Skip to main content

Whose story? Hume on difference of taste and individual differences Part Three


When reading Isserlis’s comment about “telling the right story”1 it made me think of Hume on aesthetic disagreement. What if two people have differing accounts of how a piece should be played and both think their story is the right one? I remember a video I watched where Barenboim describes two eminent pianists, both of whom he greatly admires, describing the same passage of music in Beethoven’s Piano Sonata no. 7 in D major2. One was adamant he felt it was a tragic sounding passage whereas the other felt it expressed humour and saw a comical joke being expressed in the way a pattern of notes were disrupted by pauses3. So Barenboim concludes that ascribing adjectives to music is perhaps the most problematic approach!4 He suggests we should “explain music through sound” instead5. Given this common type of aesthetic disagreement, I am inclined to agree with Barenboim. His example of difference in aesthetic judgement reminds me of Hume’s famous example of wine tasting in Don Quixote.

Hume’s essay ‘Of the Standards of Taste’: The concept of taste and difference of judgement

Hume6 summarises the story of wine tasting in Don Quixote to illustrate his point about aesthetic judgement and refined aesthetic taste7. On judging the taste of a wine, one man claims he detects an aftertaste of leather in the wine while another declares he can taste a residue of iron in the wine8. Both men were mocked for their judgement by the others9. However, they were proved right in the end when a key with leather tied around it was discovered in the wine cask10. This, I think, highlights many important points about aesthetic judgement.

One, difference in aesthetic judgement is normal and healthy. It can help lead to a deeper truth which emerges from the aesthetic debate which would not have emerged if only one opinion had been put forward. We only reach the full truth about both aftertastes by listening to the differing judgements containing the half-truths of a taste of iron and a taste of leather in the wine.

Two, just because two judgements differ and declare apparently opposing opinions, it doesn’t mean one is right and one is wrong. They were both right!

Three, we should never become arrogant in our judgement and mock the opinions or “feelings of sentiment” of others, one reason being that they both contribute to the delicacy of taste11. The other men did not take their unusual claims about the wine seriously but they were the ones proved wrong in the long run.

Four, it captures Hume’s observation of human nature wonderfully:

“We are apt to call barbarous whatever departs widely from our own taste and apprehension: But soon find the epithet of reproach retorted on us. And the highest arrogance and self-conceit is at last startled, on observing an equal assurance on all sides, and scruples, amidst a contest of sentiment, to pronounce positively in its own favour.”12

In other words, people are prone to basing their apparently objective opinion on their own bias or personal opinion and have an arrogant confidence that they are right. So, this is no indication that what they say contains more truth than another person’s opinion. People also have a tendency to think their judgement is the only correct one so are surprised when others behave the same way about an opinion which seems to contradict theirs.

This is one of the reasons why Hume advocates that, in order to be a good critic, we rid ourselves of our preconceived prejudices and think of nothing but the aesthetic subject in front of us13. This is because prejudice destroys “sound judgement” and ruins our “intellectual faculties” which is relevant to aesthetic taste because, although taste is a sentiment of sorts, reason plays an important role in works of “genius” which involves assessing the work in its entirety14. Such disagreements also lead to the desire to find an universal standard by which we can judge aesthetics according to agreed rules and thereby generate some consensus about taste15. According to Hume, a general standard of taste is achievable but only under certain conditions and with certain provisos16. For instance, “rules of composition” are discovered empirically not by a priori abstract reasoning17. The “laws of criticism” in aesthetics do not require “exact truth”18:

“Many of the beauties of poetry and even of eloquence are founded on falsehood and fiction, on hyperboles, metaphors, and an abuse or perversion of terms from their meaning. To check the sallies of the imagination, and reduce every expression to geometrical truth and exactness, would be most contrary to the laws of criticism; because it would produce a work, which, by universal experience, has been found insipid and disagreeable. But though poetry can never submit to exact truth, it must be confined by rules of art, discovered to the author either by genius or observation.”19

Like developing a refined “palate” for food and wine, aesthetic taste can be developed so subtleties are detected and “allow nothing to escape them”20. Rules of art are useful because they provide us with, for instance, models of what beauty is and “patterns of composition”21. Nevertheless, to be a good critic, we also need to regularly think about various different types of beauty22. Going over an “individual performance” repeatedly under different conditions “with attention and deliberation” helps the sentiments of beauty become more “clear and distinct” enabling us to have better aesthetic judgement and be better critics23. However, although one can put forward good arguments and appeal to the standard of taste during aesthetic disputes, there will always be some differences in aesthetic judgement because different people have differing personalities and may have different aesthetic responses during their lifetime. Hume illustrates this with his example of people at different stages of their life:

“A young man, whose passions are warm, will be more sensibly touched with amorous and tender images, than a man more advanced in years, who takes pleasure in wise, philosophical reflections concerning the conduct of life and moderation of the passions.”24

