Bell's Argument In The Aesthetic Hypothesis

The foundation of Bell’s argument in The Aesthetic Hypothesis is based on a personal experience. More specifically, a “personal experience of a peculiar emotion” in which the “objects that provoke this emotion we call works of art.”1 According to Bell, this is not an assumption, but instead fact. His essay does not argue the validity of aesthetic emotions in relation to art, but instead he focuses his work on identifying the common quality that provokes this emotion, what he calls Significant Form.
Using Bell’s logic, three things are then required to identify a work of art: the aesthetic emotion, the sensitive viewer who feels this emotion, and Significant Form in the object that provokes the emotion. Thus, it is critical to the foundation
The irony of this definition is that the word particular, which means ‘dealing with or giving details,’ actually has the opposite effect in Bell’s context. Bell attempts to clarify his theory by using examples of art which he claims contain Significant Form, such as Sta. Sophia and the windows at Chartes, Giottos’ frescoes at Padua, and the masterpieces of Cezanne.1 However, he still provides no detail of what the particular arrangement of lines, colors, and shapes is in these examples that produces the aesthetic emotion. Without giving any insight or description about the ‘particular’ emotion or form, Bell’s theory is vague, and arguably circular. British philosopher Nigel Warburton argues this point in “Philosophy the Basics”

“{The Significant Form Theory}... seems only to be saying that the aesthetic emotion is produced by an aesthetic-emotion-producing property about which nothing more can be said. This is like explaining how a sleeping tablet works by referring to its sleep-inducing property. It is a circular argument because that which is supposed to be explained is used in the explanation.” (Warburton 122)
Bell attempts to refine his definition by contrasting an aesthetic emotion