Oetting 1 Joel Oetting C. Williams Phil.

202 September 11, 2011 The EsotericOf the Standard of Taste The Scottish philosopher, David Hume, author Of the Standard of Taste describes the chance to find a standard to judge art. He begins his essay describing the "great variety of Taste. " Taste is humanity's origin of judgment over natural and moral beauty. Hume illustrates the "great variety," by comparing the Koran with the West. The Koran the same virtues Englishmen extoll. However, the Englishmen view the Islamic morals to be just the opposite (Neil and Ridley 256). There is no standard of morality (in turn aesthetics) that universally distinguishes right and wrong. However, Hume does not fall into the relativistic trap. He proposes a solution to find a standard of taste. Saying there is an "equality of genius and elegance between OGILBY and MILTON... [is] absurd and ridiculous." (Neil and Ridley 257-258). The difference seen in the artists and their works is simply common sense. Thus a standard of taste is both necessary and possible. But how does one establish or recognize this standard? This is accomplished by the joint verdict of true judges (Neil and Ridley 264).The joint verdict simply means a consensus of multiple judges' views. When one finds true judges agreeing with each other over topics of taste, then their contributions create the standard of taste. Furthermore, a joint verdict cannot be made by everyone but by a few. Hume implies exclusion as he lists the five characteristics necessary for a true judge. The criteria are as follows: "Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice" (Neil and Ridley 264). Strong sense is the foundation on which to base all judgments. If a person has not a strong sense, then the judge has no means to reason. Where good sense is wanting, he is not qualified to discern the beauties of design and reasoning, which are the highest and most excellent (Hume 264). Art does not merely address the sentiment; it has reasoned purpose. A judge with strong sense is able

Oetting 2 to discern whether the medium and method the artist took to achieve his purpose is effective. Every work of art has also a certain end or purpose (Neil and Ridley 263). Good sense allows the judge to determine what the artists strives to accomplish. strong sense enables judges to judge whether the artist achieve his end. . Delicacy, the second characteristic, is the ability to recognize the smallest ingredients of the art in its entirety. Hume uses an example from Don Quixote, where two kinsmen were called to give their opinion on a taste of wine. One said that the wine tasted like leather, the other said it tasted like iron. They were both right for the wine hid a key attached to a leather thong. A judge possessing a delicate sentiment would be able to recognize both the key and the leather. IA delicate taste involves organs [for sensing]... so exact as to perceive every ingredient in the composition (Neil and Ridley 266). A judge must have his senses be fine tuned so he can taste the slightest imperfections or perfections in the 'wine'. A true judge's perceptive ability will most likely not be inherited but earned. Hume's third criteria stresses, perceptions improve by practice. Practice allow[s] him to acquire experience in those objects... He .. perceives the beauties and defects of each part, but marks the distinguishing... quality, and assigns it suitable praise or blame(Neil and Ridly 261-62) Thus, in identifying and seeking advice with a judge one should not reference the most experienced. Consequently a judge in his experience would have perfected his skill by forming comparisons. This satisfies the fourth criterion: comparisons. A man, who has had no opportunity of comparing the different kinds of beauty, is indeed totally unqualified to pronounce an opinion... (Neil and Ridley 263). Comparisons help the judge entitle values and ranks upon a piece of art. By comparing the judge forms a general pattern of a work, he can use that pattern to judge a particular work. However, in comparing a wide spectrum of species, the judge's own prejudices could blind him from making a true comparison. The last criterion, freedom from prejudices, acknowledges this point. Prejudices only allow the judge

Oetting 3 to see from his culture, only seeing the beauty his culture sees. If he allows himself to enter into the beauty and tastes of other cultures, a new field of taste will open. He thus is able to compare, and practice more thoroughly. A judge must preserve his mind free from all prejudice, and allow nothing to enter into his consideration, but the very object which is submitted to his examination (Neil and Ridley 262). A judge has no need to judge if he has already judged before viewing it. Thus clearing the mind of all prejudice is not merely a habit but a necessity. An additional characteristic Hume should have added, though not necessarily historically realized, should be the judge's to make himself known to society's lowest. He would hardly be heard, and his opinions yielded useless unless he forces himself to be heard not in only esoteric circles but within the common man's home. How is one able to identify this judge? First , if the person under consideration fulfills the five characteristics, he is undoubtedly a judge. Furthermore, Hume adds that judges are easily... distinguished in society, by ... their understanding and the superiority of their faculties above the rest of mankind (Neil and Ridley 265). They become influential their lively approbation becomes an artistic prevalence. Thus besides fulfilling the five characteristics, a true judge is recognized by their understanding, superior talents, and influence. As more and more criteria are laid upon judges the probability to identify one becomes slimmer. If two or more judges satisfying the five characteristics, jointly agree concerning art they establish the true standard of taste and beauty. This however presents problems. Firstly, determining the standard of taste has been made esoteric. Common man in acknowledging the superiority of the judges, relinquish all criticism to the judges. Apathy could ensue, as well as doubt over their own inferior sentiment. Would they be able to look at a sunrise or read a book without first referring to the true judge's perspective? And lastly, higher senses does not necessarily mean better senses. If the majority of the population has inferior organs, does not that create a standard? Granted education increases understanding of taste, and practice increases perception. But whose organs is the

Oetting 4 standard of taste truly addressing? Is it merely 'transplanting' the judges delicate organs? Or should it actualize the common man's senses to aptly view art directly? In finding a standard of taste, Hume alienates the people who need it the most.