What do you think?
Rate this book
Art
General; students of art, art history, aesthetics; Bloomsbury enthusiasts
152 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1913
106 people are currently reading
1223 people want to read
About the author
Clive Bell
34 books22 followersLibrarian Note:
There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name. See also Clive Bell
Arthur Clive Howard Bell, British critic, proposed his aesthetic theory of significant form in Art in 1914.
The group of Bloomsbury associated Arthur Clive Heward Bell, an Englishman. He studied history at Marlborough and Trinity College, Cambridge, which educated him. Bell, one most prominent man, lived. Back at least to Immanuel Kant, peopel can trace the general view that properties of an object make something or define experiences. Bell found nothing else relevant about an object in any way to assess a valuable work. A painting for example represents something completely irrelevant to evaluating it. Consequently, unnecessary knowledge of the historical context or the intention of the painter for the appreciation of visual, he thought. "From life," "we need bring" "nothing," "no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions," ""to appreciate a work," he wrote.
The understanding of the notion differs. For Immanuel Kant, it meant roughly the shape of an object with as not an element. For Bell in contrast, "the" "unreal" "distinction," "you" can "conceive of" "neither" "a colorless space" nor a "relation." Bell famously coined the term to describe the distinctive type of "combination of lines and colors" which makes an object work.
Bell also claimed that the key value lies in ability to produce a distinctive experience in the viewer. Bell called this experience "emotion." It arouses that experience, as he defined it. In response to a work, we perceive an expression and thus experience emotion, he also suggested. The experience in turn sees pure ordinary objects in the world not as a means to something else but as an end, he suggested.
Ultimately, the value lies only in a means to "good states of mind," Bell thought. With "no" "more excellent or more intense" "state of mind" "than" "contemplation," Bell thought of visual works among the most valuable things. George Edward Moore, the philosopher, heavily influenced Bell like many persons in the group of Bloomsbury in his account of value.
There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name. See also Clive Bell
Arthur Clive Howard Bell, British critic, proposed his aesthetic theory of significant form in Art in 1914.
The group of Bloomsbury associated Arthur Clive Heward Bell, an Englishman. He studied history at Marlborough and Trinity College, Cambridge, which educated him. Bell, one most prominent man, lived. Back at least to Immanuel Kant, peopel can trace the general view that properties of an object make something or define experiences. Bell found nothing else relevant about an object in any way to assess a valuable work. A painting for example represents something completely irrelevant to evaluating it. Consequently, unnecessary knowledge of the historical context or the intention of the painter for the appreciation of visual, he thought. "From life," "we need bring" "nothing," "no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions," ""to appreciate a work," he wrote.
The understanding of the notion differs. For Immanuel Kant, it meant roughly the shape of an object with as not an element. For Bell in contrast, "the" "unreal" "distinction," "you" can "conceive of" "neither" "a colorless space" nor a "relation." Bell famously coined the term to describe the distinctive type of "combination of lines and colors" which makes an object work.
Bell also claimed that the key value lies in ability to produce a distinctive experience in the viewer. Bell called this experience "emotion." It arouses that experience, as he defined it. In response to a work, we perceive an expression and thus experience emotion, he also suggested. The experience in turn sees pure ordinary objects in the world not as a means to something else but as an end, he suggested.
Ultimately, the value lies only in a means to "good states of mind," Bell thought. With "no" "more excellent or more intense" "state of mind" "than" "contemplation," Bell thought of visual works among the most valuable things. George Edward Moore, the philosopher, heavily influenced Bell like many persons in the group of Bloomsbury in his account of value.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
March 3, 2025
Realistic rendering of waves pixelated into line and color
Published in 1914, Art by English art critic and philosopher Clive Bell (1881 – 1964) has been the subject of lively debates and controversy in the field of aesthetics for over 100 years - many point out logical flaws and limitations while many others emphasize its strength in approaching all the visual arts. For the purposes of my review I will hone in on what I see as the very heart of Bell’s theory by the below five quotes and five points:
“The starting point for all systems of aesthetics must be the personal experience of a peculiar emotion. The objects that provoke this emotion we call works of art. Every emotion produces a different emotion. But all these emotions are recognizably the same in kind.”
So, the emotional tone of our viewing each of the three Mark Rothko paintings below will be different, but, according to Clive Bell, each of our emotions share a kind of emotional common denominator, they are all one of a kind, they are what Bell calls our ‘aesthetic emotion’. Thus, we have Bell’s point #1: There is one distinctly aesthetic emotion and this aesthetic emotion is separate from all other types of emotions.
“And if we can discover some quality common and peculiar to all the objects that provoke the aesthetic emotion, we shall have solved what I take to be the central problem of aesthetics.”
Clive Bell’s want to apply rigorously logic, discovering and labeling the one essential quality common to all works of visual art that prompts our aesthetic emotion. He underscores his seriousness on this point when he says, “For either all works of visual art have some common quality, or when we speak of works of art we gibber.” So, point #2: All the visual arts contain one common feature that prompts an aesthetic emotion.
What is this quality? What quality is shared by all objects that provoke our aesthetic emotions? For Clive Bell, only one answer seems possible – ‘Significant Form’.
Point #3: Bell’s answer to what is essential for all works of art is what he terms ‘Significant Form’, meaning "certain forms and relations of forms" as well as "lines and colors combined in a particular way." For example, the composition of forms - the circles, triangles, rectangles - made up of the lines and colors in the below painting by Auguste Herbin would be the painting's Significant Form.
“The objects that provoke aesthetic emotion vary with each individual. Aesthetic judgments are, as the saying goes, matters of taste; and about tastes, as everyone is proud to admit, there is no disputing.”
Point #4: Although true works of art contain ‘Significant Form’, not everybody will have an aesthetic response to every work since, aesthetic judgements are subjective and a matter of taste. For example, I might be deeply moved by the Rothko paintings above while others may be left completely cold.
“A good critic may be able to make me see in a picture that had left me cold things that I had overlooked, till at last, receiving the aesthetic emotion, I recognize it as a work of art.”
Point #5: The good critic attunes our eyes and our feelings toward a work of art so we can see and feel the work’s ‘Significant Form’ for ourselves. Using only concepts and theories to convince us will be ineffective since we cannot be intellectually bullied into an emotional and aesthetic response.
Clive Bell was a big fan of Cezanne. You can see why - the painter was well on the way to transforming a mountain landscape into more abstract lines and colors.
Personally, I find Clive Bell’s ‘Significant Form’ theory appealing since all visual works of art throughout history, every culture, every age, contain both form and color. Although works of art can be appreciated on a number of other levels, color and form is one important aspect of all art. And the more we hone our appreciation for color and form, the richer will be our experience of the visual arts. Again, my review is brief. For a more detailed analysis, there are a number of websites, such as this one: http://denisdutton.com/bell.htm
Aboriginal Art - On one level deeply symbolic and religious art and, on another level, a work that can be appreciated for its form and color.
February 16, 2015
كتاب سيغير مفهومك للفن و للجمال و للذائقة
كتاب لذيذ لن تمل منه
كتاب لذيذ لن تمل منه
June 12, 2015
دسم ثقيل ولكنه سيصيغ ويشكل الفنان الذي بداخلك
عجيب جدا ولكن لا ينفع قرائته كبداية في فلسفة الفن ، يجب ان تكون متقدم في هذا الباب .
عجيب جدا ولكن لا ينفع قرائته كبداية في فلسفة الفن ، يجب ان تكون متقدم في هذا الباب .
November 8, 2015
Blah blah blah, fact, opinion, blah blah, speculation, blah, erudite commentary, blah blah, conjecture, factoid, astute observation, blah blah, seriously biased judgement, blah, blah, slanted viewpoint, random examples, some serious attitude, more judgemental speculation, blah blah blah. This is all about what Clive Bell thinks, which can sometimes be somewhat enlightening.
November 14, 2013
قيمة الكتاب وثوريته ورؤية كلايف بل للفن، أعجز عن وصفها في بضع كلمات هنا.
Read
August 10, 2017While reading this book I stubbornly refused to look up Mr. Bell on Wikipedia. But now I should. I’m pretty sure he was Virginia Woolf’s brother-in-law, but not positive. The book has many of the virtues of Lytton Strachey’s "Eminent Victorians:" self-assurance, lovely writing, scholarship, hatred of the 19th century. Calling a book "Art" is like calling a book "The Meaning of Life," and sure enough, Clive HAS found the meaning of life – it’s “significant form.” This sounds obvious, when you’re discussing art, but it ain’t. People (especially art historians) get distracted by “skill,” subject matter, geography, Christianity, etc. But the basic question of a painting is: “What kind of shapes has the artist discovered, and where has she put them?” By 1913, Bell completely understands Modern Art; was he the first? He even names all the great artists of the 20th century, some of whom had been painting for like three years. He’s more of a prophet than a critic. Am I am the only person who's ever read this book?*
*Here is the passage I refer to:
They were sharp eyes, indeed, that discerned before the dawn of the new century that Cézanne had founded a movement.
That movement is still young. But I think it would be safe to say that already it has produced as much good art as its predecessor. Cézanne, of course, created far greater things than any Impressionist painter; and Gauguin, Van Gogh, Matisse, Rousseau, Picasso, de Vlaminck, Derain, Herbin, Marchand, Marquet, Bonnard, Duncan Grant, Maillol, Lewis, Kandinsky, Brancusi, von Anrep, Roger Fry, Friesz, Goncharova, L’Hôte are Rolands for the Oliviers of any other artistic period.
[Yes, he did marry Virginia’s sister, Vanessa.]
*Here is the passage I refer to:
They were sharp eyes, indeed, that discerned before the dawn of the new century that Cézanne had founded a movement.
That movement is still young. But I think it would be safe to say that already it has produced as much good art as its predecessor. Cézanne, of course, created far greater things than any Impressionist painter; and Gauguin, Van Gogh, Matisse, Rousseau, Picasso, de Vlaminck, Derain, Herbin, Marchand, Marquet, Bonnard, Duncan Grant, Maillol, Lewis, Kandinsky, Brancusi, von Anrep, Roger Fry, Friesz, Goncharova, L’Hôte are Rolands for the Oliviers of any other artistic period.
[Yes, he did marry Virginia’s sister, Vanessa.]
July 21, 2018
كتاب جميل وترجمة مذهلة أشكر الدكتور عادل مصطفى عليها.
يتحدث الكتاب عن الفن عامة وعن فن الرسم خاصة والذي جعل من سيزان ممثلا عبقريا له وشرح فكرته تجاه الفن والاستطيقيا والمجتمع والدين، كتاب سهل الفهم جميل الذائقة وماتع القراءة.
يتحدث الكتاب عن الفن عامة وعن فن الرسم خاصة والذي جعل من سيزان ممثلا عبقريا له وشرح فكرته تجاه الفن والاستطيقيا والمجتمع والدين، كتاب سهل الفهم جميل الذائقة وماتع القراءة.
May 8, 2020
Let us commence the critical appraisal with the introduction of a neologism: transcenturion. It is a portmanteau word of 'transcend' and 'centurion', and semantically it signifies a person or group who insists on transcending above normality, typically with plenty of gung-ho. We do not have to think of transcendentialists per se, like Kant; we can apply this somewhat derogatory term to people who dogmatically insist on rising above things like society or even humanity in order to corroborate their ideas.
What is Clive Bell then if not a transcenturion?
In his work, Art (should've been "Visual Art", since that was what Bell set out to expound on, despite inconsistent divarications), he courageously proffered to solve the problem of art with his theory of "Significant Form": every work of visual art has at its core form that is so significant that the most fine-tuned sensibilities can detect it and are enraptured consequently. Note that it is not mere pleasure that a Bellian evinces, it is exaltation, rapture, intense positive emotion! The reaction is caused by the fact that by perceiving the significant form (that is, various configurations of design and colour with due simplification) the viewer gets a glimpse of what Bell terms the thing-in-itself of the philosophers, the true reality. It has nothing to do with human ideas or feelings - indeed, a work of art is not representative of anything but significant form or pure form (so all descriptive tendencies diminish the artistic quality). At this point we are able to see why one would prefer to dub Bell a transcenturion: his rapture, his "aesthetic emotion" transcends the human experience!
What Muse let our transcenturion to drink from her Parnassian rill? Whence the afflatus to spark such a fantastic notion? Frankly, the answer is Bell's gut-feeling. He conspicuously states that the only thing he can be fully certain of is his feeling of the aesthetic emotion. He has asked his acquaintances whether they too feel thus; the answer was affirmative. Thereon the theory was founded. The intensity of Bell's experience gave him the conviction that an aesthetic emotion is the true reality, something that transcends (petty) human ideas and sensations. At least I feel that the maiden application of my coinage is more than idoneous.
Bell begins to branch out from his original hypothesis with due caution and with the restraint of relativity. Firstly, he states that all aesthetic matters are always grounded on subjectivity - so there's that. He does play with the idea that the aesthetic emotion can vary a bit, but ultimately decides that it's a definite state of mind that can be distinguished from others. He also opines that religion can serve the same ends, emotionally, and that there may be little to differentiate art from religion, because they both serve the ends of spirituality - a state that enables people to transcend physical reality.
