In place of our class discussion today, review the reading on Hume's essay "Standard of Taste" and answer each of these questions. Read other students' responsives and build your ideas in responseto your classmates'.
On Wednesday, we will discuss your answers in class along with Barrett's chapter on Interpretation. Please read Susan Sontag for Wednesday as well.
DAVID HUME, “OF THE STANDARD OF TASTE” BY MARY MOTHERSILL.
IN HUME’S VIEW, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUDGEMENT AND SENTIMENT?
WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM WITH HUME’S ARGUMENT ABOUT THE STANDARD OF TASTE AS DESCRIBED BY MOTHERSILL (THE AUTHOR) ON PG. 430?
3. WHAT DOES HUME CONTRIBUTE TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF BEAUTY?
WHAT PROBLEM DOES THIS CAUSE FOR VIEWERS OF DIFFICULT CONTEMPORARY ART?
IN HUME’S VIEW, WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF A CRITIC?
WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD CRITIC ACCORDING TO HUME?
HOW DOES HUME USE THE CRITIC TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM OF FINDING A SHARED STANDARD OF TASTE? DO YOU THINK THIS IS A GOOD SOLUTION?
On Wednesday, we will discuss your answers in class along with Barrett's chapter on Interpretation. Please read Susan Sontag for Wednesday as well.
DAVID HUME, “OF THE STANDARD OF TASTE” BY MARY MOTHERSILL.
IN HUME’S VIEW, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUDGEMENT AND SENTIMENT?
WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM WITH HUME’S ARGUMENT ABOUT THE STANDARD OF TASTE AS DESCRIBED BY MOTHERSILL (THE AUTHOR) ON PG. 430?
3. WHAT DOES HUME CONTRIBUTE TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF BEAUTY?
WHAT PROBLEM DOES THIS CAUSE FOR VIEWERS OF DIFFICULT CONTEMPORARY ART?
IN HUME’S VIEW, WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF A CRITIC?
WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD CRITIC ACCORDING TO HUME?
HOW DOES HUME USE THE CRITIC TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM OF FINDING A SHARED STANDARD OF TASTE? DO YOU THINK THIS IS A GOOD SOLUTION?
Some notes/passages on Hume
ReplyDeleteHume begins by observing that it is obvious even to “men of the most confined knowledge” that tastes differ within “the narrow circle of their acquaintance” and as, through travel and education, they become less provincial, they are increasingly struck by the “inconsistence and contrariety” of tastes. Tastes differ, that is the fact of life.
Hume’s task will be to tell a story that allows a place for both species of common sense, which are flatly inconsistent. The real sticking point is the first species’ claim that “a thousand sentiments, excited by the same object, are all right.” The putative “rules of composition” are supposed to be grounded in laws of taste, that is, in generalization to the effect that certain qualities are causes of pleasure to everyone in every age. Here Hume is blind: he is going to claim that a judgment of taste is justified when a critic correctly identifies the features of a poem that account for the pleasure that reading the poem affords, and Hume’s conception of causality is that it depends on the observation of repeated sequences.
Beauty is no quality of things in themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them, and each mind perceives a different beauty. It is thought of as a power. We pronounce a work beautiful when our encounter with it is a cause of pleasure, but the casual relation here is not simple.
The requirements of a good critic if firstly a “delicacy of imagination”. It means the capacity to make fine analytic discriminations. A good critic not only can say what makes for excellence in a poem as a whole but can explain in detail what each line contributes to the over all effect.
Hume finds a parallel with the good critic who can distinguish qualities of the work that are inconspicuous and escape the attention of others. The critic must have good sense. The critic must have a developed feeling for logical and dramatic coherence.
The general principles of taste are uniform in human nature, there are preferences that have to do with personal idiosyncrasies and should be simply be accepted; so there is a one limited field in which it is useless to dispute about tastes. The second point raises weightier issues and certainly deserves more attention than Hume is willing to allot. It is that, despite the need to free ourselves from prejudice in considering the work of another age or nation, we cannot and should not suspend our moral conviction. It would be silly to take exception to characters from the historical past because of their quaint costumes.
The truth is the Hume does not say enough in the essay to give a clear picture of what he really has in mind.
