I'm having trouble determining whether Clive Bell's theory of significant form falls under the issue of "art vs non-art" or if it's a disguised question that actually asks "what makes good art good?"
In short, does significant form address the issue of art (good or bad) vs non-art OR the question of what makes good art good?
In short, does significant form address the issue of art (good or bad) vs non-art OR the question of what makes good art good?