A Response to Hume

Response to David Hume, “Of the Standard of Taste”

In this essay, David Hume argues that taste is objective, universal, and can be taught to anyone. Hume says that we can all agree that a piece of art is beautiful, but everyone’s explanations differ. He agrees that everyone has their own opinion, but he goes onto argue that without objectivity and universality one cannot study the science of art.

I personally agree with this statement. What makes Picasso’s paintings better than my doodles? There is something in his artwork that is identified by most people and considered to be “beautiful.” I might have a different reason than you as to why the piece is considered great artwork, but we both see something in his painting which makes it good to us. This is what Hume is saying is the universality factor in art.

We consider a piece of art to be beautiful because it does something to us; it moves us in a way. When I look at Monet’s paintings I feel something, I know it’s beautiful because it evokes emotions from me. This is what Hume is studying, the science of art. People thought you couldn’t study art, because it was just looked at as a sentiment, however Hume is saying there is a science to it, that by studying artwork we can come up with rules as to why we consider something beautiful. His philosophy makes sense, there has to be some guidelines as to what we as people judge a piece of artwork on. Many people associate art with a belief, and science as something that is either true or false, whereas Hume fuses the two ideas together to come up with the idea of taste.

Hume states that everyone has different tastes, which is very true from my experiences. My good friend is an art history major and we recently went to a Museum to look at a collection of art. There were many pieces I couldn’t understand and didn’t consider to be “good” art, however my friend studied the rules of art and had a completely different opinion than me. She understood the art, and therefore perceived it as beautiful, whereas I didn’t. This is an example of two people with completely different tastes, and one person who studies art compared to one who doesn’t. Everyone perceives art different and I believe Hume is right in saying that taste varies from person to person. The foundation for the rules was evident in the way my friend viewed the artwork, and she gained this skill from experience both in the classroom and in museums. I on the other hand don’t fully understand the rules, and therefore I am not the best critic of art.

I do believe that artwork is objective and universal and through Hume’s arguments, it’s clear that the rules and guidelines help determine good artwork from bad artwork. There is a reason that something painted two hundred years ago is still looked at as brilliant, it’s because of universality that this exists.

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction-Walter Benjamin

Walter Benjamin’s essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reporduction” begins with the statement that “In principle a work of art has always been reproducible,” meaning that in all that we make we are in some ways capable of remastering the original product to the same extent. Thus Benjamin is making the statement that Art is indeed flexible. Benjamin’s purpose of writing this essay can be explained that Benjamin wants his readers to evaluate what happens to their experiences with the arts when they become too reproducible.

He argues that the human race has mastered the process of reproduction since the Greeks first began “stamping and founding” and has today continually transgressed our capabilities to include mastering sight, light, and voice reproduction with such inventions as the telephone, radio, motion picture, and camera to name a few. Due to such inventions, we have forever changed the way in which we view and value art.

No longer is it necessary for you or I to travel to museums or galleries in far off cities to view a rare painting by the great DaVinci, or go to a live play to gather in the “aura” of Cats, but instead we are able to log on to any computer with the world-wide-web to view filmed or photographed reproductions of either.

We, in fact, are also freely able to purchase such masterpieces at a fraction of the price thanks to the age of mechanical reproduction in the same exact way we are able to read or purchase Benjamin’s essay; either in tangible print or in digital format on the web. Benjamin points out that our capacity to do such is the very essence of the way we receive our arts;

"For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the
work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual. To an ever greater
degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for
reproducibility.”

-Meaning we no longer need to value the original or even ever view the original, when like with a photograph we are able to gain copies of the original from the copied version; also summarized in that “the technique of the reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.”

Ironically, since we are so freely able to purchase and view copied art, this has fueled an escalation of price and demand for the original piece, as only those desiring the original most will be able to pay top dollar to satisfy their want.

“Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art,” in that in much of early history only the rich and well-connected were ever able to experience great numbers of art. Nowadays 'Masterpiece' and everyday art is proliferated beyond museums, churches and school textbooks making its debut anywhere and everywhere as marketing, home accessories, and hospital wall décor to name a few. This transition has allowed long ago producers of art like Picasso and Mozart to become globally recognized names and images in the same context celebrities and the President enjoy today.

The art forms of film and photography can only exist as reproductions, as they only capture one view of a time and space, and if in visiting a place of a picture per say we would not be able to see everything that we see in a picture taken in the same location, but at a different time; therefore the “aura” is lost and indistinguishable from the authentic and original piece. With film making and motion picture the “aura” is also lost because when one enters to view a live rendition of a play, mistakes can be expected to come into view, but as they say in theater, ‘the show must go on’, … unlike photography and motion picture, where quite frequently the process is to keep the good and weed out the bad, or re-tape the mistakes, so that the final product is as flaw-free as it can be.

