O, Hume.

Hume seems to be unable to convince even himself that art can be judged based on both taste and objectivity. This could be an interesting point, however, Hume starts claiming that all tastes are correct, by nature and definition, but some tastes are better, or more qualified. This starts to tread some dangerous elitist ground, and is also very difficult to support logically and fairly, which Hume also fails to do. Even when the reader thinks the objective judgement of art will be his saving grace, Hume continues to dance around this theory, saying that some artworks are inherently better than others, and only those with selective judgments can really differentiate.

I thinks this is a big mistake. To say that certain artworks just ARE better is pompous and unfounded, since what is valued changes from group to group, from era to era.