John Scott- David Hume

David Hume writes about art as an object of taste. He does not seek to define it but simply wants to see what makes us consider art as good or bad. He believes that each person must define what is good art for themselves. It is an object of taste. Wartenberg writes, “Relying on the idea of a ‘natural equality of taste’—that one’s tastes are simply one’s own and not subject to correction by others—Hume reasons that a critical judgement can be nothing more than the expression of an idiosyncratic reaction to a work” (40). I could not agree more. Hume is essentially saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The point of art is to connect us to something else. It binds us in experience to something else. When the point of art is experiential, how much more is the value of art then determined by the experience of taking in the art. However, I do think there is some value in saying that some art is better at connecting people on a broader level then others. A popular artist is not arbitrarily liked by more people but is more appreciated because people connect to that music for whatever reason. Does this then make that art good art? I don’t know. Justin Bieber is extremely popular but I do not find his art to be good art. I feel like the art that he creates is shallow and has been produced before. There must be more to defining art as good or bad then simple hype or prestige. I think that good art also must be fought for in that it is difficult sometimes to connect with it. Using imagery and using art to conceal art, I think art of more quality is created because it must be struggled with. With that struggle an increase of desire and an increase of expectation make the experience of connection that the art brings so much more rewarding!