Page 226 - DENG502_PROSE

Prose

Notes 5. Formula According to Rules
6. Outcome Disagreements Irrelevant
Grading The crucial evidence in favor of the non-subjectivity of taste is the possibility of grading
artists and the products of art. It would be foolish to claim that there is no difference in rank and
quality between a sheer translator, like John Ogilby, and a great poet of a John Milton’s stature, or
between a mediocre essayist like John Bunyan and a great one like Joseph Addison.
Absurdity Even if somebody would advance the view that these differences do not matter and that
the judgments of taste regarding these artists are all equal nobody would pay attention to such a
claim because it is in itself implausible and irrelevant. Hume pronounces the sentiment of such a
critic absurd and ridiculous despite the previous contention that all sentiments are right.
Similes Any attempt to equalize and level all artists is not less implausible than to negate obvious
differences in physical size. It is an “extravagant paradox” or “palpable absurdity”. To deny
evident qualitative differences would be tantamount to an easily falsifiable factual assertion that
a pond is equal to the ocean or a molehill to the great rock of the Tenerife island.
• Small Big Mediocre Great
• Mole-hill Tenerife Bunyan Addison
• Pond Ocean Ogilby Milton
Disproportion The principle of equality among different tastes cannot be applied to the objects of
ostensibly different value and quality. Both experts and regular people realize that great artworks
are much more valuable than the “kitsch” products of popular culture even if they like the latter.
Everyone agrees that accomplished artists can do more and better than amateurs, etc. Hume notes
that this discrepancy is obvious to common sense as well. It is acknowledged by it despite the
wide acceptance of the proverb De gustibus non disputandum est.
• Conclusion All artworks are not equally good.
• All artists are not equally accomplished.
• All judgments of taste are not right.
Dilemma The question Hume is facing now is which of the two positions is right. It seems that
Hume has to choose between an utterly subjective relativism and the abstract objectivity of aesthetic
principles. Apparently this is a difficult choice for a radical empiricist who still believes that his
judgment on aesthetic matters is not equal to the taste of a boor.
Rules and Principles of Taste

Whether aesthetic judgments are objective and universal or subjective and relativistic is one of the
most hotly debated issues in Aesthetics.
Relativism: It is clear that Hume does not espouse aesthetic relativism even though it would be
consistent with his general theory of sentiments and his contention that beauty lies in the eye of
the beholder.
Objectivism: However, he does not accept objectivism either. Especially not in the form of a priori
rules of composition or “abstract conclusions” derived from eternal and steady relations of ideas.
He remains convinced that the rules of art are not rational, universal and necessary. “It is evident
that none of the rules of composition are fixed by reasoning a priori...”
Solution: So what is Hume’s solution to the above problem of two contradictory views on taste?
He does not have a straight one; he rather struggles to get around the unpleasant dilemma of
choosing between relativism and objectivism. What he suggests sounds like a middle way (an
intermediate ground) between these two extremes: he accepts that differences in rank and quality
are too evident to be ignored but still clings to his starting belief that aesthetic judgments are just
expressions of our sentiments which do not represent anything in objects.

220 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY