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?

Response to Sean

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?

Hume's theory of art

Although I will agree that there are subjective and objective judgments a person can make about art. If a painting is of a cat then all people can likely agree it has a cat, but they will not all agree that the cat makes it feel cheerful or something like that because that is a judgment. Hume does not make this distinction. He thinks everyone will have the same judgments if distractions are removed. He does not explain what constitutes a lack of distraction though. It does not seem to be achievable to lack all experiences that could lead someone and so anyone, even someone who was considered an expert, would have some sort of distraction. If we are looking for no distractions from experience and culture, which would be impossible, then we are judging good art based on genetic inclination. Hume seems to assume that nobody would have genetic differences. Either that or that is another destructor, but one people would never be able to get over unlike age etc. Although is every age entails distractions than age will also always be a problem. Hume’s ideas about art do not seem to be able to have any practical usage.

Do you think Hume’s ideas could have any practical usage as an explanation about art?