De gustibus non est disputandum

[dan2100]

Is it ever okay to dispute tastes especially in regards to saying things along the lines of, "You should like this" and judging something to be wrong if the person who should like that to be wrong about something?

[BaalChatzaf]

Is it ever okay to dispute tastes especially in regards to saying things along the lines of, "You should like this" and judging something to be wrong if the person who should like that to be wrong about something?

What a person likes or prefers is his/her own business. It is only what a person does that might concern others. A preference, like or dislike is subjective and personal. Judgments are of no effect or relevance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

Is it ever okay to dispute tastes especially in regards to saying things along the lines of, "You should like this" and judging something to be wrong if the person who should like that to be wrong about something?

What a person likes or prefers is his/her own business. It is only what a person does that might concern others. A preference, like or dislike is subjective and personal. Judgments are of no effect or relevance.

I would think there's a link between likes and preferences and actions. After all, don't people generally act according to their preferences?

Now I agree that only actions should be used in judging whether to use force against a person -- as in the case of someone acting by taken my wallet. But I was thinking along the lines of just judging a person and acting accordingly. For instance, if a person prefers to make racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs, then you might judge to be a bad person or, at least, a person with bad preferences. His argument that this is his preference is something you might agree with, but you might judge him to be a bad person and want little to do with him. (Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that he's the worst person alive or that he's much worse than the guy who steals, assaults, rapes, or kills but doesn't say racist, sexist, or homophobic slurs.)

I'm just bringing this up as an example. I was actually thinking more along the lines of if someone doesn't like work of art X, is there any case for arguing that his dislike is wrong? In the same vein, if someone likes work of art Y, is there any case for telling her that her like is wrong? Is this purely subjective with no room for evaluation here -- aside from merely acknowledging that that's that person's tastes and noting whether they agree with others' tastes?

[BaalChatzaf]

Is it ever okay to dispute tastes especially in regards to saying things along the lines of, "You should like this" and judging something to be wrong if the person who should like that to be wrong about something?

What a person likes or prefers is his/her own business. It is only what a person does that might concern others. A preference, like or dislike is subjective and personal. Judgments are of no effect or relevance.

I would think there's a link between likes and preferences and actions. After all, don't people generally act according to their preferences?

Now I agree that only actions should be used in judging whether to use force against a person -- as in the case of someone acting by taken my wallet. But I was thinking along the lines of just judging a person and acting accordingly. For instance, if a person prefers to make racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs, then you might judge to be a bad person or, at least, a person with bad preferences. His argument that this is his preference is something you might agree with, but you might judge him to be a bad person and want little to do with him. (Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that he's the worst person alive or that he's much worse than the guy who steals, assaults, rapes, or kills but doesn't say racist, sexist, or homophobic slurs.)

If what the other person says bothers you that much, stay away from that person and cease being bothered.

Gee, that was a tough problem. Do you have any others that hard?

I am not interested, all that much, in judging others. The only time I do it, is to guard my interests. If what another person does is of no relevance to me or mine, I will not waste the time for the calories necessary to judge him/her. Most of the time I am indifferent to the preferences of others.

I have a simple check list which I call Judgment Lite. Is what the other person does a danger to me? A benefit to me? Will my concern about that other person add a dollar to my bank account, remove an inch from my waiste, add a day of healthy living to my life etc. If I cannot come up with affirmative answers to these questions and questions like them, I cease judging. It takes too much energy I can spend elsewhere.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited April 6, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[dan2100]

Is it ever okay to dispute tastes especially in regards to saying things along the lines of, "You should like this" and judging something to be wrong if the person who should like that to be wrong about something?

What a person likes or prefers is his/her own business. It is only what a person does that might concern others. A preference, like or dislike is subjective and personal. Judgments are of no effect or relevance.

I would think there's a link between likes and preferences and actions. After all, don't people generally act according to their preferences?

Now I agree that only actions should be used in judging whether to use force against a person -- as in the case of someone acting by taken my wallet. But I was thinking along the lines of just judging a person and acting accordingly. For instance, if a person prefers to make racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs, then you might judge to be a bad person or, at least, a person with bad preferences. His argument that this is his preference is something you might agree with, but you might judge him to be a bad person and want little to do with him. (Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that he's the worst person alive or that he's much worse than the guy who steals, assaults, rapes, or kills but doesn't say racist, sexist, or homophobic slurs.)

