Second Question on Bell

Does Bell’s overall pompousness and usage of the rhetorical hinder his argument to the point of null and void?


I'm not sure that it renders Bell's point void, but I do believe it hinders his argument.  His circular logic in regards to aesthetic emotion and significant form, to which his only defense for that argument is that people should be sensible to agree with him, is nothing more than Bell being pious.  He tries to drive home his points by being passive aggressive, and that is not a good means of defense whatsoever.  If Bell cannot defend his points through legitimate reason and evidence, then he cannot make a good argument.


This being said, it does not mean that his argument should not be tossed aside completely.  Quite the contrary, it is something that should be considered thoughtfully, and while I do not agree with Bell, I feel that his argument is an interesting one.  If nothing more, it is an example of how not to form an argument and how  not to view art.  While Bell may be a well known art critic and well known for being married to Virginia Woolf's sister and for being a part of the Bloomsbury Group (by which, incidentally, he was hated by the rest of the members), he seems, to me, be ignorant in what true art really is and what aesthetic pleasure really is.