After a while, the safe and solicitous Bell steps aside and the vicious critic emerges with its pointy fangs and crescent horns. The transformation is staggering, but I suppose it simply shows how strongly he held his opinions on art, for this is the point where Bell begins to apply his hypothesis to the history of art, with an additional (and less adamant) hypothesis that art reflects the spirituality of an age. Obviously, Bell was right to proceed carefully with this second hypothesis, since it would be ridiculous to spell out the spirituality of an entire age based on an arbitrary number of works of art, because they only show the supposed spiritual qualities of the... more refined people - not to mention that Bell himself conceded that art is not the sole barometer of spirituality, yet he seemed to forget his initial negotiations. (In fact, I'm of the opinion that by compartmentalising art as one of the manifestations of spirituality, he falls to the same pitfall as he said Mill did when the latter talked about differentiating between good and bad pleasures - art no longer seems to be valuable in itself, if spirituality is to be the yardstick.)
But yes - the leathern wings have flicked out, and the nastier side of Bell is visible to all! For someone like me who is not as well-informed in the matters of visual art, our transcenturion's lengthy disquisitions seem deplorably empty. I have no qualms about admitting that Bell probably was sensitive to art and knew a great lot about it, historically, aesthetically and technically, but he says so very little here. It's almost as he's merely trading safe opinions with his fellow Bloomsburyans with no consideration for justifying his stances; the primitives rule the land, High Renaissance was utter dross, Cezanne is the saviour of modern art etc. It doesn't help that his opinions are also damnably confused: at first he calls Rembrandt the greatest of all geniuses and suddenly he lambasts him for his excessively messy use of chiaroscuro. In his critical frenzy, he even meanders to talk about music and literature, which is utterly ridiculous considering that his initial hypothesis only covered the ambit of visual art (and that he admitted to having no fine sensibility towards music in the first place). We get preposterously simplified claims such as that after Mozart, music has simply been a hodge-podge of realism, romance and melodrama... What the devil is realism in music anyway?
I admit it - the reviewer was clearly provoked by the convenient pithiness and venom of Bell's writing. It didn't showcase a fine knack for aesthetic emotion; it showcased a forgetfulness for his own hypothesis. There are no concessions made here to the effect that the subjectivity is still behind every aesthetical experience. Rather, Bell copiously points out that some people are clearly more sensitive towards form than others (and makes a clumsy comparison between a musician hearing when an instrument is out-of-tune and an art critic knowing when a line is not in accord).
Throughout his more vicious delivery, we get a better glimpse of what kind of a person Bell seems to be. He insists on the transcendental quality of art, and as a result hates conformity and modern cosiness. He detests the pretence of science to the predominance of the physical reality and cannot stand historical and archaeological perspectives (one of his biggest weakness is indeed that he accepts but one way of looking at things - something that I think weakens experience, or the transcendental version thereof). He laments the fact that people do not seem to give the critics of painting their due, since everybody has suddenly developed a taste. Moreover, he dismisses all kinds of bourgeois ideas of culture, where people regard art as an amenity and are "trained" accordingly, technically from the cradle.
Here our transcenturion clearly bites more than he can chew. First of all, I think that here he was led to a passion by convenient logic, whereas at the beginning he seemed to be honest, calm and lucid. When he explains how he thinks the artworks of different eras reflected their spirituality, he had recourse to historical and archaeological facts time and again - such as pointing out how secular patrons began to commission paintings during the Renaissance period. Naturally, Bell concluded that this was a time of artistic poverty - how convenient! Secondly, he simply cannot figure out whether he would like to liberate people's sense for the artistic or to emphasise the excellence of his own kind. At times he accounts for people's artistic choices in terms of dogma, pecuniary matters, status and vanity, among others. At other times, he seems to welcome more popular forms of art so people could express themselves more freely and develop a taste of their own. He opines that a society should discourage artistry in order to let those who are possessed by the demon of art to satisfy their passion even in face of material hardship; yet he also would like to see a burgeoning in the number of people seeking to express themselves through art. He would like to cultivate the sensibilities of everyone, yet he also avers that sensitivity towards art is a gift! Finally, art critics are supposed to make people see things in a way more amenable to the experience of aesthetic emotion, yet the "cultivated" middle-classes should steer clear of such attempts. This is exactly why I think Bell was simply too occupied with his idea to really think lucidly, and that makes himself yet another person of fine sensibility with little sense.
I would also like to point out Bell's idea of morality and art. He thinks all art is supremely moral, because for him, following in the footsteps of G.E. Moore, the metric for morality is "a good state of mind". Not pleasure, like in Mill's theory, but a good state of mind; it's clear that Bell was easily led by his feeling for different words, since he would so readily distance pleasure from mental states, and hail all kinds of raptures and exaltations. Not life, but a good state of mind; life in itself is apparently not valuable, but rather a means for these splendid ends. Anyway, since art is the best source for the good states of mind, it is obviously the most moral thing in the world. I simply find this kind of idea of morality so laughable that it's hardly worth explaining why, but since I don't want to follow in the footsteps of our transcenturion, let me give you the nitty-gritty: if killing enables someone to obtain a good state of mind, it would be justified. Bell liked to appeal to the common decency in a lot of things where he wanted to bolster his claims yet didn't feel like underscoring his own excellency, but it simply isn't enough that we build theories first on common sense and then on uncommon sensibility. So I'm willing to use such laughably childish counter-arguments as a result, since I cannot trust Bell's cognitive thoroughness.
Before I begin to concentrate on the good things Bell pointed out, I'd still like to question his idea of simplification. He lauds form, yet he hates detail. He instances Albrecht Dürer's engravings Melencolia and St. Jerome: the first is a first-rate example of art, the second too descriptive. I'd like anyone who reads my review to compare the two and figure out how the details of the first are fine and non-descriptive (i.e. the descriptiveness is well-incorporated into the design so as to make it serve form instead of human ideas) and the second's mere intellectual provender.
Ultimately, it seems that Clive Bell's idea was this: "I feel good when I see art, and I consider myself bloody good at pointing out different things about art. And there is only one way to look at art. When I decided that I can't get any aesthetic emotion out of a painting, I then judge it bad and descriptive. Yet my feelings are not merely subjective, because I'm of extraordinary sensibility. I can always point out the subjectivity of it all to appear less dogmatic, though."
Clive Bell's theory does not even really make a difference between works of art and everyday objects. That is something of a blunder. Another blunder is that his hypothesis does not provide a sufficient answer to the question why art should always be forward-looking or present-looking, as Bell himself attests. But! what irks me to no computable degree is how he leaves out the more melancholy emotions out of the high end of the aesthetic emotion spectrum! Why exaltation? Why not sorrow de profundis! Why not superhuman gloom!
************************
However, sometimes I would find myself agreeing with Bell on principle, though his reasoning was shockingly weak. I do understand his abhorrence of the "comfortable amenity" attitude towards art. His idea of significant form is perhaps not good as a final answer for the artistic problem, but it offers a new (?) splendid perspective for someone who wishes to experience the world as richly as possible. I also applaud anyone who has the temerity to try to explain a whole history of art according to their standards, since though it might be impossible to do credibly, at least it bespeaks of fervent subjective conviction - something that I consider an essential quality in an art-lover. Endless relativity is all but deleterious at the end of the day, because it makes you lose the focus and transplant artistic emotion with a vague feeling of misplaced understanding, at least that's how I feel.
So the most valuable thing about this book was that I got to read the writings of conviction and refinement, even though they were regrettably mired in the conventions of 20th-century art criticism and, yes, snobbery. The idea of formalism in itself is also useful when thinking about art, since it hints towards a reality within the outer layer - a new land to conquer for the surface-dweller, a suggestion that art contains elements not reducible to common emotions or representation. Such an idea need not be taken literally, but it can wrench the viewer from their typical point of view and enable them to look for something hitherto unseen - exactly what I consider one of the main purposes of art.
What is Clive Bell then if not a transcenturion?
In his work, Art (should've been "Visual Art", since that was what Bell set out to expound on, despite inconsistent divarications), he courageously proffered to solve the problem of art with his theory of "Significant Form": every work of visual art has at its core form that is so significant that the most fine-tuned sensibilities can detect it and are enraptured consequently. Note that it is not mere pleasure that a Bellian evinces, it is exaltation, rapture, intense positive emotion! The reaction is caused by the fact that by perceiving the significant form (that is, various configurations of design and colour with due simplification) the viewer gets a glimpse of what Bell terms the thing-in-itself of the philosophers, the true reality. It has nothing to do with human ideas or feelings - indeed, a work of art is not representative of anything but significant form or pure form (so all descriptive tendencies diminish the artistic quality). At this point we are able to see why one would prefer to dub Bell a transcenturion: his rapture, his "aesthetic emotion" transcends the human experience!
What Muse let our transcenturion to drink from her Parnassian rill? Whence the afflatus to spark such a fantastic notion? Frankly, the answer is Bell's gut-feeling. He conspicuously states that the only thing he can be fully certain of is his feeling of the aesthetic emotion. He has asked his acquaintances whether they too feel thus; the answer was affirmative. Thereon the theory was founded. The intensity of Bell's experience gave him the conviction that an aesthetic emotion is the true reality, something that transcends (petty) human ideas and sensations. At least I feel that the maiden application of my coinage is more than idoneous.
Bell begins to branch out from his original hypothesis with due caution and with the restraint of relativity. Firstly, he states that all aesthetic matters are always grounded on subjectivity - so there's that. He does play with the idea that the aesthetic emotion can vary a bit, but ultimately decides that it's a definite state of mind that can be distinguished from others. He also opines that religion can serve the same ends, emotionally, and that there may be little to differentiate art from religion, because they both serve the ends of spirituality - a state that enables people to transcend physical reality.
After a while, the safe and solicitous Bell steps aside and the vicious critic emerges with its pointy fangs and crescent horns. The transformation is staggering, but I suppose it simply shows how strongly he held his opinions on art, for this is the point where Bell begins to apply his hypothesis to the history of art, with an additional (and less adamant) hypothesis that art reflects the spirituality of an age. Obviously, Bell was right to proceed carefully with this second hypothesis, since it would be ridiculous to spell out the spirituality of an entire age based on an arbitrary number of works of art, because they only show the supposed spiritual qualities of the... more refined people - not to mention that Bell himself conceded that art is not the sole barometer of spirituality, yet he seemed to forget his initial negotiations. (In fact, I'm of the opinion that by compartmentalising art as one of the manifestations of spirituality, he falls to the same pitfall as he said Mill did when the latter talked about differentiating between good and bad pleasures - art no longer seems to be valuable in itself, if spirituality is to be the yardstick.)
But yes - the leathern wings have flicked out, and the nastier side of Bell is visible to all! For someone like me who is not as well-informed in the matters of visual art, our transcenturion's lengthy disquisitions seem deplorably empty. I have no qualms about admitting that Bell probably was sensitive to art and knew a great lot about it, historically, aesthetically and technically, but he says so very little here. It's almost as he's merely trading safe opinions with his fellow Bloomsburyans with no consideration for justifying his stances; the primitives rule the land, High Renaissance was utter dross, Cezanne is the saviour of modern art etc. It doesn't help that his opinions are also damnably confused: at first he calls Rembrandt the greatest of all geniuses and suddenly he lambasts him for his excessively messy use of chiaroscuro. In his critical frenzy, he even meanders to talk about music and literature, which is utterly ridiculous considering that his initial hypothesis only covered the ambit of visual art (and that he admitted to having no fine sensibility towards music in the first place). We get preposterously simplified claims such as that after Mozart, music has simply been a hodge-podge of realism, romance and melodrama... What the devil is realism in music anyway?
I admit it - the reviewer was clearly provoked by the convenient pithiness and venom of Bell's writing. It didn't showcase a fine knack for aesthetic emotion; it showcased a forgetfulness for his own hypothesis. There are no concessions made here to the effect that the subjectivity is still behind every aesthetical experience. Rather, Bell copiously points out that some people are clearly more sensitive towards form than others (and makes a clumsy comparison between a musician hearing when an instrument is out-of-tune and an art critic knowing when a line is not in accord).
Throughout his more vicious delivery, we get a better glimpse of what kind of a person Bell seems to be. He insists on the transcendental quality of art, and as a result hates conformity and modern cosiness. He detests the pretence of science to the predominance of the physical reality and cannot stand historical and archaeological perspectives (one of his biggest weakness is indeed that he accepts but one way of looking at things - something that I think weakens experience, or the transcendental version thereof). He laments the fact that people do not seem to give the critics of painting their due, since everybody has suddenly developed a taste. Moreover, he dismisses all kinds of bourgeois ideas of culture, where people regard art as an amenity and are "trained" accordingly, technically from the cradle.
