David Hume and Taste.

This will be my last catching-up-post, I think after this one, I'm all caught up with the material in class. I apologize for my blogs being a bit out of order because I've been a bit behind schedule, but I can assure you that after this blog, my posts will be chronologically sufficient.

David Hume presents the idea that instead of questioning what creates art a piece of art, as a society, we should explore whether there are objective standards for assessing art and whether something is considered "good art" or "bad art." He does not solve the antinomy that Wartenberg describes in the introduction to his essay because people will always have their subjective views on art, and it is only a matter of taste that affects the "sentiments." On page 42 of the textbook, Hume writes, "Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty." In other words, people will always have their specific idea of beauty because it exists primarily inside of their own mind, and their vision of beauty is not like anyone else’s. Therefore, a person’s idea of a great piece of artwork may differ severely to another person’s idea of a great piece of artwork. Although Hume claims that there is a universal susceptibility to qualities of artwork that ensures that there will be universal agreement that some pieces of artwork have more beauty within them than others, he also acknowledges that there will always be aesthetic disagreement among art.

My question is, "Everybody comes from a different background, a different life; therefore, their subjective views and taste of art will always be different and unique. How can there be a universal agreement on the goodness of art when we all come from a different background of what is considered 'good' or not?"