Art | Page 2

theories advanced in my first chapter have been carried on for the
most part with Mr. Roger Fry, to whom, therefore, I owe a debt that
defies exact computation. In the first place, I can thank him, as
joint-editor of The Burlington Magazine, for permission to reprint some
part of an essay contributed by me to that periodical. That obligation
discharged, I come to a more complicated reckoning. The first time I
met Mr. Fry, in a railway carriage plying between Cambridge and
London, we fell into talk about contemporary art and its relation to all
other art; it seems to me sometimes that we have been talking about the
same thing ever since, but my friends assure me that it is not quite so
bad as that. Mr. Fry, I remember, had recently become familiar with the
modern French masters--Cézanne, Gauguin, Matisse: I enjoyed the
advantage of a longer acquaintance. Already, however, Mr. Fry had
published his Essay in Aesthetics, which, to my thinking, was the most
helpful contribution to the science that had been made since the days of
Kant. We talked a good deal about that essay, and then we discussed
the possibility of a "Post-Impressionist" Exhibition at the Grafton
Galleries. We did not call it "Post-Impressionist"; the word was
invented later by Mr. Fry, which makes me think it a little hard that the
more advanced critics should so often upbraid him for not knowing
what "Post-Impressionism" means.
For some years Mr. Fry and I have been arguing, more or less amicably,
about the principles of aesthetics. We still disagree profoundly. I like to
think that I have not moved an inch from my original position, but I
must confess that the cautious doubts and reservations that have
insinuated themselves into this Preface are all indirect consequences of

my friend's criticism. And it is not only of general ideas and
fundamental things that we have talked; Mr. Fry and I have wrangled
for hours about particular works of art. In such cases the extent to
which one may have affected the judgment of the other cannot possibly
be appraised, nor need it be: neither of us, I think, covets the doubtful
honours of proselytism. Surely whoever appreciates a fine work of art
may be allowed the exquisite pleasure of supposing that he has made a
discovery? Nevertheless, since all artistic theories are based on
aesthetic judgments, it is clear that should one affect the judgments of
another, he may affect, indirectly, some of his theories; and it is certain
that some of my historical generalisations have been modified, and
even demolished, by Mr. Fry. His task was not arduous: he had merely
to confront me with some work over which he was sure that I should go
into ecstasies, and then to prove by the most odious and irrefragable
evidence that it belonged to a period which I had concluded, on the
highest a priori grounds, to be utterly barren. I can only hope that Mr.
Fry's scholarship has been as profitable to me as it has been painful: I
have travelled with him through France, Italy, and the near East,
suffering acutely, not always, I am glad to remember, in silence; for the
man who stabs a generalisation with a fact forfeits all claim on
good-fellowship and the usages of polite society.
I have to thank my friend Mr. Vernon Rendall for permission to make
what use I chose of the articles I have contributed from time to time to
_The Athenaeum_: if I have made any use of what belongs by law to
the proprietors of other papers I herewith offer the customary dues. My
readers will be as grateful as I to M. Vignier, M. Druet, and Mr.
Kevorkian, of the Persian Art Gallery, since it is they who have made it
certain that the purchaser will get something he likes for his money. To
Mr. Eric Maclagan of South Kensington, and Mr. Joyce of the British
Museum, I owe a more private and particular debt. My wife has been
good enough to read both the MS. and proof of this book; she has
corrected some errors, and called attention to the more glaring offences
against Christian charity. You must not attempt, therefore, to excuse
the author on the ground of inadvertence or haste.
CLIVE BELL. November 1913.

CONTENTS
I. WHAT IS ART?
I. THE AESTHETIC HYPOTHESIS page 3
II. AESTHETICS AND POST-IMPRESSIONISM 38
III. THE METAPHYSICAL HYPOTHESIS 49
II. ART AND LIFE
I. ART AND RELIGION 75
II. ART AND HISTORY 95
III. ART AND ETHICS 106
III. THE CHRISTIAN SLOPE
I. THE RISE OF CHRISTIAN ART 121
II. GREATNESS AND DECLINE 138
III. THE CLASSICAL RENAISSANCE AND ITS DISEASES 156
IV. ALID EX ALIO 181
IV. THE MOVEMENT
I. THE DEBT TO CÉZANNE