response to kait

I am responding to Kait’s question, “we know that people claim objects as art because of their expert opinion, but if something makes you feel like it’s art, is that a credible enough reason to say it is?”
I believe this question was discussed at the beginning of the semester when we were trying to categorize random sketches and doodles in relation to art. Most doodles, we determined, were not art because they lacked the intention of the artist. However, there are some intentionless sketches which have been produced and are considered art by some observers. One example would be the doodles of John Lennon. As far as we know, John Lennon never intended any of his sketches to be art. However, the artworld considers them to be art and they have been sold for exorbitant amounts of money. In these cases, art gains its status through to intention of the observer.
There are boundaries though. My laptop, although it requires much skill and knowledge to create, is not art by any standard. Even if it makes me feel like it is a piece of art because of the expert-placement of all its parts, it still is not a work of art.
QUESTION: I just stated that my laptop is not a work of art. However, if presented as a work of art or as an object symbolic of our generation, I am sure many would consider it to be. Is presentation necessary for art to be considered art?

Hume and Plato

While reading Hume, I began to wonder if Hume’s objective standards are comparable to Plato’s world of forms. Plato, as we have previously learned, proposed the existence of a world of forms beyond the reach of human concept. In the world of forms existed the forms of all objects which people build (or in this case ‘imitates’). Whenever someone creates a chair or a bed, they are trying to imitate one of these perfect, beautiful forms, but can never succeed. Plato wished to omit emotion from his ideal state so that people will be better able to become closer to this world of forms through reason. He obviously believed emotion would distort people’s perception of the worlds of forms.
Hume, similarly, believes there are objective standards which everyone is aware of, but because of defects, our perception of these standards is distorted, creating subjective opinion. According to Hume, objectivity can only be attained through “a perfect serenity of mind, a recollection of thought, a due attention to the object” (Wartenberg 44). Basically, objectivity can be attained through reason. So, both philosophers have proposes a series of—or world of—perfect, object beauty which is beyond the comprehension of humanity and can best be attained by reason.
However, further reading has shown me the two philosophies are not compatible. Plato’s world of forms exists outside of the observer, while for Hume the objective standards are still existent only in the observer’s perception.
Are Plato’s world of forms and Hume’s objective standards compatible?