain amount of brain-work, and, unfortunately, robust intellects and delicate sensibilities are not inseparable As often as not, the hardest thinkers have had no aesthetic experience whatever I have a friend blessed with an intellect as keen as a drill, who, though he takes an interest in aesthetics, has never during a life of aluilty of an aesthetic e a work of art froable argument on the hypothesis that a handsaw is a work of art This defect robs his perspicuous and subtle reasoning of much of its value; for it has ever been a ic can win but little credit for conclusions that are based on premises notoriously false Every cloud, however, has its silver lining, and this insensibility, though unlucky in that ita sound basis for his argument, mercifully blinds hi him in full enjoyment of his masterly dialectic People who set out from the hypothesis that Sir Edwin Landseer was the finest painter that ever lived will feel no uneasiness about an aesthetic which proves that Giotto was the worst So, ically at the conclusion that a work of art should be small or round or smooth, or that to appreciate fully a picture you should pace suess why I ask hie, a place he sometimes visits

On the other hand, people who respond iht sensibility, are often quite as incapable of talking sense about aesthetics Their heads are not always very clear They possess the data on which any systeenerally, they want the power that draws correct inferences fro received aesthetic emotions from works of art, they are in a position to seek out the quality com of the sort I do not blas when for theh? Why should they stop to think when they are not very good at thinking? Why should they hunt for a common quality in all objects that er over the many delicious and peculiar charms of each as it comes? So, if they write criticisine that they are talking about Art when they are talking about particular works of art or even about the technique of painting, if, loving particular works they find tedious the consideration of art in general, perhaps they have chosen the better part If they are not curious about the nature of their emotion, nor about the quality common to all objects that provoke it, they have estive, my admiration too Only let no one suppose that what they write and talk is aesthetics; it is criticis-point for all systems of aesthetics must be the personal experience of a peculiar emotion The objects that provoke this eree that there is a peculiar emotion provoked by works of art I do not mean, of course, that all works provoke the same emotion On the contrary, every work produces a different enisably the same in kind; so far, at any rate, the best opinion is on my side

That there is a particular kind of emotion provoked by works of visual art, and that this emotion is provoked by every kind of visual art, by pictures, sculptures, buildings, pots, carvings, textiles, &c, &c, is not disputed, I think, by anyone capable of feeling it This emotion is called the aesthetic emotion; and if we can discover some quality common and peculiar to all the objects that provoke it, we shall have solved what I take to be the central problem of aesthetics We shall have discovered the essential quality in a work of art, the quality that distinguishes works of art from all other classes of objects

For either all works of visual art have soibber Everyone speaks of ”art,” uishes the class ”works of art”

from all other classes What is the justification of this classification? What is the quality common and peculiar to all members of this class? Whatever it be, no doubt it is often found in company with other qualities; but they are adventitious--it is essential There must be some one quality without which a work of art cannot exist; possessing which, in the least degree, no work is altogether worthless

What is this quality? What quality is shared by all objects that provoke our aesthetic emotions? What quality is common to Sta Sophia and the s at Chartres, Mexican sculpture, a Persian bowl, Chinese carpets, Giotto's frescoes at Padua, and the masterpieces of Poussin, Piero della Francesca, and Cezanne? Only one answer seenificant form In each, lines and colours combined in a particular way, certain forms and relations of forms, stir our aesthetic emotions These relations and co fornificant Form” is the one quality common to all works of visual art

At this point itaesthetics a purely subjective business, since my only data are personal experiences of a particular emotion It will be said that the objects that provoke this emotion vary with each individual, and that therefore a system of aesthetics can have no objective validity It must be replied that any system of aesthetics which pretends to be based on some objective truth is so palpably ridiculous as not to be worth discussing We have no otherfor it The objects that provoke aesthetic eoes, matters of taste; and about tastes, as everyone is proud to adood critic may be able to s that I had overlooked, till at last, receiving the aesthetic enise it as a work of art To be continually pointing out those parts, the sunificant form, is the function of criticis is a work of art; hehthat ht to consider anything a work of art to which I cannot react eht to look for the essential quality in anything that I have not _felt_ to be a work of art The critic can affectmy aesthetic experience All systems of aesthetics must be based on personal experience--that is to say, they h all aesthetic theories ments must be matters of personal taste, it would be rash to assert that no theory of aesthetics can have general validity For, though A, B, C, D are the works that move me, and A, D, E, F the works that move you, it may well be that _x_ is the only quality believed by either of us to be coree about aesthetics, and yet differ about particular works of art We may differ as to the presence or absence of the quality _x_ My inificant form is the only quality common and peculiar to all the works of visual art that move me; and I will ask those whose aesthetic experience does not tally with ment, common to all works that move them, and whether they can discover any other quality of which the same can be said

Also at this point a query arises, irrelevant indeed, but hardly to be suppressed: ”Why are we so profoundly moved by forms related in a particular way?” The question is extre, but irrelevant to aesthetics In pure aesthetics we have only to consider our emotion and its object: for the purposes of aesthetics we have no right, neither is there any necessity, to pry behind the object into the state of mind of him who made it Later, I shall atte I may be able to develop my theory of the relation of art to life I shall not, however, be under the delusion that I a off my theory of aesthetics For a discussion of aesthetics, it need be agreed only that for to certain unknown and mysterious laws do move us in a particular way, and that it is the business of an artist so to co coements I have called, for the sake of convenience and for a reason that will appear later, ”Significant Foretting about colour?”

sonificant form” included combinations of lines and of colours The distinction between form and colour is an unreal one; you cannot conceive a colourless line or a colourless space; neither can you conceive a for the spaces are all white and all are bounded by black lines; in s the spaces are ine a boundary line without any content, or a content without a boundary line