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

available at:  https://www.facebook.com/Steven-Isserlis-191956057519364/

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

Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh-pcrWG3Mg

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

Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh-pcrWG3Mg