First Bell Question

   Would Bell’s essay even be functional if he was not so anti-representational and snobby as it is? Would his audience appreciate him more? Would his ideas have any foundation?

I do not think Bell's essay would even function without his anti-representationalism because that is how Bell gets his sharpness and his cunning throughout the essay. I am not complimenting him on this; I think it weakens the points he tries to make but he still executes it in a very intelligent way. Bell's aggression and spite to his readers does not aid his points in any way; on the contrary, it makes them less believable because they are more subjective. If Bell took away this subjective tone and actually supplied the reader with some tangible evidence as to what he is suggesting, then it would be more believable.

   I do not feel Bell's audience would not appreciate him any more even with his cynicism gone; his ideas would have no foundation and be without any power at all. Also, Bell is not artistic in any fashion as Tolstoy was or Dewey was with his use of metaphor, so his points about what art is, how it should be viewed, and its relation to mathematics are complete without basis. Bell write under the delusion that he completely understands art and the truth is: he does not and cannot write about that which he does not understand.