Activity 1.3- Taste and Beauty

 

 

 

HUME

Hume believed that taste was subjective. That each person’s individual taste came from a variety of sources. We have all had different personal experiences throughout life, we have different cultures, backgrounds, and education. This leads us to have different preferences, different levels of emotional sensitivity and different prejudices. When we are all so varied, how could we ever hope to have the same preference in what the standard of taste should be.

Hume stated that while taste is subjective, he does believe that there are some chosen few of us who have the qualities needed to judge taste. These people possess certain abilities, those being, the ability to notice subtleties, exposure to many works of art, the ability to compare works, impartiality, and a general good sense.  The question arises then of who is judging the judges? Who gets to decide who the chosen few are?

A question that arose when I was pondering Hume and his work, is how much the Salon culture of the Enlightenment factored in. I know that Hume spent significant time in Paris after he wrote his theory, but while he was writing, was he aware of the Salon culture that was happening in France and other parts of Europe. The Salons seemed very much a who’s who of the time. Given that Salons were gatherings of educated and influential people of the time, it makes sense that Hume’s judges would overlap with these participants.

I think that Hume’s theory is still in use today. We tend to give higher influence over taste to art critics, museum curators and gallery owners. They are often the gatekeepers to what is seen and held in high regard.

KANT

Kant feels that “Beauty” comes from the experience. It is a certain type of experience that happens that defines it. He states that when we view a piece of art and there is a “free play” that happens between our imagination and understanding, that is beauty. To Kant, imagination refers to the brain’s ability to create images in our mind and understanding, for Kant, means our ability to organize and classify those images. The “free play” that he then speaks of is when neither of these overtake the other and they work equally. This allows us to appreciate something without desiring anything from it.

That action of appreciating something without needing to gain anything from it is what Kant refers to as Disinterested Pleasure.  Disinterested Pleasure is the idea that we can look at something and enjoy it without thinking of how we can use it. I can look at a flower and enjoy it without wanting to pick it for my own use. We can admire paintings in a museum without wanting to own them ourselves. This is one of his key points in his theory of beauty. Another key point is his claim to universal validity. He states that if a person looks at something and feels it is beautiful then others should feel the same way and agree when they look at the same object. We should all universally have the same reaction.

While I can understand how Kant can believe we should have the same reactions to the same objects because our brains perceive the same stimuli, I don’t believe we fundamentally have the same reaction to objects. We might all see a red rose and be able to say yes, it is red, but for me, it may bring up an experience I had being pricked by a thorn or someone else may think of a time they were given a rose by a loved one. Too often, Kant’s idea of free play in the mind does not happen because we are unable to prevent other thoughts and memories from creeping in.

YVES KLEIN, UNTITLED ANTHROPOMETRY, 1960

An image that stuck out to me this week was Yves Klein’s Untitled Anthropometry. I find the color and the movement striking upon first looking at the painting. I find myself drawn to the painting and have a first impression of enjoyment when looking at it. When reading more about the painting, I find myself thinking of a saying I have posted in my classroom. “Art is an experience, not a product.” It was ultimately the experience his models had as his “living brushes” that created this piece. People are often too caught up in what the final piece will look like before they even begin. His experience seems to be the opposite, allowing the piece to develop as it may. By creating his paintings this way, and turning them into a performance, he is bringing people into the creative process, not just the final product.

While looking at the piece, my first reaction is similar to what I assume Kant was describing when he talked about free play. An unconscious enjoyment of the piece without immediately needing meaning or purpose, I am sort of just admiring the painting for what it is. I am not trying to get anything from it. After a bit though, my mind does start creeping in and I start to ponder questions about the piece and try to make “sense” of it. Questioning what movements created these strokes, was he trying to create a sense of movement, and so on.

To me, our perception of art is always going to be subjective. Beauty and taste will always be relative to the viewer. We may be able to come to a consensus on skill involved in art but aesthetics will always be argued.

 

Sources

Doyle, J. (2023), Week 1- Blood and Beauty. Art Theory and Criticism. (Accessed 2026)

Freeland, C. (2003) Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. (Accessed 2026)

Ginsborg, H. (2022). Kant's Aesthetics. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthitics/ (Accessed 2026)

Hume, D. (2024) Of the Standard of Taste. Hume Archives, Rowan University. https://users.rowan.edu/-clowney/Aesthetics/philos_artists_onart/hume_standard.htm (Accessed 2026)