Hume and Critics.

After reading about Hume's philosophy on art in Wartenberg, I was rather taken aback. He states that everyone has their own distinct tastes of what is art but there are universal pieces that can be seen as magnificent by everyone (Like the Mona Lisa). He states that all opinions on art matter. Then, he says only the critics can really judge art. "Hume judges that only certain people are so well qualified that their responses really count" (Wartenberg, 41). In the end, this contradiction never did solve itself.

According to Hume, "The taste of all individuals is not upon an equal footing, and that some men in general, however difficult to be particularly pitched upon, will be acknowledged by universal sentiment to have a preference above others" (Wartenberg, 47). He thinks there are distinguishable men in society that have higher opinions and better taste than everyone else since they are superior in knowledge and understanding. While I see that critics have the authority to state their opinions to the public since it is their job, I do not understand why they are superior over everyone else. Half of the time, I do not even agree with the critics. They seem to not like movies that I do. I never read reviews because my opinion will always be different from someone else’s. I trust my friend's viewpoints of art over the critics. Why should we trust the opinions of people we do not even know? Why can't we just see for ourselves? Hume does say tastes vary and opinions of what is good art and what is bad art often differ...

My question to you is: What characteristics do critics have that make their opinions superior to ours when pertaining to art? Why do we trust the opinions of people we don't even know when it comes to different forms of media like music, books, and movies and how often do you agree with the critics, anyways?

David Hume Statue.