If what the other person says bothers you that much, stay away from that person and cease being bothered.

Gee, that was a tough problem. Do you have any others that hard?

I am not interested, all that much, in judging others. The only time I do it, is to guard my interests. If what another person does is of no relevance to me or mine, I will not waste the time for the calories necessary to judge him/her. Most of the time I am indifferent to the preferences of others.

I have a simple check list which I call Judgment Lite. Is what the other person does a danger to me? A benefit to me? Will my concern about that other person add a dollar to my bank account, remove an inch from my waiste, add a day of healthy living to my life etc. If I cannot come up with affirmative answers to these questions and questions like them, I cease judging. It takes too much energy I can spend elsewhere.

I think this would apply to oneself too: if there were standards of taste that had some link to, say, living the good life, then it wouldn't be mainly a matter of judging others, don't you agree? Such standards would apply even on a desert island, so to speak.

[tjohnson]

I would think there's a link between likes and preferences and actions. After all, don't people generally act according to their preferences?

Now I agree that only actions should be used in judging whether to use force against a person -- as in the case of someone acting by taken my wallet. But I was thinking along the lines of just judging a person and acting accordingly. For instance, if a person prefers to make racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs, then you might judge to be a bad person or, at least, a person with bad preferences. His argument that this is his preference is something you might agree with, but you might judge him to be a bad person and want little to do with him. (Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that he's the worst person alive or that he's much worse than the guy who steals, assaults, rapes, or kills but doesn't say racist, sexist, or homophobic slurs.)

I'm just bringing this up as an example. I was actually thinking more along the lines of if someone doesn't like work of art X, is there any case for arguing that his dislike is wrong? In the same vein, if someone likes work of art Y, is there any case for telling her that her like is wrong? Is this purely subjective with no room for evaluation here -- aside from merely acknowledging that that's that person's tastes and noting whether they agree with others' tastes?

I find your use of 'taste' confusing. If someone likes "to make racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs" then this to me is not a matter of "taste". Humans live in close proximity to each other and to avoid violence and allow progress we have learned that certain behaviours are pathological and should be avoided and even forbidden. You mention 'actions' verses 'preferences' but making racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs is most certainly an action in my book.

[anthony]

Dan,

Ba'al calls it "Judgement Lite", and I think of it as a temporary "assessment".

Whatever is said (critically, in O'ist circles) about 'psychologizing' about another person, I don't see any wrong in it. As long as it's done with responsibility; is viewed by you as an impermanent measure until further evidence is presented; and is held privately to your thoughts, alone.

It can be a long while before a person's basic premises, mixed or otherwise, become apparent to you. We are often forced into proximity with others (in our careers, and so on), and it must be in our interests to assess and evaluate their character and possible actions early on.

Is this what you are getting at?

Tony

BTW> When it comes to tastes, it can be very disturbing to be told by someone you assume knows you well "you are just going to love my friend, Jane - she's beautiful, and thinks just like you do." And she turns out to be neither!

[dan2100]

I would think there's a link between likes and preferences and actions. After all, don't people generally act according to their preferences?

Now I agree that only actions should be used in judging whether to use force against a person -- as in the case of someone acting by tak[ing] my wallet. But I was thinking along the lines of just judging a person and acting accordingly. For instance, if a person prefers to make racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs, then you might judge to be a bad person or, at least, a person with bad preferences. His argument that this is his preference is something you might agree with, but you might judge him to be a bad person and want little to do with him. (Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that he's the worst person alive or that he's much worse than the guy who steals, assaults, rapes, or kills but doesn't say racist, sexist, or homophobic slurs.)

I'm just bringing this up as an example. I was actually thinking more along the lines of if someone doesn't like work of art X, is there any case for arguing that his dislike is wrong? In the same vein, if someone likes work of art Y, is there any case for telling her that her like is wrong? Is this purely subjective with no room for evaluation here -- aside from merely acknowledging that that's that person's tastes and noting whether they agree with others' tastes?