If one is to think about it, without the age of reproduction, each and every one of us here on earth would be living quite an isolated life, as over 99% of all our news is in some way a product of reproduction; newspapers, television, and radio must rely upon images, reproduced sound and copied text to advance their goods to the everyday being. Capitalism would not exist without the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, and neither would any other political movement as all require technology to advance their messages. It is fair to say, that Benjamin himself would be wowed by the advances in technology since his death and would agree that art today is at its highest peak in regards to the number of those who have the capabilities to experience art.

A Response to Horkheimer & Adorno

Reading” The culture industry as mass deception” by Horkheimer and Adorno gives you much to reflect and think about. As the title indicates, the picture of the culture industry that they want to show or give their opinions about is not very positive.

I do agree with them saying that films, radio and magazines are uniformed and that all mass communication is identical. If you watch any movie, they are all built up the same way and you often find them to be very predictable. The same goes for radio and magazine. Even though you listen to different radio channels or read different magazines, they often talk and write about the same subjects. Everything is controlled by the people in society that holds the greatest economic power. Often there are only a small number of owners to the many different publication companies that exist. The people are reading, watching and listening to what they think comes from different actors, but in the end there is no difference and it is all actually coming from the same owner. That makes you as a consumer feel pretty dumb and gullible.

Horkheimer and Adorno also say that “talented performers belong to the industry long before it displays them; otherwise they would not be so eager to fit in”. Performers that we see on for example TV or read about in different magazines, we tend to believe that they are real people that act how they want to act without somebody controlling them. But a lot of what we see performers do is already made up and constructed by somebody else in charge so that the industry can make more money on them, and many people don’t realize that.

All of these ideas might be true and it gets you, as a consumer of the industry, thinking. Are we as consumers so easy to play? We accept everything that the media hands us without asking too many questions. We accept that everything is formed by the people that control the culture industry. So I agree with the thoughts of there being some kind of mass deception in the culture industry.

A Response to Locke

The Enlightenment was a time of questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals. During the time, the consensus was that people were born with all the knowledge they would ever have. For example, kings were kings because they were born with the knowledge to be kings. This helped the monarchs and other rulers perpetrate the idea of divine right, because they were born more knowledgeable than the serfs that served them.

John Locke's essay questions these ideas of human understanding. Locke viewed people as almost a blank slate, which would acquire knowledge through sensatory experience and then produce their own ideas. He argued that, "Idea is the object of all thinking." We learn that a chair is a chair because we have seen it, heard it described to us, touched it, and experienced it. Experience is the basis of knowledge.

Sensation is the primary focus of experience. The direct senses allow us to form ideas from our ideas from experiences. As Locke explains, "All ideas come from sensation or reflection." Reflection, or reason, is the ability to think about the experiences we have had. Reflection allows us to use our "inner sense" in order to understand ideas.

John Locke, like other Enlightenment thinkers, was radical. He changed the way we viewed human understanding. He stated that we form ideas through a combination of experience, sensation, and reflection. Locke taught us how we fill our blank slate, but leaves it up to us to fill it with ideas.

Photo courtesy: http://lindseyreadenobles.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/istock_000002580646small.jpg

A Response to Benjamin

Benjamin’s article is about the reproduction of art. He discusses the history of the lithograph and the printing press, but in today’s society, reproduction is at a whole new level.

Benjamin also discusses what reproduction does to art. He says that no reproduced piece retains the original’s authenticity. He goes on to say that this depreciates its value, so basically we trade quality for quantity these days.

I completely agree with what Benjamin is saying. When I think of an example of this I think of The Great Wave off Kanagaw by Katsushika Hokusai. This is a cool piece of art, but if I saw the original in a museum it would not be that big of a deal because I can see it on Google images or at the poster sale on campus. It’s nice that I can have my own copy if I want, but I feel bad that it takes away from the value of the original.

Benjamin talks about the “aura” of art, which I interpret to mean its soul or its “specialness.” In the example of The Great Wave, I like the way it looks on my desktop, but there is nothing very special about it. It doesn’t have aura anymore. Part of having aura is in the ritual of creating the art. When I think of Hokusai creating his print, it gives the piece more value because he really worked hard to make it. The version on my desktop was probably uploaded by some art undergrad. This is clearly not as respectable as the process Hokusai went through.

This is the way art is today. There is tons of it, but none of it is as special and unique as it used to be. More recently, art has been created specifically to be reproduced, but I wonder if Da Vinci might be a little upset if he saw the Mona Lisa on allposters.com. I value originality and authenticity and wish it were a little harder to obtain a reproduced photograph, movie, painting, etc. I hope that in the future all forms of art do not become invaluable because of reproduction.

*Picture courtesy of allposters.com (http://img2.allposters.com/images/adc/10034684B.jpg)