Categorization

As a class, we started off our material on Bell by approaching the subject of categorizing aesthetics under philosophy. When it came down to it, we determined that, at least by some degree, art and philosophy must have differences, and therefore to categorize aesthetics under the sole heading of axiology, or even philosophy, is not a just act. Likewise, as I draw from the material, to define aesthetics solely as a philosophical or artistic activity is incorrect as well.

From this we gather the simple yet complex idea that aesthetics must be defined with a combination of artistic and philosophical support. The questions this arose in my head began plaguing me. Is anything definable without philosophical input? And furthermore, can anything be defined only using philosophy, and be properly explained to satiate the audience?

Paradoxical Elitism

Many of us have found queer Bell's fortification for his theories. Many end up with simple, vague expressions with no sources, such as the key phrase for this discussion 'I know I'm right because my friends agree with me."Such phrases disprove the writer's validity and pervert the perception of the audience. This is because they are now biased to disbelieve or discredit the arguments, since proper evidence fails to be provided.

Although bell had an esteemed group of friends, and belonged to high-intellect societies, his inability to make his points fair and clear fogged up his entire theory. My question for you all is this; What would be strong evidence for Bell's theories, given he put aside his elitist position/

Response to Jacob Wheeler's post on 10/11/11 at 2:10pm

Clive Bell does, as we have discussed in class, completely ignore proper theoretical support. Elitism, in my opinion, is never truly a good thing to follow. Elitists are snobby, and condescend in most ways possible. When trying to prove things, such as in Bell's case, they often fog up their fortification by making vague remarks and faulty references. Based on Bell's essay, I would say that there's no way that his elitist writing can be refuted. Theories created by an elitist can be true and credible, but only if the writer can negate their elitist views for the duration of their essay.

I disagree with Bell's ideas on form as well. His view from the essay is very close-minded and exclusive, and closes off correct artistic interpretation. If we are not to judge something based on its content, then we are judging based on the content we receive from it, which follows most aesthetic theories, but closes out his originality, and in my opinion, correctness. I believe we can't judge something in ostensibly objective terms without using content.