"All sensitive people agree that there is a peculiar emotion provoked by works of art"
About this Quote
Bell opens with a sly bit of gatekeeping: "All sensitive people agree". The sentence flatters the reader into assent while quietly drawing a line between those who "get it" and the philistines who supposedly don’t. It’s criticism as social sorting mechanism, which makes sense coming from a Bloomsbury-adjacent modernist (and an early champion of post-impressionism) trying to justify why a Cézanne still life should matter as much as any moral fable in oil paint.
The phrase "a peculiar emotion" is doing heavy lifting. Bell doesn’t claim art teaches, improves, or even communicates a stable message. He claims it produces a specific, recognizable feeling - a phenomenological signature - that can’t be reduced to narrative, politics, biography, or craft. That’s the core of his formalism: the idea that "significant form" triggers an aesthetic charge distinct from ordinary emotions like sadness or patriotism. It’s an argument designed to protect art from being judged by the wrong tribunals: morality, realism, usefulness.
The subtext is defensive and strategic. Early 20th-century audiences were confronting works that looked, to many, like refusals: flattened perspectives, distorted bodies, color used against nature. Bell’s claim is less an empirical observation than a bid to re-train perception. If you don’t feel the "peculiar emotion", the problem isn’t the painting; it’s your sensibility. The sentence is short, almost clinical, but it smuggles in a whole worldview: art as an elite experience, and taste as a kind of moral credential.
The phrase "a peculiar emotion" is doing heavy lifting. Bell doesn’t claim art teaches, improves, or even communicates a stable message. He claims it produces a specific, recognizable feeling - a phenomenological signature - that can’t be reduced to narrative, politics, biography, or craft. That’s the core of his formalism: the idea that "significant form" triggers an aesthetic charge distinct from ordinary emotions like sadness or patriotism. It’s an argument designed to protect art from being judged by the wrong tribunals: morality, realism, usefulness.
The subtext is defensive and strategic. Early 20th-century audiences were confronting works that looked, to many, like refusals: flattened perspectives, distorted bodies, color used against nature. Bell’s claim is less an empirical observation than a bid to re-train perception. If you don’t feel the "peculiar emotion", the problem isn’t the painting; it’s your sensibility. The sentence is short, almost clinical, but it smuggles in a whole worldview: art as an elite experience, and taste as a kind of moral credential.
Quote Details
| Topic | Art |
|---|
More Quotes by Clive
Add to List
