Surpreendentemente, ao se posicionar de modo conciliatório na querela antigos vs moderno dos anos de 1760, Hume acredita na universalidade do juízo de gosto. De modo que, se a filosofia, e mesmo parte da ciência é desmentida época após época, variando conforme as concepções e vidas dos homens, ainda assim os grandes clássicos estéticos permanecem, imortais. É verdade que o autor nuança isso: mas é a possibilidade dessa permanência que funda os padrões de gosto, que devem ser apreendidos, treinados, exercitados (comparando obras, principalmente) e sujeitos às variações de idade, região, concepção moral (que deve ser colocada ao lado da estética, sem com ela se confundir), para, através Surpreendentemente, para o que eu imaginaria do pouco que sei de Hume, aqui ele defende que há uma certa universalidade no juízo de gosto. Com seu estilo límpido e humorado, o autor começa por cutucar aqueles que acreditam que a razão coroaria as virtudes, de modo a todos aplaudirem a justiça e a bondade etc. Mas é que aplaudir é o comportamento correto associado a essas palavras, as quais devemos tecer louvores. Agora, seu conteúdo pode variar livremente, entretanto, entrando em conflito conforme humor, cultura e intenções.

Nos padrões de gosto, entretanto, há universalidade. A regra do tempo o mostra. O mal gosto e os autores ruins vão e vem com a moda, mas os clássicos permanecem. E mesmo se a beleza é um sentimento, há naqueles objetos algo especialmente adequado à produção dessa resposta. Mas quem será capaz de separar o joio do trigo? Há aqueles que o fazem melhor, e o fato de que estes acabam por tanto se inspirar e por confirmar um verdadeiro cânone artístico, deve ajudar a indicar quem são. Pois nessas obras há todo o consenso e experiência condensada de eras. Esse juíz veraz terá um sentido forte, um sentimento delicado, aprimorado pela prática, aperfeiçoado via comparação e exercícios comparativos, e livrado de quaisquer preconceitos. Daí, nessa figura, tender-se-á a configurar o padrão de gosto e beleza universal. Esse crítico deve evitar tambéms as regras prontas, pois estas levam à vulgaridade da racionalização apressada que regula a imaginação e impede a experiência superior de uma experiência vasta.

Teorias de filosofia abstrata, sistemas teológicos vem e vão com as épocas e seus costumes. Sua absurdidade é prontamente detectada. A ciência mesma está sujeita à moda e ao passageiro, com suas revoluções contínuas. A eloquência da poesia, entretanto, é eterna. Entretanto os padrões de gosto variam com a idade, a cultura que se vive e as personalidades dos habitantes. O autor nuança então sua opinião, e embora abra a via para a separação da moral da estética (pois a moral traz os preconceitos), quando a obra imiscue elementos morais, ela se vê imbrincando ambas e pode e às vezes deve ser rechaçada por suscitar sentimentos inalienáveis de ojeriza moral. ( )

Since many of us here on Goodreads write book reviews, I thought I’d offer the following on how Hume’s criteria for a qualified judge of a work of art, five in number, applies to someone taking on the role of a literary critic/book reviewer. According to David Hume, we would be well to listen to someone in possession of the following:

Delicacy of Tate – Ideally, a reviewer will observe all those important facets and telling details of a literary work, that is, not miss anything. For example, in Edgar Allan Poe’s The Cask of Amontillado, if a reviewer were to miss how, toward the end of the tale, the narrator’s heart grows sick from the dampness of the catacombs, this would amount to a major oversight and lack in delicacy of taste.

Practice – The literary critic must have an experienced eye, having read a wealth of literary works. This speaks to how one must be seriously dedicated to the art of reading and reviewing, similar to a violinist spending years practicing and playing the violin or an actress honing theater skills through classes and training along with participating in many performances. From my own experience reading many reviews written here on Goodreads and also in newspapers and magazines, it quickly becomes obvious who has a dedication to craft and takes their responsibility as book reviewer seriously.

Comparison – For example, for someone to become an accomplished reviewer of literary novels, it is essential to have an exposure to a wide range of novels from different times and cultures, thus empowering a reviewer to compare and contrast the novel under consideration with other novels from other writers, past and present, from around the globe. Obviously, one can’t read all the great literary novels, but reading a healthy sample is what Hume is pointing to here. (Same idea goes for various genres, like science fiction: a serious reviewer needs to read many works of science fiction to give their judgements and opinions weight).

