Clive Bell Quotes

If the mystical lovers of the arts, who consider all criticism dissection and all dissection destruction of enjoyment, thought logically, an exclamation like "Goodness alive!" would be the best criticism of the most deserving work of art. There are critiques which say nothing but that, only they do so more extensively.

When you walk past a painting in a museum, if it doesn't make you feel something, then it's probably a failure.

I don't know if it's art, but I know I like it.

Nothing, of course, will ever take the place of the good old fashion of 'liking' a work of art or not liking it; the more improved criticism will not abolish that primitive, that ultimate, test.

Art is parasitic on life, just as criticism is parasitic on art.

Critics? Don't talk to me of critics! You think some jackanapes journalist, his soul eaten away by the maggots of jealousy and failure, has anything worthwhile to say of art? I don't.

The good critic is he who relates the adventures of his soul among masterpieces.

To me, nothing in the art world is neutral. The idea of 'disinterest' strikes me as boring, dishonest, dubious, and uninteresting.

We have no other means of recognising a work of art than our feeling for it.

There are so many reactions to art that make sense to me - but 'ick' means something.

Nothing touches a work of art so little as criticism.

I find relatively little relationship between the work of art and the immediate critical response it gets.

Sometimes good art jumps out at me; most of the time I see bad art, or see nothing at all and just drift, feeling weird, pretending to be fine.

Nothing touches a work of art so little as words of criticism: they always result in more or less fortunate misunderstandings.

It is the heart that makes the critic, not the nose.

If art is to have a special train, the critic must keep some seats reserved on it.

I read the art reviews of my work. Some critics understand my art correctly, while some don't. I simply ignore the reviews written by the latter.

Art is good, bad, boring, ugly, useful to us or not. It does or doesn't disturb optical monotony, and succeeds or fails in surmounting sterility of style or visual stereotype; it creates new beauty or it doesn't.

Being critical of art is a way of showing art respect. No sports writer would say, "Well the Yankees had a great season this year." No food critic would get a bad meal and say, "Oh, it was so lovely." It always strikes me as odd when people say, "Why do you write negatively about any art?" I think that everybody has mixed feelings about everything - even Goya. I mean, I look at Rembrandt sometimes and I hear a voice in my head go, "It's pretty brown."

What is important, then, is not that the critic should possess a correct abstract definition of beauty for the intellect, but a certain kind of temperament, the power of being deeply moved by the presence of beautiful objects.

I have generally found that persons who had studied painting least were the best judges of it.

Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art.

Critics have a job to do. I understand that. It's not just to criticize. They're trying to interpret art for the public.

All sensitive people agree that there is a peculiar emotion provoked by works of art.

You're going to react to a painting in a way that the painting demands you react.