Here our transcenturion clearly bites more than he can chew. First of all, I think that here he was led to a passion by convenient logic, whereas at the beginning he seemed to be honest, calm and lucid. When he explains how he thinks the artworks of different eras reflected their spirituality, he had recourse to historical and archaeological facts time and again - such as pointing out how secular patrons began to commission paintings during the Renaissance period. Naturally, Bell concluded that this was a time of artistic poverty - how convenient! Secondly, he simply cannot figure out whether he would like to liberate people's sense for the artistic or to emphasise the excellence of his own kind. At times he accounts for people's artistic choices in terms of dogma, pecuniary matters, status and vanity, among others. At other times, he seems to welcome more popular forms of art so people could express themselves more freely and develop a taste of their own. He opines that a society should discourage artistry in order to let those who are possessed by the demon of art to satisfy their passion even in face of material hardship; yet he also would like to see a burgeoning in the number of people seeking to express themselves through art. He would like to cultivate the sensibilities of everyone, yet he also avers that sensitivity towards art is a gift! Finally, art critics are supposed to make people see things in a way more amenable to the experience of aesthetic emotion, yet the "cultivated" middle-classes should steer clear of such attempts. This is exactly why I think Bell was simply too occupied with his idea to really think lucidly, and that makes himself yet another person of fine sensibility with little sense.
I would also like to point out Bell's idea of morality and art. He thinks all art is supremely moral, because for him, following in the footsteps of G.E. Moore, the metric for morality is "a good state of mind". Not pleasure, like in Mill's theory, but a good state of mind; it's clear that Bell was easily led by his feeling for different words, since he would so readily distance pleasure from mental states, and hail all kinds of raptures and exaltations. Not life, but a good state of mind; life in itself is apparently not valuable, but rather a means for these splendid ends. Anyway, since art is the best source for the good states of mind, it is obviously the most moral thing in the world. I simply find this kind of idea of morality so laughable that it's hardly worth explaining why, but since I don't want to follow in the footsteps of our transcenturion, let me give you the nitty-gritty: if killing enables someone to obtain a good state of mind, it would be justified. Bell liked to appeal to the common decency in a lot of things where he wanted to bolster his claims yet didn't feel like underscoring his own excellency, but it simply isn't enough that we build theories first on common sense and then on uncommon sensibility. So I'm willing to use such laughably childish counter-arguments as a result, since I cannot trust Bell's cognitive thoroughness.
Before I begin to concentrate on the good things Bell pointed out, I'd still like to question his idea of simplification. He lauds form, yet he hates detail. He instances Albrecht Dürer's engravings Melencolia and St. Jerome: the first is a first-rate example of art, the second too descriptive. I'd like anyone who reads my review to compare the two and figure out how the details of the first are fine and non-descriptive (i.e. the descriptiveness is well-incorporated into the design so as to make it serve form instead of human ideas) and the second's mere intellectual provender.
Ultimately, it seems that Clive Bell's idea was this: "I feel good when I see art, and I consider myself bloody good at pointing out different things about art. And there is only one way to look at art. When I decided that I can't get any aesthetic emotion out of a painting, I then judge it bad and descriptive. Yet my feelings are not merely subjective, because I'm of extraordinary sensibility. I can always point out the subjectivity of it all to appear less dogmatic, though."
Clive Bell's theory does not even really make a difference between works of art and everyday objects. That is something of a blunder. Another blunder is that his hypothesis does not provide a sufficient answer to the question why art should always be forward-looking or present-looking, as Bell himself attests. But! what irks me to no computable degree is how he leaves out the more melancholy emotions out of the high end of the aesthetic emotion spectrum! Why exaltation? Why not sorrow de profundis! Why not superhuman gloom!
************************
However, sometimes I would find myself agreeing with Bell on principle, though his reasoning was shockingly weak. I do understand his abhorrence of the "comfortable amenity" attitude towards art. His idea of significant form is perhaps not good as a final answer for the artistic problem, but it offers a new (?) splendid perspective for someone who wishes to experience the world as richly as possible. I also applaud anyone who has the temerity to try to explain a whole history of art according to their standards, since though it might be impossible to do credibly, at least it bespeaks of fervent subjective conviction - something that I consider an essential quality in an art-lover. Endless relativity is all but deleterious at the end of the day, because it makes you lose the focus and transplant artistic emotion with a vague feeling of misplaced understanding, at least that's how I feel.
So the most valuable thing about this book was that I got to read the writings of conviction and refinement, even though they were regrettably mired in the conventions of 20th-century art criticism and, yes, snobbery. The idea of formalism in itself is also useful when thinking about art, since it hints towards a reality within the outer layer - a new land to conquer for the surface-dweller, a suggestion that art contains elements not reducible to common emotions or representation. Such an idea need not be taken literally, but it can wrench the viewer from their typical point of view and enable them to look for something hitherto unseen - exactly what I consider one of the main purposes of art.
May 19, 2021
I've read this book because it was proposed in Noel Carroll's Philosophy of art textbook and I thought I wanted to know more about formalism.
I understand Clive Bell comes from a world filled with stiff academic painting and that he wanted to state the case for Modern Art when people thought that the one purpose of a picture is to resemble reality, but to discount entire art movements because of the interest in naturalism or mythology sounds incredibly ridiculous to me.
Even though I commend him for highlighting the importance of sensitivity, his ideas are at best, naive.
To C. Bell, art comes from the search of an ecstatic experience, much like profound religious feeling (not to be confused with dogmatic religion). We appreciate art because it stirrs in us a particular kind of emotion - the aesthetic emotion - which is far above the material world. What strikes us in art is significant form, the relationships of colour and line, not the imitation of life. So he goes on to compare styles of deep aesthetic feeling with materially-inclined ones:
- Byzantine and Romanesque are superior to Gothic and the Renaissance
- Impressionism and Post-Impressionism are better than Realism, Romanticism and basically any movement that shows an interest in describing the natural world, using literary reference or symbol.
In his view, Dutch Golden Age painting is insignificant and literature is not really art because of its intellectual content.
After 100 years and an avalanche of quickly-burning avant-garde movements, I wonder if Bell ever imagined how much harm these ideas would do to aspiring artists who grew up believing skill and craft are unimportant.
At least Alma-Tadema could paint perfect values, unlike most art school graduates today.
I understand Clive Bell comes from a world filled with stiff academic painting and that he wanted to state the case for Modern Art when people thought that the one purpose of a picture is to resemble reality, but to discount entire art movements because of the interest in naturalism or mythology sounds incredibly ridiculous to me.
Even though I commend him for highlighting the importance of sensitivity, his ideas are at best, naive.
To C. Bell, art comes from the search of an ecstatic experience, much like profound religious feeling (not to be confused with dogmatic religion). We appreciate art because it stirrs in us a particular kind of emotion - the aesthetic emotion - which is far above the material world. What strikes us in art is significant form, the relationships of colour and line, not the imitation of life. So he goes on to compare styles of deep aesthetic feeling with materially-inclined ones:
- Byzantine and Romanesque are superior to Gothic and the Renaissance
- Impressionism and Post-Impressionism are better than Realism, Romanticism and basically any movement that shows an interest in describing the natural world, using literary reference or symbol.
In his view, Dutch Golden Age painting is insignificant and literature is not really art because of its intellectual content.
After 100 years and an avalanche of quickly-burning avant-garde movements, I wonder if Bell ever imagined how much harm these ideas would do to aspiring artists who grew up believing skill and craft are unimportant.
At least Alma-Tadema could paint perfect values, unlike most art school graduates today.
February 22, 2024
Art by Clive Bell was published in 1914. Bell’s famous wife, Vanessa, was very much part of the Bloomsbury Group, whose contribution to the artistic life of the century is perhaps based more on celebrity than output. Anyone wanting to place this “history of art”, “aesthetic analysis”, or “opinionated rant” in context could consult a potted biography of the writer, just for information’s sake.
Bell writes a good deal about the artist as a person of great power and insight. The power comes from an ability to see, effect and communicate “significant form”, a quality which apparently penetrates our senses and provokes emotional response. Bell’s analysis, if that be the right word, places very few of the practitioners over the centuries in the group he would call “artists”. If there be one artist amongst ten thousand practitioners, he remains happy that the one exists. So powerful is the product, no doubt, that it repays repeated viewing. It would have to because it wouldn’t have much company.
Clive Bell praises Byzantine art from the sixth century - San Vitale, Hagia Sophia, for instance - and he also has time for the same style of the late medieval period. He praises the early Renaissance, refers to Giotto many times, but sees things going downhill thereafter. Subsequently, not until the end of the nineteenth century with the emergence of Cezanne and the post-Impressionists does he find anything worthy of the label “art”.
Vast swathes of widely recognized work, therefore, he has to dismiss. “…the bulk, however, of those who flourished between the high Renaissance, and the contemporary movement may be divided into two classes, virtuosi and dunces. The clever fellows, the minor masters, who might have been artists, if painting had not absorbed all their energies, were throughout that period for ever setting themselves technical acrostics and solving them. The dunces continued to elaborate chromophotographs, and continue.”
Significant form is not just appearance, which, if it be the focus of the painter, he sees as merely copying. “…every sacrifice made to representation is something stolen from art.” Neither is art in detail. It certainly is not just colour. Basically, what Clive Bell likes, he labels as possessing “significant form” and thus he extends the underpopulated world of his “art”.
There are some significant exclusions. “Rembrandt, indeed, perhaps the greatest genius of them all, is a typical ruin of his age. For, except in a few of his later works, his sense of form and design is utterly lost in a mess of rhetoric, romance, and chiaroscuro. It is difficult to forgive the seventeenth century for what it made of Rembrandts genius.”
In Art, Clive Bell spends much of his time - though it is a short book - trying to define precisely what is this “significant form” which he, apparently alone, seems to recognize. Basically, it appears to be a post hoc quality. Anything he likes, or at least tolerates, has the quality. He certainly likes Cezanne and the other post impressionists, though these others rarely get a mention. For him, it seems, symbolism, literary reference, illustration, and, indeed, copying from nature do not qualify as art. Only when the artist gets under the surface of a subject to depict its essence is significant form achieved or revealed. He does not, however, mention Plato when he talks about “essence”, though there are copious references to the concept.
He cites Cezanne’s Provence landscapes as ideals. As an artist, for Bell he possessed special qualities. “To the eyes of the world, he appeared, so far as he appeared at all, a respectable, minor Impressionist, and admirer of Manet, a friend, if not a protégé, of Zola, a loyal, negligible disciple. He was on the right side, of course - the impressionist side, the side of the honest, disinterested artists, against the academic, literary pests. He believed in painting. He believed that it could be something better than an expensive substitute for photography, or an accompaniment to poor poetry.”
I thought there was a lot of suppressed, self-conscious Christianity – even guilt? - in much of Bell’s writing. This alone might explain his liking, reverence, indeed, for the Byzantine. It might also explain some of his dismissive language. It is almost as if he yearns for religious purity without ever admitting it. He could not bring himself to say what he really thought, perhaps thinking it might embarrass his contemporaries, or himself in their eyes. On many occasions, he seems hell-bent on appearing to be radical. He partially succeeds. “…the cultured, therefore, who expect in every picture, at least some reference to a familiar masterpiece, create, unconsciously enough, a thoroughly unwholesome atmosphere. For they are rich and patronizing and liberal. They are the very innocent, but natural enemies of originality, for an original work is the touchstone that exposes educated taste masquerading a sensibility”.
But overall in Clive Bell’s Art, one feels that there is an overbearing spirit of conservatism running through the argument, if that be the word to describe what becomes more and more of a tirade against an establishment of which he was himself, a part. On the surface, the theories seem plausible, but eventually they are incoherent, just a rant. “I like it therefore I like it” seems to be his theory. It’s not original, and it’s not uncommon.
Bell writes a good deal about the artist as a person of great power and insight. The power comes from an ability to see, effect and communicate “significant form”, a quality which apparently penetrates our senses and provokes emotional response. Bell’s analysis, if that be the right word, places very few of the practitioners over the centuries in the group he would call “artists”. If there be one artist amongst ten thousand practitioners, he remains happy that the one exists. So powerful is the product, no doubt, that it repays repeated viewing. It would have to because it wouldn’t have much company.
Clive Bell praises Byzantine art from the sixth century - San Vitale, Hagia Sophia, for instance - and he also has time for the same style of the late medieval period. He praises the early Renaissance, refers to Giotto many times, but sees things going downhill thereafter. Subsequently, not until the end of the nineteenth century with the emergence of Cezanne and the post-Impressionists does he find anything worthy of the label “art”.
Vast swathes of widely recognized work, therefore, he has to dismiss. “…the bulk, however, of those who flourished between the high Renaissance, and the contemporary movement may be divided into two classes, virtuosi and dunces. The clever fellows, the minor masters, who might have been artists, if painting had not absorbed all their energies, were throughout that period for ever setting themselves technical acrostics and solving them. The dunces continued to elaborate chromophotographs, and continue.”
Significant form is not just appearance, which, if it be the focus of the painter, he sees as merely copying. “…every sacrifice made to representation is something stolen from art.” Neither is art in detail. It certainly is not just colour. Basically, what Clive Bell likes, he labels as possessing “significant form” and thus he extends the underpopulated world of his “art”.
There are some significant exclusions. “Rembrandt, indeed, perhaps the greatest genius of them all, is a typical ruin of his age. For, except in a few of his later works, his sense of form and design is utterly lost in a mess of rhetoric, romance, and chiaroscuro. It is difficult to forgive the seventeenth century for what it made of Rembrandts genius.”
