What would Hume say to two “critics,” who blatantly disagreed on a profound piece of art?

This may be the best counter example to Hume's definitions of art and the viewers of art.  As we talked about it in class, there seems to be a hint of circular reasoning on his (Hume's) part, which begs the questions; how can one tell a critic is good?... Because he judges classic art favorably... and this classical art was first deemed favorable by a "good" critic in the first place..

"Thus, though the principles of taste be universal, and , nearly, if not entirely the same in all men; yet few are qualified to give judgment on any work of art, or establish their own sentiment as the standard of beauty...Though men of delicate taste be rare, they are easily to be distinguished in society, by the soundness of their understanding and the superiority of their faculties above the rest of mankind" (Hume, 109-10).

With that being said, how can society distinguish one person's view of art as superior, when so few are qualified to give judgement in the first place?  Hume says that society will eventually dictate the true critics from the false ones, yet also says that these same men approving one man cannot truly judge the art for themselves.  And what of the original art?  Hume often refers to the works of Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, and Descartes, as literature that will stand the test of time, as truly good art.  Yet who deemed it so in the first place?  His explanation somewhat skirts the matter by offering answer A for question B, and then offering that  question B (explanation) for the clarification of answer A.   While I greatly admired most of Hume's opinions on art, I did find this one instance in particular somewhat questionable.