PCP
Hume compares judgments and sentiments by saying that judgments “have reference to something beyond themselves”, and that sentiments do not “represent what is really in the object.” He means that sentiments are the emotions and opinions viewers form when reviewing a piece of work. This in turn defines judgments as more solid ‘facts’ rather than just a thought that differs from person to person. Mothersill points out contradictions in Hume’s argument of sentiments vs judgment by basically saying if all sentiments are right, then a person “who prefers Ogilby and Milton” would end up being “not just mistaken but absurd and ridiculous.” Peter Cary brings up the point that “The putative “rules of composition” are supposed to be grounded in laws of taste, that is, in generalization to the effect that certain qualities are causes of pleasure to everyone in every age. The putative “rules of composition” are supposed to be grounded in laws of taste, that is, in generalization to the effect that certain qualities are causes of pleasure to everyone in every age.” Hume goes on to contradict himself again saying that critics are the ones who identify what brings pleasure. I completely agree with Peter saying that beauty is in the mind of the viewer, because everyone sees beauty differently. If that wasn’t so, contemporary art would pose huge problems because it doesn’t fit into the ‘rules’ Hume just barely touches.
ReplyDeleteHume says a critic’s function is that they, “the true judges”, are to guide us by their opinion. He goes on to define a good critic and the first requirement is that they have the ability to make “fine analytic discriminations.” Basically, they need to be able to break down a work and tell how and why it works, and be able to tell if works well or not. No regular person can be a critic, only one who has had the ‘practice’. A critic must not be prejudice to certain works or artists, and they must have good sense in determining what he author’s intentions are.
A critic should not be the final say in finding ‘shared tastes’. While Hume does acknowledge that we all have different tastes, one’s opinion should be swayed by a critic’s verdict, because they are the “trusted judges.” Personally, I don’t want to be swayed in anyway- even if the critic is highly commendable. Critics can tell me why a work is the way it is and if it works or not, but I will still be my own judge.
According to Hume, judgment is black or white while sentiment is subjective and varies depending on who is viewing the object. Judgment is something that can be proven and argued for while sentiment lacks that amount of credence due to its being more closely related to opinion and feeling. The problem with Hume’s argument is that his two proposed species of common sense are contradictory to one another. Mothersill states that Hume’s attempt to convey an illustration that includes both examples of common sense is difficult due to their inconsistencies (430).
ReplyDeleteIn regards to beauty, Hume states that in order for an object to be deemed beautiful, the pleasure that is derived from it must be able to be perceived, articulated, and accepted by others. Hume also argues that time equals beauty: “the beauties…immediately display their energy and while the world endures, they maintain their authority over the minds of men” (431). The notion of time being an accurate test of beauty poses a problem for contemporary art in that we, as an audience, have no historical context in which to view contemporary works. Also, Hume’s assertion that beauty is the articulation and sharing of derived pleasure from an object creates a problem with difficult contemporary works because pleasure is not always the paramount feeling gleaned from contemporary art; a work can very easily be aesthetically beautiful but possess a disturbing subject matter.
In terms of where to look for the standard of taste, Hume argues that we look to the critic. The function of a critic, according to Hume, is to make pronouncements according to good or bad works in lieu of being able to view a work in a historical context: “what are we supposed to be doing while we wait for posterity? Hume’s answer…we should be guided by the opinion of those critics we have learned to trust” (432). Hume has a long list of criteria as to what dictates a good critic. A good critic has very shrewd analytic skills and an eye for detail. A good critic is very practiced especially in the arena of comparison. A good critic is unbiased, appreciative and respectful of the work an artist has put into their product, and has the ability to be logical and coherent. Hume states that “the joint verdict of such [critics], wherever they are to be found is the true standard of beauty and taste” (432). This theory poses a problem because it requires a viewing audience to conform to the assertions made by critics. It leaves no room for individual opinion or preference. While critique is essential to the discussion and interpretation of art, it should by no means be the end-all in the pronouncement of beauty.