In these situations, we should stick to what comes naturally to us and go with “Mirth or passion, sentiment or reflection; whichever of these most predominates in our temper”25. Some prefer “the sublime”, others “the tender” while some prefer repartee26. Some prefer “simplicity” while others prefer “ornament”27. Individual differences range from insisting on “correctness” and disliking “blemishes” to preferring “lively feelings of beauties and pardons twenty absurdities and defects”28. Indeed, Hume even argues that some are “delighted with a copious, rich, and harmonious expression.”29 So I read Hume as leaving open exactly how much expression a musician should give a passage of music because this may well be a genuine reflection of their individual personality coming through the music rather than something which can be regulated by rules of art or aesthetic taste. Similarly, “Comedy, tragedy, satire, odes, have each its partizans, who prefer that particular species…”30

However, according to Hume, this is not something to warn against or worry about in aesthetics. On the contrary, Hume concludes:

“It is plainly an error in a critic, to confine his approbation to one species or style ….and condemn all the rest. But it is almost impossible not to feel a predilection for that which suits our particular turn and disposition. Such preferences are innocent and unavoidable, and can never be the object of dispute, because there is no standard, by which they can be decided.”31

So just as Barenboim32 highlights the various and opposing interpretations pianists have chosen when deciding how to play a passage of music, especially sections which are left wide open to interpretation by the composer, I think it is great that nowadays we can listen to a variety of musicians, both living and past greats. Our choices of playing styles range from the legendary Jacqueline du Pre, whose free-flowing personal approach gave her a unique and distinctive interpretation in all her music giving it a timeless appeal. She sometimes made use of idiosyncratic cello technique but it worked for her and she always produced intensely emotional and passionate music which delighted her audiences wherever she played, hence, her popularity has stood the test of time. In contrast, Natalia Gutman plays with impeccable command of cello technique and wows her audiences with her fast and challenging musical feats. I found watching and listening to her in concert an awesome, breath-taking, humbling experience! She really is the queen of the cello! So all musicians bring their different styles and personalities to the same pieces, showing us the different meanings and truths they have discovered in the music and composers’ scores. They also bring their own unique voice and interpretations which reveal personal truths that they feel is present within the music. This, then, leaves us a creative space as musicians to find our own distinctive voice and style and blend it with what we can gather about the composers’ intentions. As listeners of others’ music making, we have the luxury of appreciating a range of approaches to music and choosing our favourite expressive playing style which best matches our own emotional and aesthetic disposition.  



1 Isserlis, S., (23rd September 2017 at 3:24pm) ‘Beware of emotion – well, of inappropriate emotion, anyway… (again)’ facebook post


2 Barenboim, D., (28th October 2016) ‘5 Minutes On... Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 7 (D major)’


3 ibid

4 ibid

5 ibid

6 Hume, D., Of the Standard of Taste, Essay XXIII in Part 1 in ‘Essays Moral, Political and Literary’, Ed. Miller, E.F. revised edition 1994, Liberty Fund Inc. Indianapolis p227-249

7 ibid p234-5

8 ibid

9 ibid p235

10 ibid

11 ibid p234

12 ibid p227

13 ibid p227, p239

14 ibid p240

15 ibid p229

16 ibid p231

17 ibid

18 ibid

19 ibid

20 ibid p235

21 ibid

22 ibid p237

23 ibid p237-8

24 ibid p244

25 ibid

26 ibid

27 ibid

28 ibid

29 ibid

30 ibid

31 ibid p244

32 Barenboim, D., (28th October 2016) ‘5 Minutes On... Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 7 (D major)’











Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Celebrating World Philosophy Day around the international table with Hume and Friends!

I'm celebrating World Philosophy Day UNESCO and the reasons behind it:  "Background In establishing World Philosophy Day UNESCO strives to promote an international culture of philosophical debate that respects human dignity and diversity. The Day encourages academic exchange and highlights the contribution of philosophical knowledge in addressing global issues. Why a Philosophy Day? Many thinkers state that “astonishment” is the root of philosophy. Indeed, philosophy stems from humans’ natural tendency to be astonished by themselves and the world in which they live. This field, which sees itself as a form of “wisdom”, teaches us to reflect on reflection itself, to continually question well-established truths, to verify hypotheses and to find conclusions. For centuries, in every culture, philosophy has given birth to concepts, ideas and analyses, and, through this, has set down the basis for critical, independent and creative thought. World Philosophy Day cele...

Hume’s aesthetics applied to classical music: Who decides when emotion is too much emotion - what does too much emotion mean? Part One

I’ve been inspired by Steven Isserlis’s interesting and thought provoking Facebook post 1 to start writing about Hume and music because Isserlis raises key notions which, I think, Hume could shed light on in order to help us untangle the complex concepts we often use in the music world. I would like to do something a little different from Isserlis by philosophically analysing the deeper implications of the terms we use casually. In summary, I understand Isserlis as arguing against “the danger of pouring superfluous beauty” into music, conveying “false emotion” in the way a musician goes about playing a piece. He advocates “judicious” “choices” about how we play a piece to transmit the meaning and truth of the music. He concludes that we must “ensure we are telling the right story” through the music and warns that “it is all too easy to inflame an audience through false passions; but if we do that, we are distorting the truth. And reaching the truth of the music has to be our ulti...