The different influences that people have growing up would constitute distractions and so people growing up with different influences would all be distracted just by the fact of those influences. This is why Hume’s theory does not seem to have any practical application. Nobody could be without distraction. Although since Hume is able to recognize all the distractions, it is possible he thinks that he is without distractions and therefore he is the only one or practically the only one. This is why Hume’s theory seems to be a way to justify his own opinions about art as the correct ones. If you do not agree with him then there must be some distractions that you do not recognize. The majority of people could have a distraction that makes them all wrong about something being good art, so popular opinion does not seem to be enough to justify a work as good. Also, if popular opinion is enough then pop music and comic books are some of the best art and I do not think that Hume would necessarily find that to be the case. Also, it would be impossible to be free of distractions because people do have experiences, belong to different cultures, etc. and although they could recognize aspects of the influence these impart they could not recognize them all. If people could recognize everything that shaped them and remove them as distracters then they could not be functioning human beings. Then if we add genetic differences between people and remove those, we lose people altogether. People are shaped by experience, culture and genetics remove those distracters and people can no longer exist. Hume’s idea does not work because it removes everyone, except possibly himself, from judging art.
Do you believe that there is a distinct feeling people receive from viewing art or do we experience the same feelings we have in our everyday lives?
No comments:
Post a Comment