In Art, Clive Bell spends much of his time - though it is a short book - trying to define precisely what is this “significant form” which he, apparently alone, seems to recognize. Basically, it appears to be a post hoc quality. Anything he likes, or at least tolerates, has the quality. He certainly likes Cezanne and the other post impressionists, though these others rarely get a mention. For him, it seems, symbolism, literary reference, illustration, and, indeed, copying from nature do not qualify as art. Only when the artist gets under the surface of a subject to depict its essence is significant form achieved or revealed. He does not, however, mention Plato when he talks about “essence”, though there are copious references to the concept.
He cites Cezanne’s Provence landscapes as ideals. As an artist, for Bell he possessed special qualities. “To the eyes of the world, he appeared, so far as he appeared at all, a respectable, minor Impressionist, and admirer of Manet, a friend, if not a protégé, of Zola, a loyal, negligible disciple. He was on the right side, of course - the impressionist side, the side of the honest, disinterested artists, against the academic, literary pests. He believed in painting. He believed that it could be something better than an expensive substitute for photography, or an accompaniment to poor poetry.”
I thought there was a lot of suppressed, self-conscious Christianity – even guilt? - in much of Bell’s writing. This alone might explain his liking, reverence, indeed, for the Byzantine. It might also explain some of his dismissive language. It is almost as if he yearns for religious purity without ever admitting it. He could not bring himself to say what he really thought, perhaps thinking it might embarrass his contemporaries, or himself in their eyes. On many occasions, he seems hell-bent on appearing to be radical. He partially succeeds. “…the cultured, therefore, who expect in every picture, at least some reference to a familiar masterpiece, create, unconsciously enough, a thoroughly unwholesome atmosphere. For they are rich and patronizing and liberal. They are the very innocent, but natural enemies of originality, for an original work is the touchstone that exposes educated taste masquerading a sensibility”.
But overall in Clive Bell’s Art, one feels that there is an overbearing spirit of conservatism running through the argument, if that be the word to describe what becomes more and more of a tirade against an establishment of which he was himself, a part. On the surface, the theories seem plausible, but eventually they are incoherent, just a rant. “I like it therefore I like it” seems to be his theory. It’s not original, and it’s not uncommon.
December 3, 2023
كتابي المفضل لهذا العام ، غيّر حياتي _ ولا أقول جمل بهذه الدرامية كثيراً_ و لكنه وهبني أعين بصيرة و أيقظ وعي جديد بداخلي للفن والحياة .
يقول الكاتب " ثمة لحظات في الحياه هي غاياتٌ ليس بالكثير عليها أن يكون تاريخ البشرية بأسره وسيلة إليها "
عندما أنهيت الكتاب فكرت " وليس بالقليل على السنين التي قضيتها اتخبط بين الكتب أن تقتصر غايتها في الوصول لهذا الكتاب" .
_ لا أتفق مع الكاتب في بعض آراءه ولكنه منحني شئ لأدركه ثم أختلف معه ومن خلال مناقشتي الصامتة فهمتُ الكثير و شعرتُ بما لن أحلم حتى بالتعبير عنه مثله . وأثناء الاختلافات _أيضاً _ سحرتني كلماته .
يقول الكاتب " ثمة لحظات في الحياه هي غاياتٌ ليس بالكثير عليها أن يكون تاريخ البشرية بأسره وسيلة إليها "
عندما أنهيت الكتاب فكرت " وليس بالقليل على السنين التي قضيتها اتخبط بين الكتب أن تقتصر غايتها في الوصول لهذا الكتاب" .
_ لا أتفق مع الكاتب في بعض آراءه ولكنه منحني شئ لأدركه ثم أختلف معه ومن خلال مناقشتي الصامتة فهمتُ الكثير و شعرتُ بما لن أحلم حتى بالتعبير عنه مثله . وأثناء الاختلافات _أيضاً _ سحرتني كلماته .
October 23, 2018
ندين بالشكر لمؤسسة هنداوي لجعل هذا الكتاب مجانا و للمترجم الدكتور عادل مصطفي لترجمته الرائعة و السهلة للكتاب، كنت قط اطلعت علي النظرية الجمالية في أعمال السير روجر سكرتون، و مفهوم التذوق او " الانفعال الجمالي " في رسائل كتبها جلال أمين لأخيه في مفهوم الفن، و لكن كلايف بل ساعدني علي بلورة مفهوم تصنيف الفنون بعيداً عن أي سياق تاريخي أو تقني محدد، بالبحث عن الشكل الدال الذي يردي لانطباع و ليس العكس، كمان أن مزجه الرائع بين ميتافيزقية الفن و الدين و كيف أن كان الدين عن وقود الحركة الفنية الأوروبية في عصر النهضة في ايطاليا و يوضح بعد قرن لماذا انحدر الفن بهذا الشكل و المعمار خاصة، كتاب رائع جدا،و أظنني سأقرأه مرة أخري لتوضيح بعد الفكر بعد بحث.
March 27, 2014
حياة بدون فن هي ليست حياة .
والراحة هي العدو الأول للفن ، كان دائماً الفنانين هم الأكثر عملاً وانشغالاً واسرافاً في الفن ،لعلهم بذلك يعرضونه بشيء يشوه سمعتهم الشخصية .
لكن بوسع المجتمع أن يقدم شيئاً إتجاه الفن وهو تقديم مساحة أكبر للحرية ، ولعل أفضل ما يمكن أن يقدمه الشخص العادي من أجل الفن هو أن يثور من أجل مزيدٍ من الحرية.
هذا الكتاب لا يتحدث عن فن معين وإن كان قد تعمق في الفصول الأولى بفنون الرسم واللون ، لكنه يتحدث بالمجمل عن الفنون كلها ، يبقى أن أقول :-أن الفن دين لوحده ولا دين له ولا وطن يشبه الأديان الباقية أو الأوطان الباقية ، ستستمتع فعلاً مع هذا الكتاب .
والراحة هي العدو الأول للفن ، كان دائماً الفنانين هم الأكثر عملاً وانشغالاً واسرافاً في الفن ،لعلهم بذلك يعرضونه بشيء يشوه سمعتهم الشخصية .
لكن بوسع المجتمع أن يقدم شيئاً إتجاه الفن وهو تقديم مساحة أكبر للحرية ، ولعل أفضل ما يمكن أن يقدمه الشخص العادي من أجل الفن هو أن يثور من أجل مزيدٍ من الحرية.
هذا الكتاب لا يتحدث عن فن معين وإن كان قد تعمق في الفصول الأولى بفنون الرسم واللون ، لكنه يتحدث بالمجمل عن الفنون كلها ، يبقى أن أقول :-أن الفن دين لوحده ولا دين له ولا وطن يشبه الأديان الباقية أو الأوطان الباقية ، ستستمتع فعلاً مع هذا الكتاب .
February 17, 2020
كتاب غيّر مفهومي عن الفن.
بالرغم من التركيز المفرط على الشكل الدال وأنموذجه سيزان، والمبالغة في انتقاد بعض العصور، مثل العصر الفيكتوري وبعض الحركات الثقافية مثل النهضة الكلاسيكية، إلا أن الكتاب في مجمله رائع.
بالرغم من التركيز المفرط على الشكل الدال وأنموذجه سيزان، والمبالغة في انتقاد بعض العصور، مثل العصر الفيكتوري وبعض الحركات الثقافية مثل النهضة الكلاسيكية، إلا أن الكتاب في مجمله رائع.
February 3, 2021
stinky theory, circular reasoning. brownoses cezanne, doesn't respect renaissance art. saving grace is the friendly and jocular prose
April 4, 2016
لا أدري ما الذي يميز الانجليز الشباب، فلا تملك الا ان تعجب بجرائتهم على تقديم افكارهم متجاهلين بطريريكيات ثقافية عتيدية، فهذا بيل القاسي بأحكامه في كتابه "الفن" يعيد تكرار كولن ولسون ولورنس وبيكون وغيرهم في اقوى منتجاتهم في سنوات شبابهم الأولى!
من الواضح أنه كان لدينا فتى متعصبا لمقولة الفن للفن. شيء يعجب البعض خصوصا ممن يشتغلون بالفن أو الابداع عموما ويريدون ان يتحرروا -على طريقة محمود درويش- "من هذا الحب القاسي" وما تعنيه بخصوص القضايا الكبرى، وآخرون وعلى الاغلب سيكون المثقف العضوي الأكثر حضورا بينهم سينظرون شزرا للفكرة التي شدد عليها الفيلسوف طوال كتابه عن الفن
لكن علينا ان لا نتشدد، خصوصا نحن معشر الذين يرون في الفن جزء من الانسان يمثل او يتمثل قضاياه وهمومه، إضافة الى اولئك الذين يريدون التحرر والتعامل مع "فنهم" مجردا، لأنهم سيكتشفون أشياء ستزعجهم ايضا
الكتاب الذي اعترف كاتبه بانه كان نتيجة لمناقشات حية وجدالات واسعة مع من يرفضون نظريته، بذل جهدا لا يقل عن تعصبه لتوضيح ما يرى انه فن، او كما يقول زبدة علم الجمال، أي الشكل الدال. وبعد ان يعترف بأنه لا يمكن ان يقدم هذا التمييز فيما يتعلق بالموسيقى مثلا، وان الدب او الكتابة عموما لا يمكن ان تنخرط تحت تبويباته، يركز على المدلول البصري الجمالي في النحت والرسم بشكل خاص، ملقيا بتركة كبيرة من الموروث البصري الوروبي خارج منطقة الفن، باعتبارها اعمال حرفية تقليدانية لا يمكن ان تستفز الاستيطيقيا في الانسان مهما بدت مبهرة او جميلة بشكل سوقي
كليف بيل يدعونا الى ركل كل المعاجم الفنية والنظريات بأقدامنا، ويطالبنا بأن نكون بدائيين، ليس من فن أخلاقي او تصويري أو واقعي.. كل هذا عبارة عن نماذج عليها ان تترك المكان للصور الفوتوغرافية –التي بدأت تظهر في عصره- لأن العاطفة الجمالية هي ما يجب ان توحد البشر لاستخراج الاستطيقيا وتحريرها من الأفكار المسبقة، الذوق العام والثقافة الوطنية هي عقائد تشوه الفن، الزمن والحضارة لا يمكن ان تكون سببا للتفريق، فلوحة من الصين قبل خمسة الاف سنة ستكون قادرة على اثارة نفس الحس الجمالي للوحة مابعد انطباعية في نهاية القرن التاسع عشر..
أي أن لوحة المزهرية لفان كوخ، او عربة القش لجون كونستابل ليست الا لطخات لا يمكن ان تسمى فنا. مقارنة بلوحة الدكتور للوك فيلدز، تلك التي يرى فيها قمة الخداع الذي يمارسه فنان تجاه الاخلاقيين او الانسانيين في الفن
يعترف بيل لاحقا بعد نحو 30 عاما من كتابه أنه كان قاسيا ومتطرفا في احكامه، وان كتابه بحاجة لتعديلات جوهرية، لكنه يرفض ذلك لنه يعتبره محاولة تستحق البقاء، وهي فعلا كذلك، خصوصا اذا تعاملنا معه بنقدية مهما كانت بسيطة لغير ضليع بالفن كحالتي هذه، فحتى انتقادات بيل كانت تدحض نفسها بطريقة او بأخرى، خصوصا لوحة الدكتور التي وان كانت تدين نوعا من الاخلاقيات العصرية لكنها تنطلق من عقلية اخلاقة او احكام انسانية اخرى نقيضة لها، بالتالي هي "فن استيطيقي عميق واصيل- حسب تعبير بيل" يعبر عن قضية..
من الواضح أنه كان لدينا فتى متعصبا لمقولة الفن للفن. شيء يعجب البعض خصوصا ممن يشتغلون بالفن أو الابداع عموما ويريدون ان يتحرروا -على طريقة محمود درويش- "من هذا الحب القاسي" وما تعنيه بخصوص القضايا الكبرى، وآخرون وعلى الاغلب سيكون المثقف العضوي الأكثر حضورا بينهم سينظرون شزرا للفكرة التي شدد عليها الفيلسوف طوال كتابه عن الفن
لكن علينا ان لا نتشدد، خصوصا نحن معشر الذين يرون في الفن جزء من الانسان يمثل او يتمثل قضاياه وهمومه، إضافة الى اولئك الذين يريدون التحرر والتعامل مع "فنهم" مجردا، لأنهم سيكتشفون أشياء ستزعجهم ايضا
الكتاب الذي اعترف كاتبه بانه كان نتيجة لمناقشات حية وجدالات واسعة مع من يرفضون نظريته، بذل جهدا لا يقل عن تعصبه لتوضيح ما يرى انه فن، او كما يقول زبدة علم الجمال، أي الشكل الدال. وبعد ان يعترف بأنه لا يمكن ان يقدم هذا التمييز فيما يتعلق بالموسيقى مثلا، وان الدب او الكتابة عموما لا يمكن ان تنخرط تحت تبويباته، يركز على المدلول البصري الجمالي في النحت والرسم بشكل خاص، ملقيا بتركة كبيرة من الموروث البصري الوروبي خارج منطقة الفن، باعتبارها اعمال حرفية تقليدانية لا يمكن ان تستفز الاستيطيقيا في الانسان مهما بدت مبهرة او جميلة بشكل سوقي
كليف بيل يدعونا الى ركل كل المعاجم الفنية والنظريات بأقدامنا، ويطالبنا بأن نكون بدائيين، ليس من فن أخلاقي او تصويري أو واقعي.. كل هذا عبارة عن نماذج عليها ان تترك المكان للصور الفوتوغرافية –التي بدأت تظهر في عصره- لأن العاطفة الجمالية هي ما يجب ان توحد البشر لاستخراج الاستطيقيا وتحريرها من الأفكار المسبقة، الذوق العام والثقافة الوطنية هي عقائد تشوه الفن، الزمن والحضارة لا يمكن ان تكون سببا للتفريق، فلوحة من الصين قبل خمسة الاف سنة ستكون قادرة على اثارة نفس الحس الجمالي للوحة مابعد انطباعية في نهاية القرن التاسع عشر..