Good Sense – A good literary critic will have an awareness of the various themes and approaches that can be brought to bear on a work as well as an appreciation of the writer’s vision in writing the work in the first place. And, along with this, knowing when to include aspects of the author’s life or specific interpretations and themes. For example, making note of how Jungian psychology applies to Hermann Hesse’s Steppenwolf would make sense for two reasons: 1) Hesse was undergoing therapy from Carl Jung during the time he was authoring this novel; and 2) in essays and correspondence, Hesse himself indicated how Jungian concepts directly influenced the story. However, to apply a specific psychological interpretation one favors, Freudian or Jungian or Lacanian, for example, to every novel under review would be a gross error.

No Prejudice – According to Hume, a reviewer would be wise not to review a book written by a friend or relative, or a novel about a subject where they have a personal interest at stake or a particular ax to grind. In a word, the critic should be personally detached so as to render any assessment or judgement as objective as possible.

Anyway, as a more general review of Hume's book, I offer the following: Philosophic tradition going back to Plato and Aristotle assesses a work of art in terms of the qualities of the work itself: the harmony of its parts, the work’s proportion and scale, its function as a usable object, as in a well-made chair or altarpiece or cathedral. With his Of the Standard of Taste David Hume (1711-1776) was one of the key 18th century thinkers who shifted the focus from the work of art itself to the unique experience of each viewer, listener or reader. Taste counts and my taste is my taste and your taste is your taste. However, Hume still acknowledges a good work possess qualities that make it superior to a mediocre or bad work – a portrait by Rembrandt is far superior to a portrait painted by a beginning art student at your local community center. So, where and how do we draw the line between individual taste and the merits of the work itself? For over two hundred years, Hume’s essay has sparked much lively discussion over these very questions.

Here are three frequently quoted passages from Hume’s essay:
-----“Thus, though the principles of taste be universal, and nearly, if not entirely, the same in all men; yet few are qualified to give judgment on any work of art, or establish their own sentiment as the standard of beauty.”
-----“When the critic has no delicacy, he judges without any distinction, and is only affected by the grosser and more palpable qualities of the object: The finer touches pass unnoticed and disregarded.”
----- “Though men of delicate taste be rare, they are easily to be distinguished in society by the soundness of their understanding, and the superiority of their faculties above the rest of mankind.”

In effect, although we have our own feelings and judgments about which works of art might be great, good, average or bad, Hume encourages us to cede the last word to seasoned, knowledgeable, perceptive experts within their respective fields. Does this sound reasonable? Responses to Hume on this point have been mixed. To best illustrate how I myself find this topic relevant, here are a few case studies:

Major Conservative Voice
Back in the early 1970s, during a discussion with conservative William F. Buckley, Jr., a cultural critic bemoaned American crass consumer society. Buckley replied “Any society, like ours, where the recordings of all nine Beethoven symphonies are readily available and affordable is a culturally healthy society.” I almost could not believe my ears. Although what Mr. Buckley said is true, the more important point is that 99.9% of the population would not want to listen to Beethoven, not even close; rather, people want to listen to what they are familiar with and have always enjoyed – rock and roll, country music, show tunes, Frank Sinatra, etc. etc.. I cite this case to illustrate how availability and affordability will not automatically translate into people having a taste for or a desire to develop a taste for what experts consider the best of the best.

Anti-Hume
Sorry to say, in the sphere of music, literature and the arts, where individual taste plays such a strong role, generally people see themselves to be of sound taste and in a position to make judgments, even if they have very little experience in the field where they are passing judgments. There is an element of ego involved here and ego balks at admitting one might not be as learned, perceptive, educated, experienced or refined as others. For ego, even budging on this point is like admitting in public, “I am coarse and crude and totally uninformed and I like the base and mediocre because I am myself base and mediocre .” In other words, many people are not even close to buying Hume’s reasoning about ceding to experts.

Clement Chimes In
Here is a quote from Clement Greenberg’s influential essay, Avant-Garde and Kitsch: “Only when the plebian becomes dissatisfied with the social order the cultural elite administer does he begin to criticize their culture. Then the plebian finds courage for the first time to voice his opinions openly. Every man, from the Tammany alderman to the Austrian house-painter, finds that he is entitled to his opinion. Most often this resentment toward culture is to be found where the dissatisfaction with society is a reactionary dissatisfaction which expresses itself in revivalism and puritanism, and latest of all, in fascism.” Greenberg seems to be saying there is more going on than simply a judgment on an author or individual work of art or an entire form of art, for example, abstract art, literary novels, string quartets – there is a deep resentment of one’s place on the social ladder and/or resentment of one's culture in general.

