David Hume argues that taste is based on feeling rather than objective properties in an artwork. However, he also maintains that some aesthetic judgements are more reliable than others because qualified critics can establish a standard of taste.
In Of the Standard of Taste, Hume begins from sentimentalism: beauty exists in the sentiment of the observer, not independently in the object. Different people may therefore experience the same artwork differently, and neither logical proof nor factual investigation can directly demonstrate that something is beautiful.
Yet Hume observes that certain works receive lasting admiration across different cultures and historical periods. He explains this apparent tension by arguing that defects in an observer can prevent an appropriate aesthetic response. The combined verdict of competent critics, whom Hume calls true judges, provides the closest available standard.
| Quality of a true judge | Why it improves aesthetic judgement |
|---|---|
| Delicacy of taste | Detects subtle details and relationships within the work. |
| Practice | Develops the ability to assess works attentively. |
| Comparison | Allows the critic to distinguish superior works from inferior ones. |
| Freedom from prejudice | Reduces distortion caused by personal interest or cultural assumptions. |
| Good sense | Supports coherent interpretation and recognition of artistic purpose. |
Hume therefore does not claim that beauty becomes a measurable property. The standard remains grounded in human sentiment, but informed and tested sentiment carries greater authority than an immediate, uninformed reaction.
A common misconception is that Hume is a complete aesthetic relativist who believes every opinion is equally valid. His actual position is more nuanced: responses originate subjectively, but critics can be assessed according to shared standards of competence.
For an IB Philosophy response, explain the tension between subjective sentiment and critical authority. Then evaluate whether Hume successfully identifies true judges without reasoning circularly: great works may be identified by good critics, while good critics may be identified by their appreciation of great works.