أي أن لوحة المزهرية لفان كوخ، او عربة القش لجون كونستابل ليست الا لطخات لا يمكن ان تسمى فنا. مقارنة بلوحة الدكتور للوك فيلدز، تلك التي يرى فيها قمة الخداع الذي يمارسه فنان تجاه الاخلاقيين او الانسانيين في الفن
يعترف بيل لاحقا بعد نحو 30 عاما من كتابه أنه كان قاسيا ومتطرفا في احكامه، وان كتابه بحاجة لتعديلات جوهرية، لكنه يرفض ذلك لنه يعتبره محاولة تستحق البقاء، وهي فعلا كذلك، خصوصا اذا تعاملنا معه بنقدية مهما كانت بسيطة لغير ضليع بالفن كحالتي هذه، فحتى انتقادات بيل كانت تدحض نفسها بطريقة او بأخرى، خصوصا لوحة الدكتور التي وان كانت تدين نوعا من الاخلاقيات العصرية لكنها تنطلق من عقلية اخلاقة او احكام انسانية اخرى نقيضة لها، بالتالي هي "فن استيطيقي عميق واصيل- حسب تعبير بيل" يعبر عن قضية..
July 28, 2015
كلايف بل
رغم أن مسمى فلسفة الفن عميق جداً إلى أن الكتاب بسيط نوعاً ما والترجمه جميله
في هذا الكتاب يضع كلايف نظريته الفلسفيه في الفن (الإستيطقيا الجماليه) والدي جعلها معياراً متطرفاً لصدق الفن أو كذبه او كما قال لردائته أو جودته ، يسهب في شرح النظريه الموسعه التي اثارت جدل والتي تقوم على حس إنفعالي لم يجعل ضوابط ولكن يبدو أنه تبنى بذلك الفلسفه الروحيه في لإثارت هذا الحس لأنه كما يقول لابد ان تهزك وتحرك مشاعرك الوحه او العمل الذي امامك بغض النظر عن ثقافتك فالفن الحقيقي هو للأنسان .
تحدث عن مواضيع كثيره مدعماً نظريته في الفن والمجتمع والفن والدين والفن والاخلاق والفن والتاريخ .
كتاب جميل وسيعطيك ثقافه فنيه جيده وسيغير ذائقتك للفن
رغم أن مسمى فلسفة الفن عميق جداً إلى أن الكتاب بسيط نوعاً ما والترجمه جميله
في هذا الكتاب يضع كلايف نظريته الفلسفيه في الفن (الإستيطقيا الجماليه) والدي جعلها معياراً متطرفاً لصدق الفن أو كذبه او كما قال لردائته أو جودته ، يسهب في شرح النظريه الموسعه التي اثارت جدل والتي تقوم على حس إنفعالي لم يجعل ضوابط ولكن يبدو أنه تبنى بذلك الفلسفه الروحيه في لإثارت هذا الحس لأنه كما يقول لابد ان تهزك وتحرك مشاعرك الوحه او العمل الذي امامك بغض النظر عن ثقافتك فالفن الحقيقي هو للأنسان .
تحدث عن مواضيع كثيره مدعماً نظريته في الفن والمجتمع والفن والدين والفن والاخلاق والفن والتاريخ .
كتاب جميل وسيعطيك ثقافه فنيه جيده وسيغير ذائقتك للفن
June 14, 2016
يقول د. عادل مصطفى -مترجم الكتاب- في مقدمته: " هذا الكتاب أنشودةٌ في الفن صدح بها في أوائل القرن العشرين، صوت من أعذب الأصوات الفلسفية وأعمقها، وجد فيه أهل زمانه ترجمة صادقة لتلك الروح التي كانت آنذاك تدأبُ لكي تعي ذاتها، وتلوب لكي تقبض على هويتها، ووجدت فيه الأجيال التالية معنى لا يغيب صداه وهدياً لا تضل بعده في فهم طبيعة الفن وكنهه وحقيقته النهائية"
هذا الكتاب أعجوبة في فلسفة الفن، جميل، دسم ويقرأ بتأنٍّ.
هذا الكتاب أعجوبة في فلسفة الفن، جميل، دسم ويقرأ بتأنٍّ.
Read
February 4, 2024عمرك وقفتي أمام لوحة في متحف و تسائلتي : علاش الآخر باغي يشريها بالملايين في حين أنا كنشوفها محض هراء ؟ واش فاتتني شي حاجة ما شفتهاش أم هوما اللي مشاعرهم مزيفة و مبالغ فيها ؟
في سنة 1913، جا الكاتب و الناقد الفني الإنجليزي كلايف بل بنظرية ثورية فالكتاب ديالو " الفن " و اللي غايبدل منظور الأجيال للفن للأبد. هاد الكتاب هو حجر الأساس ليس فقط لرواد الفن البصري، إنما لكل أنواع الفنون.
و بفضل الترجمة الرائعة للسيد عادل مصطفى، صار ممكنا للعربي الملم بالفن يقرا لأكبر أساتذة التنظير الفني.
باش نفهمو نظرية بل الفنية خاصنا نفهمو أولا طبيعة العالم اللي حنا مقبلين عليه :
🌠 عالم إستطيقي
في العالم المادي، كانحسو بالجمال فجناح فراشة، فزهرة أو فملامح امرأة حسناء...، القدرة على استشعار هاد الجمال أو المَلاحة موجود عند معظمنا نحن البشر، لكن في لحظات تأمل الفن الحقيقي كنحسو بإنفعال جمالي أو استطيقي مختلف تماما عن المَلاحة، هاد الإنفعال عبارة عن حالة ذهنية كاتخلينا ننفصلو عن الواقع و عن عالم المادة خلال تأملنا للفن الجيد.
عموما كاينين 2 دالأنواع د الناس : ذوي الحساسية المرهفة و هم أكثر حظا و أسرع استجابة للإنفعال الاستطيقي، ثم ذوي الحساسية المتدنية أو المنعدمة اللي رغم أنهم أذكياء و نوابغ في المجالات الفكرية ما قادرينش يستاجبو إستطيقيا و لا يدخلو لعالم الوجد و الحدس.
إذن فالإنفعال الإستطيقي هو ملَكَة عند أصحاب الحساسية المرهفة، و هو المعيار الوحيد لقياس جودة العمل الفني.
قلنا أن كل ما يحركنا إستطيقيا فهو فن حقيقي، لكن شنو هو الشيء بالضبط المتوفر في اللوحة الجيدة و المنعدم في اللوحة الرديئة و كايثيرنا إستطيقيا ؟
هاد الشيء سماه كلايف " الشكل الدال" Significant Form، و الشكل الدال في الفن البصري هو مجموعة من تنظيمات و توليفات معينة للخطوط و الألوان كاترجم لينا الحالة الإنفعالية للفنان في لحظة إلهام. كيفاش كايجيه الإلهام ؟ معظم الفنانين كايجيهم الإلهام من التأمل فالطبيعة.
إذن الفنان هو ذلك الشخص القادر في لحظة إلهام يبث لينا حالته الروحية عن طريق خلق الشكل الدال في اللوحة و النتيجة أننا كانفاعلو إستطيقيا.
🌠 الفن و الحرفة عبر الزمن
عكس علم الأحياء، الفن ماكايخضعش للتطورية؛ لوحة من عصر النهضة ليست أفضل من تمثال من الفن البدائي، و لوحة تكعيبية ليست أفضل من لوحة انطباعية...، فجودة الفن كاترتفع و تنحدر حسب الحالة الروحية لفناني كل عصر.
كلايف كايشوف أن الفن البدائي من أغنى و أصدق الفنون، السبب أنه في بداية ظهور الفن كان البشر كيمارسو الفن لا لشيء سوى ممارسته، أي أن الفن غاية في حد ذاته، مع مرور الزمن بداو الناس كينساو الدور الحقيقي للفن و تحول فجأة لحرفة، هاد الظاهرة تجلت أكثر في الحقبة الفكتورية، حيث تحول الفن لبورتريهات تحت الطلب تتملق الأسر الحاكمة و الكهنة و رجال السلطة.
لا شك أن معظم لوحات الحقبة الفكتورية كاتبيّن براعة في التصوير، و لكن التصوير و محاكاة الواقع ليس بفن. لوحات الإرشاد و الرموز و التعبير عن مشاعر دنيوية هي أعمال حِرفية، أما الفنان الحقيقي فكايستعمل الحرفية فخلق شكل دال كايمرر عبره حالة إستطيقية فوق بشرية.
🌠 الفن و الدين صديقان حميمان
الفن و الروح الدينية وجهان لعملة واحدة، فالنشوة الإستطيقية و الحالة الروحية السامية الناتجة عن عبادة جياشة نفس الشيء، كما أن الدين و الفن لا علاقة لهما باعتقادات الفكر، غير أن الدين صار مقيد بالدوغما من بعد ما طاح فأيدي الكهنة و الفن بقى كايقدس الروح بلا ما يخضع لطائفة معينة.
🌠 الفن و الأخلاق : فريق تولستوي أم فريق كلايف ؟
هل الفن خير ؟
كلايف و تولستوي متفقين بأن الفن خير، و لكن الإختلاف الجوهري كاين فأن تولستوي كيشوف الفن وسيلة للأعمال الخيرة، بمعنى أن الفن هو الوسيلة و العمل الإنساني هو الغاية. أما كلايف فكايقول أن الفن بحد ذاته غاية لأن الفن ينتج أسمى حالة ذهنية إستطيقية في الوجود، و هاد الحالة الخيرة تكفي في حد ذاتها.
🌠 الفن و الثقافة : من قال أنهما عدوان ؟
كلايف كايعتبر الثقافة خطر على الفن، ذلك أن الثقافة مع أنها تدعم الفن ظاهريا، إلا أن عندها معايير تقدس بها روائع الماضي فقط، و الفنانين المعاصرين اللي كايقلدو هاد الروائع هوما المرحب بهم في نخبة المثقفين. أما الفن الجديد غير المألوف كايتعرض في البداية للنبذ، ما يؤدي إلى الإنتحار الفني، و إلا بقى الفنان متمسك بالفن ديالو غايعتارفو به في وقت متأخر في دائرة المثقفين.
🌠 الفن و المجتمع : سيزان يحرر الفن
للفن أثر كبير على المجتمع، في الفن كانكتشفو أنفسنا و كانكتشفو الآخرين بل نصير كُلاًّ لا يتجزئ بفعل التشارك الوجداني، يدين المجتمع بهذا الفضل للفنانين أمثال سيزان. استغرق سيزان 40 سنة من العمل المتواصل الصامت استطع خلالها يكسر القواعد الصارمة للفن الكلاسيكي و يقبض على الشكل الدال في عدد من لوحاته، بالتالي ألهم معظم فناني الحركة المعاصرة بحال بيكاسو، فان جوخ و جوجان.
الخير اللي يقدر يدير المجتمع للفن هو يرفع عليه الضوابط القيود و يسد مدارس الفن، فآخر ما يوده الفنان أن يصير موظفا بربطة عنق؛ الفنان متمرد و فوضوي بطبيعته، و القاعدة الوحيدة التي تسري في عالمه هي العمل على إثارة الإنفعال الإستطيقي في فنه.
إقتباسات :
🖌 ينبغي أن يكون هناك مزيد من الفن الشعبي، مزيد من ذلك الفن الذي لا أهمية له بالنسبة للعالم و لكنه مهم بالنسبة للفرد.
🖌 إن الفن لا يُتعلم. و هو على أي حال لا يُدرس. و كل ما بوسع مدرس الرسم أن يدرسه هو صنعة التقليد
🖌 إن الفن الذي لا يرقى إلى مستوى المعرض العام لا بأس بأن نبدعه رغم ذلك لمتعتنا الخاصة. و ما أن نستوعب هذا المبدأ حتى لا يعود أحد يستشعر خجلا حين يسمى هاويا.
🖌 قليلة هي الأشياء الهامة التي تقبل البرهان. فالأشياء الهامة يتوجب أن يُحَس بها و يُعبَّر عنها.
🖌 الخير الوحيد الذي يمكن للمجتمع أن يسديه إلى الفنان هو أن يتركه و شأنه. أن يمنحه الحرية. فكلما تحرر الفنان من ضغط الذوق العام و الرأي العام، و من رجاء المكافآت و وعيد الأخلاق، و من الخوف من الجوع التام أو الخوف من العقاب، و من مخايل الثروة أو التقدير الشعبي. كان ذلك أفضل له و أفضل للفن. و أفضل بالتالي للجميع.
