During Hume’s time, there were people that were still illiterate? I feel as though he did not take those people into account and that his argument is a bit discriminate towards them. What if the standard of taste was influenced by those people? How would that thwart Hume’s philosophy?

David Hume's philosophical argument does, maybe without intention, discriminate against those who were illiterate, which was a vast number of people during his time. This number of illiterate people significantly lowers the amount of opinions that will influence the idea of a certain piece of art. Only high class individuals will be able to experience this kind of art but having a view of only high class members of society very much skews the opinion of a piece of artwork.

Today, things are different and more people are literate and can read and understand more about art (even if it is visual) and there is a variety of opinions about single works of art. Although, the method of critiquing art, maybe professionally, has not changed much. Paintings are still critiqued by their visual components and literature (if one can call post 90's writing literature) is still judged by its depth and prowess.

If the vast population was still illiterate and only a certain number of people could read, then there would not be so much change in opinion. However, I think it is, principally, the number of people having learned to read that has influenced popular and nonconformist opinions about art, literature, and music.