Response to Kim Pincus's Post: Hume's theory of art

Hume says that the reason for a difference of opinion stems from different distracters in life.  These distracters come from the differing points of view of people.  These differing points of view come from the various cultures, chemical and emotion influences, age, etc. that are experienced.  More than that though, it alludes to anything that would influence or change a persons’ outlook or way of thinking.  Whether physical or genetic differences it still remains as a variance in life that could make for a difference of point of view.  Once separating the things that create these differences you are left only with the things that are common among every member of the human race.  In essence this means everyone is the same.  If everyone was the same and had the same points of view then it would only be natural for their thoughts and opinions to be the same.  As an idea this is sound.  However, since this type of breakdown is highly improbable in this world the idea has no real practical application beyond saying that if everyone was the same there would be no difference of opinion.

If this idea only works under ideal conditions does it really mean that it can't be applied to the real world?

The Problem with Definition

Defining something as art exists as a two part problem.  The issue is the connection from the artist’s intent to the acceptance by the art community.  Anything that is created with the intent of being art has the potential to be art.  Only when it is agreed by observers of the piece that it is art is it then considered as art.  The only true objective component what makes something art is the intent in creation.  Art is not accident.  All other determining factors are subjective.  People have different views on what makes something a work of art.  These views come from each persons’ experience and learning of a definition of art.  When people from multiple points of reference can agree that a certain piece is a work of art then it is probability an acceptable example of art.   This alludes to a collective subjective understanding or agreement.  Everything is defined by what it is commonly understood to be.

No belief or understanding of concepts can completely be wrong unless it goes against definable properties that the concept entails.  Personal understandings of a single piece of art are all correct.  However, as the determination applies to a larger world outside of one’s self it must coincide with the overall understanding of the majority of that world.  For the artist something may be art, but if everyone else disagrees with that finding, then as it applies to them it is not art.  That doesn’t mean that the artist’s determination is wrong.  It simply means that it was added to a personal classification or medium of art.

As more people agree with this classification or reasons why it is art, that particular grouping may grow.  This in turn can create a new medium for art to exist.  This is the precise thing that allows for the expansion of the art world.  The more people that accept this new medium, the greater the probability the piece being defended will be accepted as part of the art world.

Does the implication of limiting what is included in the art world by a collective agreement of whether it should be accepted help to add limitation to the intentionalist theory of art?  Is it a just limitation?