Art Paperback – April 27, 2011

No one who has read this book would call Mr. Bell a shrinking violet. As a young aesthete Mr. Bell marches into the art world with both guns blazing. Opinionated, daring, outlandish, wildly perceptive, take your pick. He is however unique for his times, and ours. To read this book is to experience the delectable trends which have, for good or ill, framed (!) our views, tastes and expectations of art today.Should the reader find the style of writing to taxing and the use of Latin aphorisms (not translated) I would suggest reading the chapters on the Christian Slope and The Movement. These two sections demonstrate Mr. Bell's unique theories on art. Does he really mean to say that art has aesthetically been in decline since Cimabue and Giotto, only saved perhaps, by Cezanne. What does he mean by "the classical renaissance and its diseases"? Should you really want to perplex yourself and what you have learned (but not experienced) then see how he excoriates some on the renowned Gothic cathedrals and why he has such an appreciation of medieval (not Middle Age) art.A fascinating book about art that is as pertinent today as it was 100 years ago. So there Mr. Ruskin, Greenberg and Rosenberg.

Clive Bell, born in England in 1881 and was considered a very important art critic, he married Vanessa Stephen who was the sister of Virgina Woolf, the writer who is one of my favorite writers. Clive Bell's Hypothesis on art is very alive today and I cherish his book, "Art" was printed in 1913. He believed in one of the theories of Kant, that is the form of art work is the essence of art and it forms the basis of aesthetics. The appreciation of Art is not dependent on the subject matter nor what the artist had in his mind at the time of conception. He relates art to itself and aesthetics of art can be found in all cultures.This is an excellent historical rendition of the art period during his lifetime and as it continues to be very relevant today. In order for this book to be appreciated it is important to read about the group which includes the following:Vanessa Bell -The Painter-Sister of Virginia Woolf-Wife of Clive BellLeoanrd Woolf-Publisher- Husband of Virginia WoolfVirginia Woolf-Writer and sister of Vanessa Bell- The Fridays Club was formed with a few other people by Virginia WoolfRoger FryDuncan GrantSPRVanessa BellSelected Letters Vanessa BellRoger Fry: A BiographyThe Hidden Houses of Virginia Woolf and Vanessa Bell

Is a great textbook for Aesthetics classes. Well written and thought provoking , an asset for none ontemplating art and beauty and the relationship between the 2.

This book presents Bells one-sided view of what makes a painting or other art object "Art". I think there is some validity in his assertion that the formal aspect of painting (color and shape)is all important and the content (subject matter)is irrelevant. But this, I would contend, is only from the strictly aesthetic and theoretical perspective. He completely discounts any other aspect of visual art as irrelevant or detrimental to true Art. He claims to be uninfluenced at all by any content in so far as he is moved to a state of aesthetic "ecstasy". I find this difficult to believe since he also claims to find primitive art and Cezanne so moving and this art has rather strong content; how can we, or he himself, be sure that there is no influence of content there? He does claim to be move to aesthetic ecstasy by Persian carpets and pottery as well, and I imagine that he would soon be swooning over the non-objective art arriving the same year that his book was published, but I can't help doubting that when content is present he is unaffected by it in any way other than negatively. Be that as it may, if he is so completely able to remain abstract in his visual perception I envy his sensitivity but also pity it. He is ignoring the many other riches that come with feeling the content of art intermingling with the abstract form of art.I suspect that he is not immune to such feelings but rather, like many a critic before and after his time,he is out to defend his taste and his brilliant new theoretical discovery about what constitutes real Art. Like most philosophical writing that is worth reading (with the possible exception of Aristotle?) his book is full of outrageous claims and self-contradictions. Bell presents his theory with much wit and in spite of being a rather narrow definition of Art, he makes a point well worth considering.

Do know

This book is good for understanding what goes on under the hood of art critics, not all, but Bell represents the type of Brit, who thinks overly high of himself right before the great war. That aside, he makes a good starting point for looking at art(mostly painting) but leaves one wanting as he never gets to what really makes a painting good.(says the best art comes from 600 CE) And yes that is what hes talking about, just painting. This book, short and fast only makes me, and perhaps you want to look at other points in other books, which is the point of the course I read it for does.Overall he suffers from "missing the point" I'm curious if he changes his tune during the rest of his life over that next 40 years.