Clive Bell’s Aesthetic Theory of Significant Form in the Light of Piet Mondrian’s Neo-Plasticism

Although Clive Bell’s aesthetic formalism has had a significant impact on development of later modern art theories in the twentieth century, in the last decades its authenticity has been noticeably declined due to many objections raised against it. In spite of significant contributions of scholars to elucidate and resolve shortcomings and ambiguities of Bell’s theory of significant form, yet the nature of his key conception ‘significant form,’ mutually and circularly defined in terms of another controversial term ‘aesthetic emotion,’ is obscure. In this regard, many vague points in respect to the relationship between aesthetic theory of Formalism and Modern art can be proposed that need to be addressed. Above all, how Bell’s Formalism has been construed and employed by Modern theoreticians and artists, particularly in case of Piet Mondrian as one of the most prominent formalist and Modernist pure abstract painters of the first half of the 20th century? Indeed, this article aims at evaluating the authenticity of this hypothesis that ambiguities of Bell’s theory of Formalism will be resolved, though to some extent, by scrutinizing this theory in the light of Mondrian’s theory of Neo-Plasticism; an enriched art theory which is basically shaped by many philosophical doctrines (especially Plato, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Theosophists) and artistic theories (particularly Cubism and De Stijl); artistic movements which they themselves are founded and sophisticated based on tenets of Formalism.

Therefore, this article aims to further shed light on ambiguities of Bell’s theory of significant form. To this end, Bell’s theoretical writings are examined in the light of Piet Mondrian’s Neo-Plastic theoretical writings. The goal is firstly to explain the analogies and disparities between Bell’s theory and Mondrian’s Neo-Plasticism in respect to two key conceptions: significant form and aesthetic emotion, and secondly to further illuminate some of the ambiguities overly discussed by scholars in regard to this polemical theory.

The data for this article has been collected by using library research (mainly latest articles and books). However, for the sake of comparison, original and first published version of Bell’s theory of formalism, published in his seminal book titled Art, has been used. Analysis and results have been written by using intertextuality and a descriptive-analytical approach to examine Mondrian’s account on Bell’s key conceptions “aesthetic formalism” and “aesthetic emotion” and the vicious circularity found in their definition.

At the end of this article, it becomes evident that there are intimate analogies between Bell’s theory of significant form and Mondrian’s Neo-Plasticism in respect to conceptions plastic means (formal elements of his art) and equilibrium, or new harmony. It becomes clear that Mondrian in his writings explicitly refers to Bell’s key notions significant form and aesthetic emotion and he defines the former in the light of his Neo-Plastic principles. Moreover, it will be deduced that unlike Bell, Mondrian’s rendition of Bell’s notions significant form and aesthetic emotion is discharged of any circularity. Lastly, the results of this article clarify the formalist roots of Neo-Plasticism, which have been mostly construed in relation to other artistic theories and philosophical doctrines.