Belian Aesthetics (Very Confusing)

Throughout the reading “Art as Significant Form: Clive Bell”, Bell discusses the principles of “significant form” and “aesthetic emotion” in relation to art. First and foremost Bell defines “significant form “as the description of the combination of lines and colors (distinctive), which makes an object a work of art. While on the other hand, “aesthetic emotion” is the experience in which anyone becomes aroused by “significant form”, while suggesting that the reason why we experience this emotion (In response to the significant form) of a work of art is that we perceive that the form (as an expression) of an experience the artist has. Bell proposed that nothing else about an object is in any way relevant to assessing whether it is a work of art, or aesthetically valuable. For example a painting that represents is completely irrelevant to evaluating it aesthetically. However in addition, he also believed that knowledge of the historical context of a painting or the intention of an artist such (As stated in the intentionality thesis) is unnecessary for the appreciation of visual art. He stated "to appreciate a work of art we need bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions”. More or less Bell’s type of logic towards art is completely accurate, but on the other hand if an individual evaluates an ancient piece of art, such as Spartan swords and shields, how can that person appreciate the artwork if he/she has no common knowledge of ancient Spartan history? When it comes to the critique of historical artifacts that are considered as “art”, the certain individual should possess a minimal or maximal amount of knowledge about the certain subject, to fully appreciate the work of art. Nevertheless Bell suggested that the reason we experience aesthetic emotion in response to the significant form of art is that we perceive that form as an expression of an experience the artist has. In laments terms the artist's experience in turn is the experience of perceiving ordinary objects in the world as pure form. But there are a couple flaws in regards to “aesthetic emotion”. For instance Bell only discusses about aesthetic experience in terms of a distinctive kind of emotion which artworks produce. But can we rule out that some artworks produce an intellectual response that deserves to be called ‘aesthetic’? Also we know that an object has significant form when it results in aesthetic emotion but when we ask what aesthetic emotion is, the answer that what is produced by significant form? Thus significant form must be defined in terms of its relation to aesthetic emotion at the same time that aesthetic emotion is defined in terms of its relation to significant form. But in general the subject matter is extremely confusing and my question to everyone, is that possibly can the subject matter be simplified so that the normal person can understand the message of this reading?