On Hume

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?

Response to Christine

Christine asked on her blog:
Do you think people enjoy art more when they can relate to it? 

I definitely think this is true. The conditions for "relating" to the art are not whether they completely understand the artist's intentions or what it exactly means, but whether the artwork can evoke some sort of emotion and/or reaction in them. People don't like art that bores them or doesn't make them think or wonder. People want art that they can always remember, relate to how they are feeling about something, relate to a situation in their life, anything that can connect them to the artwork, even if it is not the original intention of the artist.

Why are some people so obsessed with finding the true meaning of a piece of artwork instead of being content with their own reactions?