A few thoughts forming in response to Hume

Reflections on: David Hume’s: Of the Standard of Taste

First thoughts on the sophistication of taste and experts:

Are not what we consider experts only those who have learned the proper vocabulary to apply to the variety of sensations?

“In order to appreciate wine, it's essential to understand the characteristics different grapes offer and how those characteristics should be expressed in wines.” –James Laube, Wine Spectator 1996

For one to properly determine if something, in this case wine, is good, we need an understanding outside of our pure experience of if we are to make an accurate analysis. We need an understanding of the fundamental properties, and as stated here how they “should” be expressed. The person that has learned to be an expert has learned how to use the right signifier to point to his sensation. The person has learned also, what it is that they should point to.

Could one, determining the elements are functioning as they should, and still not like the wine, even if objectively they can know that it is a good glass of wine?

The discussion of aesthetic is presented here first in relation to culinary sensation. We are immediately dealing with a problem of signifiers.

Praise an blame in aesthetics, maybe these are overstatements? This seems to put the realms of aesthetics into a realm capable of mania. Perhaps this is a breach on where healthy convictions should lie, when it comes to such things as art, albeit a fine wine, or a visual masterpiece. Is a work of art worthy of such extremes as praise or blame? I am inclined to say no. The question then comes to mind of art as propaganda, art for commercial purposes, religious art. Is that which is praised or blamed, the art itself or the message behind the art, or the convictions of the artists? It is true that art seems capable of producing mania in people. If it can produce mania, could it cure, or subside symptoms of mania?

to be continued...