Hume and Art

Although Hume’s theory has many flaws, it may be able to tell us some things about art. He is likely right that one should at least try to avoid certain distractions when judging art. It is very clear a drunk’s opinion on art is not to be taken as seriously as a critic. It is also true that bias may come into someone’s judgment of art. People like stories, paintings, music, etc. that they can relate to. That one person relates strongly to a work does not mean it is better than a work someone else relates strongly to, but those people are going to prefer the work they relate to.

One problem even in understanding that there may be judges who preferences are truer to what constitutes good art is that the viewer has no incentive to care. If there are judges that know good art, but I see good art in things that they do not like then what incentive do I have to try to change my view? Listening and trying to understand the perspective of these judges would possibly change my view, but it would likely reduce the enjoyment I get out of the art that I like. I might get as much or more enjoyment out of the art I am taught to like, but I also may not. Also, if I am not a true judge and will never be able to rise above my distractions, what if I am able to see why I should not appreciate the art that I like as much, but am not able to see why I should like the art that the judges like? Then I would just lose my appreciation for art. I suppose if people experience a large variety of art through education or acting upon their own interest, then their exposure to more art will give them more to appreciate. I can see why experts would be useful then. They could inform people of the aspects of art that may add to appreciation for those people who cannot or do not want to spend the time discovering the possible experiences in art. The critic becomes a short cut for them.  Then the critic is worthwhile not because they have better judgments of art, but because their judgments are based on more research then the average person they have more to compare and base their judgments on. Hume would suggest that judges are preferable because they have fewer distractions when they are good judges. I doubt this is the case, but I do think art critics’ opinions are to be taken more seriously then they average person.

  What incentive do people have to change their appreciation of works of art even if standards are found that allow one to differentiate good and bad art?