Clement Chimes In Again
Another Greenberg quote: “Superior culture is one of the most artificial of all human creations, and the peasant finds no "natural" urgency within himself that will drive him toward Picasso in spite of all difficulties. In the end the peasant will go back to kitsch when he feels like looking at pictures, for he can enjoy kitsch without effort.” By ‘kitsch’ Greenberg is referencing easy-to-digest popular culture. And he is, in the main, correct - popular, commercial art, popular music, and more specifically, popular fiction do not require any real serious effort. On the other hand, writers like James Joyce, Virginia Woolf and Thomas Mann require quite a bit of serious effort.

My Own Two Cents
Rather than suggesting people cede to experts as David Hume outlines in his essay, I have taken a different tact - When I was a boy I played the trumpet. I quickly developed a great appreciation for trumpet playing. All of a sudden I was so wowed by Dizzy Gillespie and Al Hurt. So any time I hear people making harsh pronouncements about a particular form of art or literature, I ask, “What have you yourself created in that sphere?” When people tell me they have never engaged in the arts, I suggest there might be a few good reasons, such as a complete lack of talent and deficiency in artistic perception.

( )

Since many of us here on Goodreads write book reviews, I thought I’d offer the following on how Hume’s criteria for a qualified judge of a work of art, five in number, applies to someone taking on the role of a literary critic/book reviewer. According to David Hume, we would be well to listen to someone in possession of the following:

Delicacy of Tate – Ideally, a reviewer will observe all those important facets and telling details of a literary work, that is, not miss anything. For example, in Edgar Allan Poe’s The Cask of Amontillado, if a reviewer were to miss how, toward the end of the tale, the narrator’s heart grows sick from the dampness of the catacombs, this would amount to a major oversight and lack in delicacy of taste.

Practice – The literary critic must have an experienced eye, having read a wealth of literary works. This speaks to how one must be seriously dedicated to the art of reading and reviewing, similar to a violinist spending years practicing and playing the violin or an actress honing theater skills through classes and training along with participating in many performances. From my own experience reading many reviews written here on Goodreads and also in newspapers and magazines, it quickly becomes obvious who has a dedication to craft and takes their responsibility as book reviewer seriously.

Comparison – For example, for someone to become an accomplished reviewer of literary novels, it is essential to have an exposure to a wide range of novels from different times and cultures, thus empowering a reviewer to compare and contrast the novel under consideration with other novels from other writers, past and present, from around the globe. Obviously, one can’t read all the great literary novels, but reading a healthy sample is what Hume is pointing to here. (Same idea goes for various genres, like science fiction: a serious reviewer needs to read many works of science fiction to give their judgements and opinions weight).

Good Sense – A good literary critic will have an awareness of the various themes and approaches that can be brought to bear on a work as well as an appreciation of the writer’s vision in writing the work in the first place. And, along with this, knowing when to include aspects of the author’s life or specific interpretations and themes. For example, making note of how Jungian psychology applies to Hermann Hesse’s Steppenwolf would make sense for two reasons: 1) Hesse was undergoing therapy from Carl Jung during the time he was authoring this novel; and 2) in essays and correspondence, Hesse himself indicated how Jungian concepts directly influenced the story. However, to apply a specific psychological interpretation one favors, Freudian or Jungian or Lacanian, for example, to every novel under review would be a gross error.

No Prejudice – According to Hume, a reviewer would be wise not to review a book written by a friend or relative, or a novel about a subject where they have a personal interest at stake or a particular ax to grind. In a word, the critic should be personally detached so as to render any assessment or judgement as objective as possible.

Anyway, as a more general review of Hume's book, I offer the following: Philosophic tradition going back to Plato and Aristotle assesses a work of art in terms of the qualities of the work itself: the harmony of its parts, the work’s proportion and scale, its function as a usable object, as in a well-made chair or altarpiece or cathedral. With his Of the Standard of Taste David Hume (1711-1776) was one of the key 18th century thinkers who shifted the focus from the work of art itself to the unique experience of each viewer, listener or reader. Taste counts and my taste is my taste and your taste is your taste. However, Hume still acknowledges a good work possess qualities that make it superior to a mediocre or bad work – a portrait by Rembrandt is far superior to a portrait painted by a beginning art student at your local community center. So, where and how do we draw the line between individual taste and the merits of the work itself? For over two hundred years, Hume’s essay has sparked much lively discussion over these very questions.

