“The most important thing which distinguishes good art from bad art is ‘significant form’”. Two arguments against this view.

Clive Bell’s formalism is really a form of expressivism. Instead of valuing art via aesthetic appreciation, Bell asserts that the significant form fundamentally portrays an artist’s emotion in response to their opinion of the pure form of reality. Therefore, subjecting the value of form to the emotions expressed instead of the artwork being valued for it being aesthetically correct. Consequently, without emotion the artwork cannot be aesthetically valued, so the artwork would be invalid. Piet Mondrian’s contemporary art – the significant form portrays that it is the artist’s view of pure form, however, with the art being dependant on expression, how can Mondian’s artwork be valid?

Bell’s portrayal of significant form is rather secretive. We, the audience can interpret Bell’s definition of the significant form to be based around lines, shapes and colour in a certain arrangement. Yet, what is this arrangement? The following is an aesthetical description of form, not the significant form. So, if the significant form is the same as form, how is it legitimate? In addition, the process of appreciating form is unique to every individual. For example, I may appreciate instrumental music for the arrangement of instruments, for dramatic effect and for being concise and punctual, however, another individual may say that the appreciation of the form of instrumental music are the solo’s played by individual artists that requires technique and intuition.