In John Carey's The Intellectuals and the Masses Carey states, "Bell’s language figures himself and fellow aesthetes as engaged upon dangerous and energetic pursuits, when in fact they are merely looking at pictures and reading books."
I have to say, that I agree with this statement. The biggest point in defense of this is that Bell never actually defines art and solves his own question. He simply seems to attempt to bring his readers along through his thought process whilst mentioning works of art--perhaps trying to prove that he is educated?--yet he never comes to any decisive decision. If anything, he tries to put himself on a plane above all those people less enlightened than himself, and repeatedly puts the reader on the spot by saying things like "most people who care much about art," "all sensitive people agree," and so on. "Great art remains stable and unobscure," Bell says, "because the feelings that it awakens are independent of time and place, because its kingdom is not of this world." If great art is not of this world, yet Bell understands what great art is made of, then is he not of this world? Bell places himself as some kind of god-like, otherworldly figure who is one of the select few enlightened beings who knows all there is to know about art.
Am I wrong to think that Bell is too presumptuous in his philosophy for any of his readers to go along with his reasoning?
