Hume argues that one must be free of all influences in order to make an objective judgment on art and such. This is a little bit ridiculous. For one, that is completely impossible. In order to be free from influence, one must never actually live; all experiences add influence after influence to a person's life to determine how they think and how they view the world.
Second, how can any judgment ever be objective? The word judgment in itself includes judgments of its own, and there is no way to escape them. Hume's theory is impossible to ever achieve, not even he himself could.
If this is the case, why would he ever make such a claim?
Personally, I think that the argument Hume poses for us is actually one of the stronger conversations for how to interpret art. The thing that is important to keep in mind when discussing this however is the concept of setting a precedent, which is exactly what Hume did best.
ReplyDeleteTo elaborate on what I am talking about, obviously no single person could possibly be perfect at judging something with the concept of freedom from influence. However, a person can try to take this standpoint while taking in and interpreting a piece of art. By attempting to focus your view of a piece of art from the standpoint of no influence from other art, then you can most accurately attempt to see the beauty of the thing itself without preconception. You don't have to be perfect at it, but the better you are at this, the less convolution you have to fight past when judging art.
Additionally, taking this standpoint with the idea that you are attempting to achieve as close to perfect as possible, rather than perfection, then objectivity / subjectivity becomes arguable. Taking the standpoint of no preconceptions would mean that you would be judging from the standpoint of the people as a whole, thus removing subjectivity from the equation.
Do you feel that this standpoint makes any sense?