language????

Alright so right now i would like to elaborate on a thought and question that was brought up during class this week concerning Bell's idea of specific form. He held onto this basic belief that artworks consisted of this specific form, of their structure, brushstrokes, lines, shapes etc., and their content was a trivial thing compared to the aesthetic emotion brought forth through specific form. So the concern involved the concept of writing and literature. Because words are all so symbolic, their form is something that is not as important as their content and meaning. I think that, even though Bell did not specify or clarify his views on literature, i think that he would try to apply his belief to the structure in which the work was written. Each author has a different style of writing. Some are very florid and descriptive and sensual like Tolkien and Wolfe, but then there are other authors whose style is direct, to the point, and consisting of action, like Hemingway. You could tell these writers to describe their experience at dinner, and every writer would go about it differently, with their word choice and their syntax and the structure and formation of their sentences. I think Bell would describe the significant form of literature varying like this, like the different styles of artists. Where the content does not couldnt, but the form does. So it is subjective/dependant on the creator. But this is not flawless for literature because words mean so much and are so musical when put together in certain ways.

So my question for now is, would Bell completely disregard the content of a work of literature, focusing only on the structure and form and sound of the words?