Response to Nick

I am responding to Nick, who asked “is artistic value based on the individual's opinion, on the majority's opinion, or on the transfer of information/communication between the individual and the group?”
This question has been asked in every chapter we have read, so the answer depends on who you agree with.
Hume would say that the human perception of artistic value is based on the individual’s opinion and the majority’s opinion. The actual value for Hume lies in certain objective truths which are known to everyone but are distorted by perceptual defects in the individual viewers.
Danto would support the view that value arises from the opinion of the majority—specifically, the opinion of the artworld.
Tolstoy disagrees with both of these claims and states that artistic value is based on the ability to communicate an emotion. He defines art as “a means of communion among people” (Wartenberg 107). (Adrian Piper may also support this opinion, as I mentioned in the most recent post).
So, the answer to your question depends on which philosopher you support. As we have seen throughout the semester, none of these theories are entirely sufficient. Hume’s philosophy is circular, Danto never defines art (he only defines candidates for art), and Tolstoy’s definition is too narrow.
QUESTION
-It was mentioned today that very few of the philosophers we have read have also been artists. However, of the three who were (Plato, Tolstoy and Piper), two consider art to be communicative. Does this support the communicative theory in any way? Do their opinions mean more as artist/philosophers?