In Hume’s distinction between judgment and sentiment, he refers to the idea that judgments are statements that can be viewed as true or false. Every sentiment for a single work, on the other hand, can be correct because they each represent the personal connection the viewer has to the art. He then goes on to blatantly contradict the previous statement by explaining that an individual can hold the sentiment that anyone who prefers a particular poet to another is “absurd and ridiculous” (430). This viewpoint sounds more like the aforementioned definition of judgment. Thus, I believe Hume meant that sentiments and judgments are more linked than an individual may think because of the way they go hand in hand to affect interpretations and opinions of the art.
ReplyDeleteHume denounced the idea that art forms had to be consistent with conventional laws and rather, that “if they are found to please, they cannot be faults” (430). However, Mothersill went on to describe Hume’s implication of a reliance on critics to justify artistic judgments, thus suggesting that art does rely on some set of standards and that opinions can be right or wrong, rather than just accepting everyone’s sentiments as correct.
Hume went on to discuss the qualities of beauty. Mothersill explained Hume’s view that beauty is ascribed when the viewer discovers that the work can create a personal sense of pleasure time and time again and then assumes that it could provide others with pleasure as well. For viewers of contemporary art, the idea of beauty is often not so simple. Hume’s definition is most concerned with a pleasurable viewing experience, but in many cases, contemporary art is not initially “pleasurable.” It is often difficult to interpret because of the disregard for old artistic standards. Modern viewers must look past the surface level of the work in order to obtain a pleasurable experience that can then be interpreted as “beauty.”
Hume believed that critics function as the “true judges” of a work to guide the viewer’s opinion. He believed these “judges” should have four main characteristics. They should possess the ability to analyze and discuss in a detailed manner, a good deal of practice, a will to compare works without prejudice, and the sense to understand the creator’s intentions and appreciate the ways he or she expressed them within the work (432). Hume made it clear that he viewed the critics’ opinions as the standards of artistic taste. I believe that the critics’ thoughts are important because they do a lot more interpreting and research than the general viewer. At the same time, I can agree with Clarese in that “this theory poses a problem because it requires a viewing audience to conform to the assertions made by critics.” Thus, the viewer should value the expertise of the critics but also find his or her own pleasure within the piece.
According to Hume, the difference between judgment and sentiment is that judgments are fact, they are either right or wrong, and must be made regardless of one’s opinions or personal feelings about a work. Sentiment, on the other hand, is an attitude or thought prompted by one’s feelings. As Hume says, “a thousand different sentiments, excited by the same object, are all right: Because no sentiment represents what is really in the object” since not all viewers have the same reaction for a single object (429). However, Hume goes on to be contradictive in his ideas on the standard of taste. He makes statements such as the “rules of composition [are based on] what has universally been found to please in all countries and in all ages” but he does not articulate what these rules are (430). He further contradicts himself with the idea that objects “either work or [they] do not, and, if [they do], then the fact that it breaks the rules is irrelevant” (430).
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to beauty in art, Hume repeatedly falls back on the notion that what is beautiful is experienced differently for every viewer and it is not a “perceptible property” (430). Beauty is the connection made between viewer and object and continues to please every time the viewer revisits the object. Hume uses time as a test of beauty and as “the beauties…immediately display their energy and while the world endures, they maintain their authority over the minds of men” (431). This poses problems for viewers of contemporary art because they have not endured the test of time yet. While one may find contemporary works beautiful now, according to Hume, real beauty will last for ages and are what the standards of taste are based on.
According to Hume, a critic serves the purpose of providing opinions that guide viewers. A good critic must be able to ascertain the qualities of a piece and be able to explain how they contribute to the piece as a whole. Secondly, critics must practice and develop their skills when judging art. The more time they spend gathering information and critiquing art, the more informed and accurate opinion they can give to viewers. The third quality a good critic needs to possess is the ability to compare artworks. By comparing works, a critic can determine how successful a piece is when compared to the merits and failures of other pieces, thereby expanding his knowledge base and perfecting his judgments. The last quality a good critic needs is the ability to gauge an artist’s intention for a piece and understand the artist’s process in achieving them. Hume suggests that critics help bridge the gap of finding a shared standard of taste since they are the “true judges” or art. However, I agree with Nikki in that I do not want a critic to make me value a piece of art if I do not find merit in it. While critics’ opinions are usually valuable, I will take their ideas into consideration, but ultimately I want to be my own judge of what I believe is good and beautiful art.