في سنة 1913، جا الكاتب و الناقد الفني الإنجليزي كلايف بل بنظرية ثورية فالكتاب ديالو " الفن " و اللي غايبدل منظور الأجيال للفن للأبد. هاد الكتاب هو حجر الأساس ليس فقط لرواد الفن البصري، إنما لكل أنواع الفنون.
و بفضل الترجمة الرائعة للسيد عادل مصطفى، صار ممكنا للعربي الملم بالفن يقرا لأكبر أساتذة التنظير الفني.
باش نفهمو نظرية بل الفنية خاصنا نفهمو أولا طبيعة العالم اللي حنا مقبلين عليه :
🌠 عالم إستطيقي
في العالم المادي، كانحسو بالجمال فجناح فراشة، فزهرة أو فملامح امرأة حسناء...، القدرة على استشعار هاد الجمال أو المَلاحة موجود عند معظمنا نحن البشر، لكن في لحظات تأمل الفن الحقيقي كنحسو بإنفعال جمالي أو استطيقي مختلف تماما عن المَلاحة، هاد الإنفعال عبارة عن حالة ذهنية كاتخلينا ننفصلو عن الواقع و عن عالم المادة خلال تأملنا للفن الجيد.
عموما كاينين 2 دالأنواع د الناس : ذوي الحساسية المرهفة و هم أكثر حظا و أسرع استجابة للإنفعال الاستطيقي، ثم ذوي الحساسية المتدنية أو المنعدمة اللي رغم أنهم أذكياء و نوابغ في المجالات الفكرية ما قادرينش يستاجبو إستطيقيا و لا يدخلو لعالم الوجد و الحدس.
إذن فالإنفعال الإستطيقي هو ملَكَة عند أصحاب الحساسية المرهفة، و هو المعيار الوحيد لقياس جودة العمل الفني.
قلنا أن كل ما يحركنا إستطيقيا فهو فن حقيقي، لكن شنو هو الشيء بالضبط المتوفر في اللوحة الجيدة و المنعدم في اللوحة الرديئة و كايثيرنا إستطيقيا ؟
هاد الشيء سماه كلايف " الشكل الدال" Significant Form، و الشكل الدال في الفن البصري هو مجموعة من تنظيمات و توليفات معينة للخطوط و الألوان كاترجم لينا الحالة الإنفعالية للفنان في لحظة إلهام. كيفاش كايجيه الإلهام ؟ معظم الفنانين كايجيهم الإلهام من التأمل فالطبيعة.
إذن الفنان هو ذلك الشخص القادر في لحظة إلهام يبث لينا حالته الروحية عن طريق خلق الشكل الدال في اللوحة و النتيجة أننا كانفاعلو إستطيقيا.
🌠 الفن و الحرفة عبر الزمن
عكس علم الأحياء، الفن ماكايخضعش للتطورية؛ لوحة من عصر النهضة ليست أفضل من تمثال من الفن البدائي، و لوحة تكعيبية ليست أفضل من لوحة انطباعية...، فجودة الفن كاترتفع و تنحدر حسب الحالة الروحية لفناني كل عصر.
كلايف كايشوف أن الفن البدائي من أغنى و أصدق الفنون، السبب أنه في بداية ظهور الفن كان البشر كيمارسو الفن لا لشيء سوى ممارسته، أي أن الفن غاية في حد ذاته، مع مرور الزمن بداو الناس كينساو الدور الحقيقي للفن و تحول فجأة لحرفة، هاد الظاهرة تجلت أكثر في الحقبة الفكتورية، حيث تحول الفن لبورتريهات تحت الطلب تتملق الأسر الحاكمة و الكهنة و رجال السلطة.
لا شك أن معظم لوحات الحقبة الفكتورية كاتبيّن براعة في التصوير، و لكن التصوير و محاكاة الواقع ليس بفن. لوحات الإرشاد و الرموز و التعبير عن مشاعر دنيوية هي أعمال حِرفية، أما الفنان الحقيقي فكايستعمل الحرفية فخلق شكل دال كايمرر عبره حالة إستطيقية فوق بشرية.
🌠 الفن و الدين صديقان حميمان
الفن و الروح الدينية وجهان لعملة واحدة، فالنشوة الإستطيقية و الحالة الروحية السامية الناتجة عن عبادة جياشة نفس الشيء، كما أن الدين و الفن لا علاقة لهما باعتقادات الفكر، غير أن الدين صار مقيد بالدوغما من بعد ما طاح فأيدي الكهنة و الفن بقى كايقدس الروح بلا ما يخضع لطائفة معينة.
🌠 الفن و الأخلاق : فريق تولستوي أم فريق كلايف ؟
هل الفن خير ؟
كلايف و تولستوي متفقين بأن الفن خير، و لكن الإختلاف الجوهري كاين فأن تولستوي كيشوف الفن وسيلة للأعمال الخيرة، بمعنى أن الفن هو الوسيلة و العمل الإنساني هو الغاية. أما كلايف فكايقول أن الفن بحد ذاته غاية لأن الفن ينتج أسمى حالة ذهنية إستطيقية في الوجود، و هاد الحالة الخيرة تكفي في حد ذاتها.
🌠 الفن و الثقافة : من قال أنهما عدوان ؟
كلايف كايعتبر الثقافة خطر على الفن، ذلك أن الثقافة مع أنها تدعم الفن ظاهريا، إلا أن عندها معايير تقدس بها روائع الماضي فقط، و الفنانين المعاصرين اللي كايقلدو هاد الروائع هوما المرحب بهم في نخبة المثقفين. أما الفن الجديد غير المألوف كايتعرض في البداية للنبذ، ما يؤدي إلى الإنتحار الفني، و إلا بقى الفنان متمسك بالفن ديالو غايعتارفو به في وقت متأخر في دائرة المثقفين.
🌠 الفن و المجتمع : سيزان يحرر الفن
للفن أثر كبير على المجتمع، في الفن كانكتشفو أنفسنا و كانكتشفو الآخرين بل نصير كُلاًّ لا يتجزئ بفعل التشارك الوجداني، يدين المجتمع بهذا الفضل للفنانين أمثال سيزان. استغرق سيزان 40 سنة من العمل المتواصل الصامت استطع خلالها يكسر القواعد الصارمة للفن الكلاسيكي و يقبض على الشكل الدال في عدد من لوحاته، بالتالي ألهم معظم فناني الحركة المعاصرة بحال بيكاسو، فان جوخ و جوجان.
الخير اللي يقدر يدير المجتمع للفن هو يرفع عليه الضوابط القيود و يسد مدارس الفن، فآخر ما يوده الفنان أن يصير موظفا بربطة عنق؛ الفنان متمرد و فوضوي بطبيعته، و القاعدة الوحيدة التي تسري في عالمه هي العمل على إثارة الإنفعال الإستطيقي في فنه.
إقتباسات :
🖌 ينبغي أن يكون هناك مزيد من الفن الشعبي، مزيد من ذلك الفن الذي لا أهمية له بالنسبة للعالم و لكنه مهم بالنسبة للفرد.
🖌 إن الفن لا يُتعلم. و هو على أي حال لا يُدرس. و كل ما بوسع مدرس الرسم أن يدرسه هو صنعة التقليد
🖌 إن الفن الذي لا يرقى إلى مستوى المعرض العام لا بأس بأن نبدعه رغم ذلك لمتعتنا الخاصة. و ما أن نستوعب هذا المبدأ حتى لا يعود أحد يستشعر خجلا حين يسمى هاويا.
🖌 قليلة هي الأشياء الهامة التي تقبل البرهان. فالأشياء الهامة يتوجب أن يُحَس بها و يُعبَّر عنها.
🖌 الخير الوحيد الذي يمكن للمجتمع أن يسديه إلى الفنان هو أن يتركه و شأنه. أن يمنحه الحرية. فكلما تحرر الفنان من ضغط الذوق العام و الرأي العام، و من رجاء المكافآت و وعيد الأخلاق، و من الخوف من الجوع التام أو الخوف من العقاب، و من مخايل الثروة أو التقدير الشعبي. كان ذلك أفضل له و أفضل للفن. و أفضل بالتالي للجميع.
September 22, 2014
كتاب لطيف، يعتبر من أول ما كتب في علم الفنون والاستطيقا .. لدي اعتراضات على تفاصيل فيه لكنه أعجبني بالمجمل
August 16, 2022
يحصل القارىء على متعة ومعرفة حين تمتزج الذائقة والمحبة مع الرؤية النقدية.
كتاب في الحديث عن الفن، في محبته، والرغبة بكشف أسراره مسنودا بجرعة من تاريخه غير المثقلة بالمفاهيم واللغات الأكاديمية
كتاب في الحديث عن الفن، في محبته، والرغبة بكشف أسراره مسنودا بجرعة من تاريخه غير المثقلة بالمفاهيم واللغات الأكاديمية
June 9, 2020
Bell's central concern is the question of what makes 'art', which, for him, is a much more exclusive category than any painted prettiness. In fact, Bell excludes from his definition of art the produce of the overwhelming majority of would-be 'artists' of the last 1000 years or more. He suggests that art is that which is capable of triggering in the beholder the aesthetic emotion - that distinct feeling one experiences before great art, quite distinct from what people (except great artists themselves) feel when they behold a beautiful natural vista or person.
In Bell's view, creating art is dependent on a way of seeing the world, and effectively translating this into significant form. Bell's theory is convincing enough, though it lacks the clarity reserved for greater philosophers in talking about the thornier concepts in his theory. In particular, he talks about the artist seeing the world as an end-in-itself, an object independent of wider context. In this he fails to lay out his own detailed theory of perception, and thus depends on readers' intuitive understanding of what he's getting at. It left me feeling that he himself lacked a nuanced understanding of what he was saying. It also left unanswered the question of why viewing the world in this way is what creates good art and, as important, why seeing objects within their context precludes rendering them as true art.
He makes some allusion to how artists seeing the world this way gives them access to some element of the fabric of reality, implying that a decontextualised view of objects is in some way a truer way of seeing, one that peels away false layers of impost meaning and gets to the essence of the thing. This is an interesting idea that isn't really articulated clearly enough to be able to clearly fit into wider debates about perception.
His idea of significant form, while it does appeal on some intuitive level, stands on a shaky theoretical basis. It seems far more defined by what it's not than what it is. It's distinct from beauty (because that exists in nature, not to mention how great art isn't necessarily beautiful). It's also distinct from life-likeness or what we may today call photo-realism, as this isn't saying anything new about the subject and is merely a demonstration of technical skill not artistry. It's also distinct from artisanship, which begins from the wrong basis.
Bell becomes fairly dependent on examples to try and get at what he means. These do help, but leave one feeling that his theory lacks precision. He's a particular fan of Cézanne, who's artistic peak was a decade or two prior to Bell's writing. Van Gogh is also a good artist to look at to grasp Bell's ideas. In these artists it becomes clear how they see the world not as a camera sees it, and render this perception in brilliant fidelity on the canvas in such a way that invites the viewer to look beyond the subject and at the form.
Unfortunately I'm left feeling that Bell doesn't get us much further than a theory of art that suggests 'you know it when you see it'. Nonetheless, he does hint at ways that one may go about seeing it. I certainly feel that, having read it, I'm better equipped to seek out the (often elusive) aesthetic emotion in looking at art. In particular for me, there is a powerful call in the book to not try to understand or think too much about art, as this hampers it's ability to do what it's meant to do, which is to make you feel.
In Bell's view, creating art is dependent on a way of seeing the world, and effectively translating this into significant form. Bell's theory is convincing enough, though it lacks the clarity reserved for greater philosophers in talking about the thornier concepts in his theory. In particular, he talks about the artist seeing the world as an end-in-itself, an object independent of wider context. In this he fails to lay out his own detailed theory of perception, and thus depends on readers' intuitive understanding of what he's getting at. It left me feeling that he himself lacked a nuanced understanding of what he was saying. It also left unanswered the question of why viewing the world in this way is what creates good art and, as important, why seeing objects within their context precludes rendering them as true art.
He makes some allusion to how artists seeing the world this way gives them access to some element of the fabric of reality, implying that a decontextualised view of objects is in some way a truer way of seeing, one that peels away false layers of impost meaning and gets to the essence of the thing. This is an interesting idea that isn't really articulated clearly enough to be able to clearly fit into wider debates about perception.
His idea of significant form, while it does appeal on some intuitive level, stands on a shaky theoretical basis. It seems far more defined by what it's not than what it is. It's distinct from beauty (because that exists in nature, not to mention how great art isn't necessarily beautiful). It's also distinct from life-likeness or what we may today call photo-realism, as this isn't saying anything new about the subject and is merely a demonstration of technical skill not artistry. It's also distinct from artisanship, which begins from the wrong basis.
Bell becomes fairly dependent on examples to try and get at what he means. These do help, but leave one feeling that his theory lacks precision. He's a particular fan of Cézanne, who's artistic peak was a decade or two prior to Bell's writing. Van Gogh is also a good artist to look at to grasp Bell's ideas. In these artists it becomes clear how they see the world not as a camera sees it, and render this perception in brilliant fidelity on the canvas in such a way that invites the viewer to look beyond the subject and at the form.
Unfortunately I'm left feeling that Bell doesn't get us much further than a theory of art that suggests 'you know it when you see it'. Nonetheless, he does hint at ways that one may go about seeing it. I certainly feel that, having read it, I'm better equipped to seek out the (often elusive) aesthetic emotion in looking at art. In particular for me, there is a powerful call in the book to not try to understand or think too much about art, as this hampers it's ability to do what it's meant to do, which is to make you feel.
December 14, 2015
Apa itu seni?
The Simpsons season 25 episode ke 15 yang berjudul The War of Art. Dalam Episode ini menceritakan tentang lukisan di ruang tamu keluarga Simpsons rusak oleh seekor marmut peliharaan Lisa, hal ini membuat Marge (ibunya Lisa) merasa sedih, karena ruang tamu tak lagi dihiasi oleh karya seni. Marge meminta Homer (Suami Marge) untuk pergi ke galeri membeli karya lukisan yang baru untuk di pajang di ruang tamu.
Marge dan Homer pergi ke Yard Sale di rumah tetangganya bernama Kirk. Marge melihat-lihat barang yang di jual di sana kemudian ia terkesima dengan sebuah lukisan. Secara spontan dia berkata
“Oh my gosh, that’s beautiful! I’ve never seen a painting with a lighthouse before.”
Marge membujuk Homer untuk membeli lukisan pemandangan desa di pesisir pantai dengan bangunan mercusuar di sudut pantai. Harga lukisan tersebut 20 Dollar. Akhirnya mereka membeli lukisan itu.
Sepulangnya ke rumah, Marge hendak menggantungkan lukisan yang ia beli di dinding, ia melepas bingkai lukisan itu, kemudian Lisa melihat di sudut kiri bawah lukisan ada tanda tangan bertuliskan nama Johan Oldenveldt. Setelah dilihat di internet, ternyata Johan Oldenveldt adalah seorang seniman lukis yang pernah tinggal di Amsterdam dan Paris, pelukis naturalis yang banyak karyanya. Marge dan Homer mendengar kabar itu dan terkejut. Mereka berpikir lukisan yang ia beli harga sebenarnya pasti mahal.
Marge dan Homer pergi ke galeri dan bertanya pada seorang ahli untuk mencari tahu tentang lukisan Johan Oldenveldt itu. Setelah lukisan itu dicermati oleh seorang ahli di galeri, ia mengatakan
“Ah yes, seascape, marvelous natural light, classic use of gouache. You’re right! This is an early-career Oldenveldt. Quite valuable. I expect it to go somewhere between 80 to 100.000 Dollar!”
Mendengar itu Marga dan Homer terkejut. Bayangan tentang kekayaan dan kehidupan mewah melintas di pikiran Homer, ia berniat untuk melelangnya di pelelangan karya seni.
Kabar tentang lukisan Oldenveldt berharga 100.000 Dollar itu sampai ke Kirk, orang yang menjual lukisan itu hanya dengan 20 Dollar. Kirk menggugat Homer dan Marge untuk membagi hasil penjualan lukisan Oldenveldt karena mereka secara tidak sengaja menjualnya dengan harga murah. Perdebatan pun terjadi tentang siapa yang berhak memiliki uang hasil penjualan lukisan Oldenveldt. Homer dan Marge disepakati sebagai pemilik sah lukisannya.
Ketika proses pelelangan lukisan Oldenveldt, satang seorang perempuan, mengaku sebagai ‘teman dekat’ (pernah tinggal serumah) dari Kirk. Dia mengatakan bahwa lukisan itu miliknya dan diambil oleh Kirk ketika mereka saling berpisah. Pelelang pun menghentikan proses pelelangan sampai lukisan itu ditetapkan pemilik sahnya.
Homer dan Lisa pergi ke Cafe Artiste untuk mencari tahu asal usul lukisan itu. Di sana mereka bertemu dengan Klaus Ziegler, ia mengaku sebagai pelukis asli dari lukisan yang Homer dan Lisa bawa.
Terjadi perbincangan antara Homer, Lisa, dengan Klaus Zigler. Lisa menuduh Zigler sebagai forger. Ziegler mengelak, dia mengaku sebagai art forger. Ziegler telah banyak melukis lukisan seni imitasi dan berhasil mengelabui banyak galeri dengan karyanya. Lisa berkata
“What you do is horrible. Ripping off geniuses who spent years perfecting their style!”
Ziegler membalas
“Perhaps you are the one who is horrible. You only cared about that painting when it was created by someone famous. Beauty is beauty. My forgeries give pleasure to peaple all over the world. The only real question to ask about art, whether it’s in the Louvre or on a freshman’s wall at cal state fullerton is, “Did it move you?”.
Penulis setuju dengan perkataan Ziegler, bahwa dalam hal seni, pertanyaan yang relevan adalah “apakah karya itu menggerakkan emosi atau pengalaman estetik kita?”
Bell Clive dalam bukunya berjudul Art, ia mengatakan bahwa seni atau karya seni mengandung sesuatu hal esensial yang membuat ia menjadi berbeda dengan jenis-jenis karya yang lainnya. Kualitas esensial ini jika tidak ada maka sesuatu itu bukanlah karya seni, kualitas ini menggugah emosi estetik penikmatnya, sesuatu kualitas yang didapatkan dari semua karya seni adalah significant form.
Significant form ini yang membuat Marge berkata “Oh my gosh, that’s beautiful! I’ve never seen a painting with a lighthouse before.” atau si ahli seni di galeri berkata “Ah yes, seascape, marvelous natural light, classic use of gouache. You’re right! This is an early-career Oldenveldt.”.
Significant form adalah relasi dan kombinasi antar unsur yang terdapat pada karya seni dan relasi dan kombinasi itu menggerakkan emosi estetik pengapresiasi karya seni itu. Significant form menjadi sasaran yang dibidik oleh pengkritik seni untuk dikritisi Misalnya dalam lukisan, maka yang dimaksud adalah goresan garis, warna, gaya menggambar. Jika dalam musik yaitu ritme, aransemen, dinamika nada, dan harmoni suara. dengan catatan relasi dan kombinasi itu haruslah menggerakkan emosi estetik pengkritisi. Dengan demikian untuk menilai karya seni ini sifatnya subjektif dan harus berdasar pada pengalaman.
Menurut Clive Bell, karya yang membuat penikmat terkagum dan tergerak emosinya tapi rasa kekaguman itu dihasilkan dari sesuatu yang ia sebut descriptive painting, yaitu informasi yang mengandung nilai psikologis, sejarah, atau berupa topographi, gambar yang menjelaskan sebuah situasi, menurutnya hal itu bukan merupakan karya seni. Karena yang digerakkan adalah emosi belaka, bukan emosi estetik. Emosi estetik hanya bisa digerakkan oleh relasi dan kombinasi unsur karya seni alias significant form.
Penulis keberatan dengan pendapat Clive Bell tentang sesuatu karya yang menggugah emosi tidak serta merta menjadi karya seni. Bell memberikan perbedaan antara emotion of life dengan aesthetic emotion, menurutnya beda antara aesthetic emotion dengan beauty. Penulis keberatan karena pembedaan itu berimplikasi pada pembedaan antara penikmat seni yang amatir dan yang ahli. Menurut penulis seni dan karya seni bisa dinikmati siapa saja. Misalnya dalam kasus Marge dan ahli seni di galeri seperti di atas, keduanya sama-sama terkagum dan tergerak emosinya, kendati komentar yang dikatakan berbeda. Pendapat Marge karena lukisan itu sesuatu yang baru dan keindahan yang belum pernah ia lihat sebelumnya, sedangkan pendapat ahli ke arah tekhnis dari lukisan itu. Untuk hal lainnya penulis setuju bahwa karya seni memang harus fokus pada pengalaman antara penikmat dan karya yang membuat penikmat tergerak emosi estetiknya. Dengan catatan yang dimaksud emosi estetik adalah perasaan tentang keindahan, kekaguman, menggerakkan imajinasi. Bukan seperti emosi estetik tekhnis yang Clive Bell maksud.
Penulis membela significant form di banding dengan institusionalisme (sebuah paham bahwa seni itu ditentukan oleh komunitas seni yang terdiri dari seniman, kurator, pemilik galeri, kritikus seni, dan lain sebagainya), karena menurut penulis institusionalisme sudah tak lagi berfokus pada karya seninya, tapi melenceng pada komunitas seni. Institusionalisme berusaha menjawab pertanyaan ‘what is called art?’ bukan pertanyaan ‘what is art?’. Penulis percaya seni memiliki naturenya, tidak bisa diserahkan pada konvensi komunitas. Lagipula penulis berpendapat insitusionalisme disokong oleh kapitalisme yang membuat karya seni menjadi positional goods sehingga bisa bernilai tinggi jika dijual dan memiliki prestis. Karya seni yang dilahirkan melalui paham institusionalisme bukan lagi seni untuk seni, tapi seni sebagai komoditas yang bisa dijual-belikan dengan harga mahal atau alat untuk meningkatkan prestis. Padahal sejatinya seni berkaitan erat dengan estetika, nilai yang menggugah di benak dan menggoreskan pengalaman dan perasaan yang berbeda dari pengalaman keseharian yang biasa.
The Simpsons season 25 episode ke 15 yang berjudul The War of Art. Dalam Episode ini menceritakan tentang lukisan di ruang tamu keluarga Simpsons rusak oleh seekor marmut peliharaan Lisa, hal ini membuat Marge (ibunya Lisa) merasa sedih, karena ruang tamu tak lagi dihiasi oleh karya seni. Marge meminta Homer (Suami Marge) untuk pergi ke galeri membeli karya lukisan yang baru untuk di pajang di ruang tamu.
Marge dan Homer pergi ke Yard Sale di rumah tetangganya bernama Kirk. Marge melihat-lihat barang yang di jual di sana kemudian ia terkesima dengan sebuah lukisan. Secara spontan dia berkata
“Oh my gosh, that’s beautiful! I’ve never seen a painting with a lighthouse before.”
Marge membujuk Homer untuk membeli lukisan pemandangan desa di pesisir pantai dengan bangunan mercusuar di sudut pantai. Harga lukisan tersebut 20 Dollar. Akhirnya mereka membeli lukisan itu.
Sepulangnya ke rumah, Marge hendak menggantungkan lukisan yang ia beli di dinding, ia melepas bingkai lukisan itu, kemudian Lisa melihat di sudut kiri bawah lukisan ada tanda tangan bertuliskan nama Johan Oldenveldt. Setelah dilihat di internet, ternyata Johan Oldenveldt adalah seorang seniman lukis yang pernah tinggal di Amsterdam dan Paris, pelukis naturalis yang banyak karyanya. Marge dan Homer mendengar kabar itu dan terkejut. Mereka berpikir lukisan yang ia beli harga sebenarnya pasti mahal.
Marge dan Homer pergi ke galeri dan bertanya pada seorang ahli untuk mencari tahu tentang lukisan Johan Oldenveldt itu. Setelah lukisan itu dicermati oleh seorang ahli di galeri, ia mengatakan
“Ah yes, seascape, marvelous natural light, classic use of gouache. You’re right! This is an early-career Oldenveldt. Quite valuable. I expect it to go somewhere between 80 to 100.000 Dollar!”
Mendengar itu Marga dan Homer terkejut. Bayangan tentang kekayaan dan kehidupan mewah melintas di pikiran Homer, ia berniat untuk melelangnya di pelelangan karya seni.
Kabar tentang lukisan Oldenveldt berharga 100.000 Dollar itu sampai ke Kirk, orang yang menjual lukisan itu hanya dengan 20 Dollar. Kirk menggugat Homer dan Marge untuk membagi hasil penjualan lukisan Oldenveldt karena mereka secara tidak sengaja menjualnya dengan harga murah. Perdebatan pun terjadi tentang siapa yang berhak memiliki uang hasil penjualan lukisan Oldenveldt. Homer dan Marge disepakati sebagai pemilik sah lukisannya.
Ketika proses pelelangan lukisan Oldenveldt, satang seorang perempuan, mengaku sebagai ‘teman dekat’ (pernah tinggal serumah) dari Kirk. Dia mengatakan bahwa lukisan itu miliknya dan diambil oleh Kirk ketika mereka saling berpisah. Pelelang pun menghentikan proses pelelangan sampai lukisan itu ditetapkan pemilik sahnya.
Homer dan Lisa pergi ke Cafe Artiste untuk mencari tahu asal usul lukisan itu. Di sana mereka bertemu dengan Klaus Ziegler, ia mengaku sebagai pelukis asli dari lukisan yang Homer dan Lisa bawa.
Terjadi perbincangan antara Homer, Lisa, dengan Klaus Zigler. Lisa menuduh Zigler sebagai forger. Ziegler mengelak, dia mengaku sebagai art forger. Ziegler telah banyak melukis lukisan seni imitasi dan berhasil mengelabui banyak galeri dengan karyanya. Lisa berkata
“What you do is horrible. Ripping off geniuses who spent years perfecting their style!”
Ziegler membalas
“Perhaps you are the one who is horrible. You only cared about that painting when it was created by someone famous. Beauty is beauty. My forgeries give pleasure to peaple all over the world. The only real question to ask about art, whether it’s in the Louvre or on a freshman’s wall at cal state fullerton is, “Did it move you?”.
Penulis setuju dengan perkataan Ziegler, bahwa dalam hal seni, pertanyaan yang relevan adalah “apakah karya itu menggerakkan emosi atau pengalaman estetik kita?”
Bell Clive dalam bukunya berjudul Art, ia mengatakan bahwa seni atau karya seni mengandung sesuatu hal esensial yang membuat ia menjadi berbeda dengan jenis-jenis karya yang lainnya. Kualitas esensial ini jika tidak ada maka sesuatu itu bukanlah karya seni, kualitas ini menggugah emosi estetik penikmatnya, sesuatu kualitas yang didapatkan dari semua karya seni adalah significant form.
Significant form ini yang membuat Marge berkata “Oh my gosh, that’s beautiful! I’ve never seen a painting with a lighthouse before.” atau si ahli seni di galeri berkata “Ah yes, seascape, marvelous natural light, classic use of gouache. You’re right! This is an early-career Oldenveldt.”.
Significant form adalah relasi dan kombinasi antar unsur yang terdapat pada karya seni dan relasi dan kombinasi itu menggerakkan emosi estetik pengapresiasi karya seni itu. Significant form menjadi sasaran yang dibidik oleh pengkritik seni untuk dikritisi Misalnya dalam lukisan, maka yang dimaksud adalah goresan garis, warna, gaya menggambar. Jika dalam musik yaitu ritme, aransemen, dinamika nada, dan harmoni suara. dengan catatan relasi dan kombinasi itu haruslah menggerakkan emosi estetik pengkritisi. Dengan demikian untuk menilai karya seni ini sifatnya subjektif dan harus berdasar pada pengalaman.
Menurut Clive Bell, karya yang membuat penikmat terkagum dan tergerak emosinya tapi rasa kekaguman itu dihasilkan dari sesuatu yang ia sebut descriptive painting, yaitu informasi yang mengandung nilai psikologis, sejarah, atau berupa topographi, gambar yang menjelaskan sebuah situasi, menurutnya hal itu bukan merupakan karya seni. Karena yang digerakkan adalah emosi belaka, bukan emosi estetik. Emosi estetik hanya bisa digerakkan oleh relasi dan kombinasi unsur karya seni alias significant form.
Penulis keberatan dengan pendapat Clive Bell tentang sesuatu karya yang menggugah emosi tidak serta merta menjadi karya seni. Bell memberikan perbedaan antara emotion of life dengan aesthetic emotion, menurutnya beda antara aesthetic emotion dengan beauty. Penulis keberatan karena pembedaan itu berimplikasi pada pembedaan antara penikmat seni yang amatir dan yang ahli. Menurut penulis seni dan karya seni bisa dinikmati siapa saja. Misalnya dalam kasus Marge dan ahli seni di galeri seperti di atas, keduanya sama-sama terkagum dan tergerak emosinya, kendati komentar yang dikatakan berbeda. Pendapat Marge karena lukisan itu sesuatu yang baru dan keindahan yang belum pernah ia lihat sebelumnya, sedangkan pendapat ahli ke arah tekhnis dari lukisan itu. Untuk hal lainnya penulis setuju bahwa karya seni memang harus fokus pada pengalaman antara penikmat dan karya yang membuat penikmat tergerak emosi estetiknya. Dengan catatan yang dimaksud emosi estetik adalah perasaan tentang keindahan, kekaguman, menggerakkan imajinasi. Bukan seperti emosi estetik tekhnis yang Clive Bell maksud.
Penulis membela significant form di banding dengan institusionalisme (sebuah paham bahwa seni itu ditentukan oleh komunitas seni yang terdiri dari seniman, kurator, pemilik galeri, kritikus seni, dan lain sebagainya), karena menurut penulis institusionalisme sudah tak lagi berfokus pada karya seninya, tapi melenceng pada komunitas seni. Institusionalisme berusaha menjawab pertanyaan ‘what is called art?’ bukan pertanyaan ‘what is art?’. Penulis percaya seni memiliki naturenya, tidak bisa diserahkan pada konvensi komunitas. Lagipula penulis berpendapat insitusionalisme disokong oleh kapitalisme yang membuat karya seni menjadi positional goods sehingga bisa bernilai tinggi jika dijual dan memiliki prestis. Karya seni yang dilahirkan melalui paham institusionalisme bukan lagi seni untuk seni, tapi seni sebagai komoditas yang bisa dijual-belikan dengan harga mahal atau alat untuk meningkatkan prestis. Padahal sejatinya seni berkaitan erat dengan estetika, nilai yang menggugah di benak dan menggoreskan pengalaman dan perasaan yang berbeda dari pengalaman keseharian yang biasa.
October 5, 2021
3.5/5
i find this book =)))? fun to read for a variety of reasons. one of the amusing things is somewhat a self-assertive attitude of the author's opinions, among which I will quote some (nothing against the tone really but =)))))))))) interesting to encounter)
okay i will not try to hide my (let's say) doubtful opinion on some parts of the book from this point. with all honesty, i can go along with most of the author's argument (even the somewhat self-conflicting ones), but i think i need to particularly point this one out because it is to me too =)) questionable to begin with:
with this statement, the author backs up his idea with the justification that since art makes people feel good >>> it is absolute moral. i tend not to simplify ideas but yeh =)) that's all with his argument and i hope you can see for yourself the contradicting point we might get out of this here.
with all that being said, i still find myself appreciate some of the bits given by the author, especially the notion that art should be perceived beyond the representative and sentimental qualities given - which are all about finding the hidden sensations put into the work by the art creators. this is something i have been trying to express for a while so it is quite refreshing seeing it being put to words like this. another very challenging idea that i would like to entertain for a while is the author's concern for how art is taught and used by people in society, and how the "standards" set up by the "cultured" (with all of their superficiality) are molded and patronized instead of continuously revolutionalizing from the olds. personally, i somehow find resonance between this idea and susan sontag's ideas of the relationship between art creators and their audience, which is quite worth noting.
=))) to wrap this up i just want to say this book has its own charms (both in the good and the bad), and there should be no harm in entertaining ideas - irrespective of controversial, naive, or even passive-aggressive =)))). for it is all about looking at things from different perspectives.
i find this book =)))? fun to read for a variety of reasons. one of the amusing things is somewhat a self-assertive attitude of the author's opinions, among which I will quote some (nothing against the tone really but =)))))))))) interesting to encounter)
Superficially I say, because, essentially, all good art is of the same movement: there are only two kinds of art, good and bad
but I'm satisfied that,as a rule, most people feel a very different kind of emotion for birds and flowers..
okay i will not try to hide my (let's say) doubtful opinion on some parts of the book from this point. with all honesty, i can go along with most of the author's argument (even the somewhat self-conflicting ones), but i think i need to particularly point this one out because it is to me too =)) questionable to begin with:
"Art is above morals, or rather, all art is moral because, as I hope to show presently, works of art are immediate means to good"
with this statement, the author backs up his idea with the justification that since art makes people feel good >>> it is absolute moral. i tend not to simplify ideas but yeh =)) that's all with his argument and i hope you can see for yourself the contradicting point we might get out of this here.
with all that being said, i still find myself appreciate some of the bits given by the author, especially the notion that art should be perceived beyond the representative and sentimental qualities given - which are all about finding the hidden sensations put into the work by the art creators. this is something i have been trying to express for a while so it is quite refreshing seeing it being put to words like this. another very challenging idea that i would like to entertain for a while is the author's concern for how art is taught and used by people in society, and how the "standards" set up by the "cultured" (with all of their superficiality) are molded and patronized instead of continuously revolutionalizing from the olds. personally, i somehow find resonance between this idea and susan sontag's ideas of the relationship between art creators and their audience, which is quite worth noting.
=))) to wrap this up i just want to say this book has its own charms (both in the good and the bad), and there should be no harm in entertaining ideas - irrespective of controversial, naive, or even passive-aggressive =)))). for it is all about looking at things from different perspectives.
February 7, 2017
يعد الكتب أحد أوائل الكتب في فلسفة الفن، ولا يمكن تجاهل قراءته لاستيعاب طبيعة الفن وحقيقته. وهو كتاب زاخر بالمعلومات يحتاج إلى قراءة متأنية، ولكنه كتاب شيق لا يصيب قارئه بالملل على الإطلاق. وربما يكون أحد الأسباب الرئيسية في روعة هذا الكتاب هي الترجمة الرائعة للدكتور عادل مصطفى، التي تشعر معها أنك تقرأ كتاباً ثقيلاً بأسلوب أدبي جميل لا تمل معه.
ما هي الخاصية المميزة التي تجعلنا نطلق على شيء ما عملًا فنيًا؟ هذا هو السؤال الذي الأساسي الذي يطرحه الكاتب كلايف بل. ويجيب بل عن السؤال قائلاً أن "الشكل الدال" (Significant Form) هي تلك الصفة التي تميز كل عمل فني، وهي التي تثير في المتلقي انفعالاً جماليًا. يقول بل: "الخاصية التي تميز العمل الفني كفن هي أنه يثير فينا انفعالاً جمالياً. يتميز هذا الانفعال عادة بالمتعة والانفتاح الخيالي والحدس المعرفي والنشوة، وبنفحة من الدفء الإنساني والأمل والعزة، وبمشاعر إنسانية أخرى يصعب علينا تسميتها. ويعتمد عمق وقوة وغنى الانفعال الجمالي على عمق وقوة وغنى الصفة الجمالية الكامنة في العمل الفني" [ص 12]. كما يتناول الكتاب طبيعة الفن وعلاقة الفن بالدين، وأهمية الفن، ودور الفن في المجتمعات.
ما هي الخاصية المميزة التي تجعلنا نطلق على شيء ما عملًا فنيًا؟ هذا هو السؤال الذي الأساسي الذي يطرحه الكاتب كلايف بل. ويجيب بل عن السؤال قائلاً أن "الشكل الدال" (Significant Form) هي تلك الصفة التي تميز كل عمل فني، وهي التي تثير في المتلقي انفعالاً جماليًا. يقول بل: "الخاصية التي تميز العمل الفني كفن هي أنه يثير فينا انفعالاً جمالياً. يتميز هذا الانفعال عادة بالمتعة والانفتاح الخيالي والحدس المعرفي والنشوة، وبنفحة من الدفء الإنساني والأمل والعزة، وبمشاعر إنسانية أخرى يصعب علينا تسميتها. ويعتمد عمق وقوة وغنى الانفعال الجمالي على عمق وقوة وغنى الصفة الجمالية الكامنة في العمل الفني" [ص 12]. كما يتناول الكتاب طبيعة الفن وعلاقة الفن بالدين، وأهمية الفن، ودور الفن في المجتمعات.
July 2, 2018
The thesis is that good art elicits feelings within the audience, period. That is, that when judging something as art one should not ask about what ideas it elicits, its place in history, the skill involved in making it look like something, etc.
While art has been, and will continue to be, valued by me in the context of "how does it make me think," I readily admit that it may have a mistake on my part to focus too much on questions of philosophy and not enough on questions of feeling (i.e. "how does it make me feel"). Due to the passionate defense of viewing art as a sensual activity rather than a mental one I have already started applying this lesson from this book and it has greatly improved my appreciate for art by better balancing the "thinking" part with the "feeling" part of art appreciation.
While art has been, and will continue to be, valued by me in the context of "how does it make me think," I readily admit that it may have a mistake on my part to focus too much on questions of philosophy and not enough on questions of feeling (i.e. "how does it make me feel"). Due to the passionate defense of viewing art as a sensual activity rather than a mental one I have already started applying this lesson from this book and it has greatly improved my appreciate for art by better balancing the "thinking" part with the "feeling" part of art appreciation.
December 5, 2021
I may not have completely understood what Bell was saying most of the time. Had I read the last chapter first I may have been set on the correct course - everything seemed to make some kind of sense by the end. Bell’s theories do seem to resonate with me and so I’d have to reread a lot of it to come to some better understating. However as Bell himself states, art and the appreciation of art - any art - is the awaking inside you of some emotion and this book certainly seems to have enabled this for me.
February 19, 2022
"الفن والدين ليسا حرفتين، ليسا مهنتين يمكن أن يؤجر عليهما الناس.
إن الفنان والقديس يفعلان ما يجب عليهما أن يفعلا، لا كسبًا للعيش، بل امتثالًا لضرورة سرية.
إنهما لا ينتجان ليعيشا، بل يعيشان لينتجا"
مذهل !
إن الفنان والقديس يفعلان ما يجب عليهما أن يفعلا، لا كسبًا للعيش، بل امتثالًا لضرورة سرية.
إنهما لا ينتجان ليعيشا، بل يعيشان لينتجا"
مذهل !
August 27, 2022
اني متخصص في الرسم الكلاسيكي و هذا الكتاب وجه لي صاروخا نقديا اقعدني عنه او ربما وجهني توجيها اخر بصفعة لن ينساها امثالي النساخون و الباحثين عن الزينة و الديكور و الدعاية و غيرها من مشارب الفنون المهترئة
May 17, 2017
كتاب رائع و مهم لكل مهتم بالفن عامة و التشكيلي خاصة. هدا الكتاب كفيل يتغيير نظرتك للفن
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews