If we were to ask a critic to criticize a work of art, we would expect him or her to actually remember the content of the work. Would we be satisfied with a critique that didn't mention what the art was depicting, only detailing the quality of the lines and color ranges? Personally, I would expect someone who sees real art in an image to be able to represent the image that the art is conveying and to be able to interpret these images. When you listen to others describe art in great detail, yes, you expect them to recognize the form and function of the work, but they rarely completely ignore the main idea that the image is intended to communicate. Once again this is where Bell goes wrong. I feel you can't declare a work of art if you only look at the small details rather than the visual aspect