After reading the section on David Hume (p. 78-92) discuss your relationship to the notion of “taste” (e.g. is either, both, or none of the provided two paintings tasteful).
In the section on David Hume, pertaining to “the standard of taste”, Hume expressed that “beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” Hume’s perspective on beauty reinforces the cliché that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.
I was intrigued by the method in which Hume conveyed the impossibility of creating a standard of taste among men, as an individual’s preferences are highly influenced by sentiment and factors related to the delicacy of the imagination, personal prejudices, experience derived from practice, and formed comparisons. I agree with Hume in that all sentiment is right, or rather no sentiment is wrong, and due to the diversity of opinion among humans it creates a situation where it is impossible to define real beauty or deformity.
Although Hume is unable to define absolute beauty and absolute deformity, he effectively communicates the parameters for which what is real can be considered tasteful. He expresses that taste is entirely based on personal palette as “to seek real beauty, or real deformity, is as fruitless an enquiry, as to pretend to ascertain the real sweet or real bitter.”
In referencing Hume’s philosophy on taste, I find neither of the paintings to be tasteful on many levels. First, coming from an entirely objective stance with minimal prejudices, I find deformities or inferior beauty in both the paintings. The painting of the monkey holding a flower, in my opinion, combines the superior beauty of a flower with the inferior beauty of monkey as I see monkeys to be a substandard of human beauty. In no logical circumstance can an individual obtain anything more than mediocrity from a mixture of greatness and commonness.
The portrait of the man is also not tasteful. There is no beauty associated with the painting that registers with my palette. I am unable to relate to the man’s appearance, style of dress, and facial expression. I find the painting similar to the story mentioned about the kinsmen who pronounced the King’s wine to be satisfactory if it weren’t for the hint of leather taste or the distinguishable iron taste left from the key with a leathern thong in the hogshead. The painting, at a fundamental level, illustrates the sweet beauty of a human, but takes a sour turn with the apparent displeasing characteristics in it.
Solid well-written and critical comments, Derick! Good quotes - although I think there's more room for 'standards' in Hume than what you relate. The paintings are by Peter Zokosky whom we'll meet later in a video.
ReplyDeleteIn the fourth paragraph, you state you are coming from an 'entirely objective stance with minimial prejudices,' but then follow that with 'in my opinion'. I feel that a completely objective stance is, by definition, diametrically opposed to personal opinion.
ReplyDelete