In Hume's opinion the difference between judgement and sentiment is the ability to discern whether something, like a work of art, is right or wrong. Hume's idea of judgement lies in the literal form of judging something as true or false, right or wrong, lawful or unlawful, ect. Hume writes on sentiment, "It only marks a certain conformity or relation between the object and organs or faculties of the mind; and if that conformity did not really exist, the sentiment could never possibly have being" 429. Therefore, sentiment is based on the way in which one recycles information they receive from a work of art through their own life experience, which then results in a specific emotion being evoked within the viewer which cannot be judged as right or wrong. The issue with Hume's idea on the standard of taste is that when he previously speaks about sentiment he refers to an individual interpreting a work of art, when later he states, "a thousand sentiments, excited by the same object, are all right" 430. If sentiments cannot be judged because they are specific to an individual, but can be judged when one thousand individuals reach the same sentiment, than sentiment is based on majority opinion, which is still just an opinion and not fact.
ReplyDeleteHume believes that objects aren't inherently beautiful or not beautiful, but can be only be deemed beautiful by an individual if that individual can point out what it is from their life experience and personality that makes them feel that it is beautiful. The problem with determining if an object has beauty or not causes problems with contemporary artists because beauty is often not the point. Contemporary art balances both content and aesthetics.
Hume's opinion on the function of a critic is to be the leader in knowledge on a subject so that they can make the utmost informed judgement about that subject. Hume then lists several criteria for one to be considered a good critic. First, the good critic must be able to properly analyze each aspect of a work in relation to the work as a whole. Second, the critic must practice to be able to make (third) comparisons to other works, inorder to determine how much praise or blame a work deserves. The critic must also be unbiased in order to make illuminating comparisons. The critic must lastly understand the artist's intentions for a work and take into account how the artist did or didn't achieve his intentions. Hume believes critics created the standard of taste because they are the final say on the tastefulness of a work. I don't think a standard of taste should be applied to contemporary art because the rules are being broken on a daily basis, and often times the most influential works are the ones that don't follow any standards of taste whatsoever.
Mothersill analyzes Hume’s definitions of judgment and sentiment for truth and inconsistency. Judgment is a fact or concept that may be accepted as true or false. Sentiments, however, are the emotions and thoughtful responses one may find within a work, and these are accepted as always true. However, Hume contradicts himself when he states that one’s sentimental comparison between Ogilby and Milton is “absurd and ridiculous.” Thus Hume allows that not all sentiments are “all right.” The inconsistencies within his argument are what Mothersill expresses Hume must overcome in order for his work to be accepted as true.
ReplyDeleteHume’s version of beauty is not grounded within a set parameters or rules of composition. Instead he expresses that beauty is attained from repeated pleasure when viewing a composition. Beauty may differ from the eye of each beholder, but it is a test of repeated enjoyment within a piece. The test of repeated pleasure attained from a work may not always be the most accurate means of defining beauty. Contemporary works are not allowed the benefit of repeated exposure, but many are beautiful. Since modern work has not had to stand the test of time, does that mean it is not beautiful? Further, Hume offers the idea that beauty is not a judgment, because no one is able to truly qualify it. Rather it is a sentiment that is accepted differently between all viewers.
Hume’s view on critics is to call them the “true judges” of contemporary work. Finding critics one trusts is the solution to the test of time that modern works have yet to endure. According to Hume, good critics are able to assess how each component contributes to the work in a positive or negative way. In addition to analysis skills, a critic must attain great practice before he can be a trusted judge. A critic must also be free of prejudice and able to aptly merit a work the correct “degree of praise or blame.” Finally, Hume states a critic must have “good sense,” or be able to appreciate the effort or process placed within the work. I agree with many of Hume’s qualities for apt critics. I believe practice is key to any form of development as is an appreciation for the skill placed into a piece. However, I do not think it is possible for a critic to remain unprejudiced by his own sentiments. Thus, Hume’s perfect critic is unfathomable.
Hume’s beliefs are spiked with inconsistencies. However, I do share his belief that every person has a varying perspective on beauty. To me, these differing sentiments is what makes each of us “good” critics.¬¬¬
What is the difference between judgement and sentiment? Judgements are either true or false. They are based on prior knowledge and have a right or wrong answer. Sentiments are based on opinion. They are open to hundreds of interpretations and therefore hundreds of ‘right’ answers. At least, that’s what Humes believed. Simple enough, right? Unfortunately, his theory was loaded with contradictions.
ReplyDeleteAs Mothershill points out in his criticism of Humes, Humes’ arguments have some major inconsistencies—the most egregious of which were his assertions on the standard of taste. When Humes talked about the standard of taste, he spoke of certain “unwritten rules” as if everyone knew what the "rules" were, but gave no examples. “The rules have universally been found to please in all countries and in all ages,” he said. In sight of this, “[artworks] either work or they do not, and, if they do, then the fact that they break the rules is irrelevant” (430).
As we can see, Hume’s had a little trouble making up his mind at times.
Another wonderful contribution Humes made to our understanding of art was his concept of “beauty.” Humes believed objects weren't inherently beautiful or not beautiful, but were rather deemed that way based on individual life experiences and personalities. He also stated that beauty lasts for ages and the concept of beauty created throughout those ages are what the standards of taste are based on. In contemporary art criticism, this definition of beauty summons two problems: 1. “beauty” is often not the point of contemporary art, content and aesthetics are. 2. Contemporary art is current, therefore it has yet to stand the test of time.
So now that we’ve criticized everything about Hume, let’s talk about his critiques of critics. According to Hume, a good critic is unbiased, appreciative and respectful of the work an artist has put into their product, possesses shrewd analytic skills and an eye for detail that give him the “delicacy of imagination,” and has loads of practice in the field of critiquing. “The joint verdict of such critics, wherever they are to be found, is the true standard of beauty and taste” (432). This final statement would be a good resolution to finding a shared standard of taste, however, there are dozens of critics who possess all of these qualities and don’t agree in the slightest about what makes an artwork “good” and “beautiful”—especially in the contemporary realm. As Humes stated earlier, objects aren’t inherently beautiful but are deemed that way based on individual experiences, and as such, no two critics will ever have the exact same outlook on what artwork is best.
Final verdict: Ultimately, the standard of taste is simply a matter of personal opinion.
Knowledge is what makes a good critic, he defined it by the experiences from travel and life as well as the knowledge you have gained from education either life or traditional. This will also determine a persons taste in art. However this means everyone will have a different taste and will be drawn to different things.
ReplyDeleteThe job of the critic is to help determine what art is good and what art is not good. This is very subjective because the each person has their own taste. But their is still art that is seen as good art overall. This is because the artists will show the basic principals and catch the general eye and stimulate the mind.
I feel that the job of a critic has been seen as a bad job or that they are bad people. However this is their job and their experiences and education help to give them the rights to determine what is good and what is bad.
Judgments “have reference to something beyond themselves and are either true or false”. Sentiments are evoked by feelings and opinion, thus they are always right, when prompted by the same object. Sentiments “encourage ambiguities because it can mean not only feeling or affect, but also opinion”.
ReplyDeleteSince standard of taste has so much to do with sentiment, and opinion, who is to say that one’s opinion is not “absurd and ridiculous”. Hume “recognized there were something fishy about the notion of laws and his positive theory depends on the supposition that there are any such”.
Hume has a quote about beauty that I really like and agree with that is, “Beauty is no quality of things in themselves: it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them, and each mind perceives a different beauty”. He goes on to say we ascribe beauty, which is really just a simpler way of putting it.
This causes problems when we view contemporary art. I know from personal experience that it is hard for me to appreciate a lot of what contemporary art has to offer. Maybe, as Hume suggests, this is because we pronounce a work beautiful when we encounter that work with pleasure.
Basically, Hume states the you should listen to what a critic has to say, because a good critic has a lifetime’s worth of experience. Hume states that critics should possess certain qualities. One being the capacity to make fine analytic discriminations. Secondly, he says a good characteristic of a critics practice. The critic must free his mind of prejudice and have good sense in order to take into account the authors steps and intentions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete