Comment on Open Thread, October 20 - 26, 2013

Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:41:45 GMT

There are some interesting points in there, especially about the fact that most people make themselves like what seems 'cultured' (I've definitely seen this type of appeal to majority among my friends - I was nearly roasted alive when I mentioned I honestly don't enjoy a particular classical composer).

There are also some fallacies in there too.

Anyway, the part where he talks about trickery is interesting:

What counts as a trick? Roughly, it's something done with contempt for the audience. For example, the guys designing Ferraris in the 1950s were probably designing cars that they themselves admired. Whereas I suspect over at General Motors the marketing people are telling the designers, "Most people who buy SUVs do it to seem manly, not to drive off-road. So don't worry about the suspension; just make that sucker as big and tough-looking as you can."

I question this premise. It seems to imply that the purpose behind the art determines its quality, and not the art itself. For instance, if you have two identical paintings, but one was drawn with the intention of making money, and the other was drawn for true artistic merit, the latter one somehow has more value (and is thus of 'better taste') than the former.

At any rate, in the end that paragraph was the closest I got to his definition of 'taste' - the ability to recognize trickery in artistic works.

And especially this paragraph about people with good taste:

Or to put it more prosaically, they're the people who (a) are hard to trick, and (b) don't just like whatever they grew up with.

Finally,

I wrote this essay because I was tired of hearing "taste is subjective" and wanted to kill it once and for all.

While the insights presented are interesting (in providing a window to the author's mind, at least), It has not actually succeeded in this purpose.

Discuss