Here are three frequently quoted passages from Hume’s essay:
-----“Thus, though the principles of taste be universal, and nearly, if not entirely, the same in all men; yet few are qualified to give judgment on any work of art, or establish their own sentiment as the standard of beauty.”
-----“When the critic has no delicacy, he judges without any distinction, and is only affected by the grosser and more palpable qualities of the object: The finer touches pass unnoticed and disregarded.”
----- “Though men of delicate taste be rare, they are easily to be distinguished in society by the soundness of their understanding, and the superiority of their faculties above the rest of mankind.”

In effect, although we have our own feelings and judgments about which works of art might be great, good, average or bad, Hume encourages us to cede the last word to seasoned, knowledgeable, perceptive experts within their respective fields. Does this sound reasonable? Responses to Hume on this point have been mixed. To best illustrate how I myself find this topic relevant, here are a few case studies:

Major Conservative Voice
Back in the early 1970s, during a discussion with conservative William F. Buckley, Jr., a cultural critic bemoaned American crass consumer society. Buckley replied “Any society, like ours, where the recordings of all nine Beethoven symphonies are readily available and affordable is a culturally healthy society.” I almost could not believe my ears. Although what Mr. Buckley said is true, the more important point is that 99.9% of the population would not want to listen to Beethoven, not even close; rather, people want to listen to what they are familiar with and have always enjoyed – rock and roll, country music, show tunes, Frank Sinatra, etc. etc.. I cite this case to illustrate how availability and affordability will not automatically translate into people having a taste for or a desire to develop a taste for what experts consider the best of the best.

Anti-Hume
Sorry to say, in the sphere of music, literature and the arts, where individual taste plays such a strong role, generally people see themselves to be of sound taste and in a position to make judgments, even if they have very little experience in the field where they are passing judgments. There is an element of ego involved here and ego balks at admitting one might not be as learned, perceptive, educated, experienced or refined as others. For ego, even budging on this point is like admitting in public, “I am coarse and crude and totally uninformed and I like the base and mediocre because I am myself base and mediocre .” In other words, many people are not even close to buying Hume’s reasoning about ceding to experts.

Clement Chimes In
Here is a quote from Clement Greenberg’s influential essay, Avant-Garde and Kitsch: “Only when the plebian becomes dissatisfied with the social order the cultural elite administer does he begin to criticize their culture. Then the plebian finds courage for the first time to voice his opinions openly. Every man, from the Tammany alderman to the Austrian house-painter, finds that he is entitled to his opinion. Most often this resentment toward culture is to be found where the dissatisfaction with society is a reactionary dissatisfaction which expresses itself in revivalism and puritanism, and latest of all, in fascism.” Greenberg seems to be saying there is more going on than simply a judgment on an author or individual work of art or an entire form of art, for example, abstract art, literary novels, string quartets – there is a deep resentment of one’s place on the social ladder and/or resentment of one's culture in general.

Clement Chimes In Again
Another Greenberg quote: “Superior culture is one of the most artificial of all human creations, and the peasant finds no "natural" urgency within himself that will drive him toward Picasso in spite of all difficulties. In the end the peasant will go back to kitsch when he feels like looking at pictures, for he can enjoy kitsch without effort.” By ‘kitsch’ Greenberg is referencing easy-to-digest popular culture. And he is, in the main, correct - popular, commercial art, popular music, and more specifically, popular fiction do not require any real serious effort. On the other hand, writers like James Joyce, Virginia Woolf and Thomas Mann require quite a bit of serious effort.

My Own Two Cents
Rather than suggesting people cede to experts as David Hume outlines in his essay, I have taken a different tact -- When I was a boy I played the trumpet. I quickly developed a great appreciation for trumpet playing. All of a sudden I was so wowed by Dizzy Gillespie and Al Hurt. So any time I hear people making harsh pronouncements about a particular form of art, I ask, “What have you created in that sphere of art?” When people tell me they have never engaged in the arts, I suggest there might be a few good reasons, like lack of talent and lack of artistic perception.

( )