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.