I find your use of 'taste' confusing. If someone likes "to make racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs" then this to me is not a matter of "taste". Humans live in close proximity to each other and to avoid violence and allow progress we have learned that certain behaviours are pathological and should be avoided and even forbidden. You mention 'actions' verses 'preferences' but making racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs is most certainly an action in my book.

Actually, I don't think if someone makes such remarks that she or he should be forced to stop -- depending on, of course, whose property these remarks are made on. This has nothing to do, per se, with getting along or proximity, but is a simple issue of individual rights. In this case, such a person is free to make such remarks as long as there are no rights violations -- and, in most cases, there are none. It does not matter if others feel uncomfortable about this. Do you really believe in forbidding such -- and how do you mean? For instance, someone uses the N-word. What do you think should be done to that person? 30 days in prison? A fine? Do tell.

Back to tastes, my point in bringing this example up was not so much as an example of tastes, but merely to illustrate how one might judge someone via her or his preferences. And this would apply even in the case where someone said, "You know, you're right that I shouldn't make such remarks, but I am a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe, proud to be these, and prefer to remain one. But I'll keep it to myself from now on in the interest of social harmony." In that case, no one has grounds to say, "Well, he's making those comments again and this is annoying other people." Would you still say you would judge this person's preferences? Or would you say, "I can't judge his preferences here -- only his actions. Since he has agreed not to say words I don't like, I won't dispute his preferences."? (Of course, you could argue in a trivial sense that him even telling you he's a racist, etc. is an action. Granted, but other than telling you this, let's say he's not doing any other actions that would reveal racism, etc. Wouldn't you still judge his preferences here?)

[dan2100]

Dan,

Ba'al calls it "Judgement Lite", and I think of it as a temporary "assessment".

Whatever is said (critically, in O'ist circles) about 'psychologizing' about another person, I don't see any wrong in it. As long as it's done with responsibility; is viewed by you as an impermanent measure until further evidence is presented; and is held privately to your thoughts, alone.

It can be a long while before a person's basic premises, mixed or otherwise, become apparent to you. We are often forced into proximity with others (in our careers, and so on), and it must be in our interests to assess and evaluate their character and possible actions early on.

Is this what you are getting at?

Not exactly. I meant even in oneself. I just was wondering about objective standards of taste -- not in using these as weapons against other people (or even against oneself). For instance, someone says she loves James Patterson novels. It's not like, in most cases, you would need to denounce this person or closely evaluate her to see if she's some kind of psychopath. I just mean is loving James Patterson novels something one can objectively evaluate to say it's either part or not part of the good life, being a good person, being moral, or, even at an extreme, just having good taste. (On the last, imagine taste is completely apart from and unrelated to all other judgments and aspects of her -- as in she is a great person overall, the best person, in fact, that could possibly be, but her taste in novels just plain sucks. Is that a possible objective judgment?)

BTW> When it comes to tastes, it can be very disturbing to be told by someone you assume knows you well "you are just going to love my friend, Jane - she's beautiful, and thinks just like you do." And she turns out to be neither!

Yes, I've run into that and not just with people. I've had people tell me I'll love a certain movie, story, piece of music, etc. and found that I don't. The people often act surprised. And, of course, I've been surprised when recommending movies, etc. to other people -- though maybe less so since I don't often make such recommendations and also find few people share my tastes.

[tjohnson]

Actually, I don't think if someone makes such remarks that she or he should be forced to stop -- depending on, of course, whose property these remarks are made on. This has nothing to do, per se, with getting along or proximity, but is a simple issue of individual rights. In this case, such a person is free to make such remarks as long as there are no rights violations -- and, in most cases, there are none. It does not matter if others feel uncomfortable about this. Do you really believe in forbidding such -- and how do you mean? For instance, someone uses the N-word. What do you think should be done to that person? 30 days in prison? A fine? Do tell.

Back to tastes, my point in bringing this example up was not so much as an example of tastes, but merely to illustrate how one might judge someone via her or his preferences. And this would apply even in the case where someone said, "You know, you're right that I shouldn't make such remarks, but I am a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe, proud to be these, and prefer to remain one. But I'll keep it to myself from now on in the interest of social harmony." In that case, no one has grounds to say, "Well, he's making those comments again and this is annoying other people." Would you still say you would judge this person's preferences? Or would you say, "I can't judge his preferences here -- only his actions. Since he has agreed not to say words I don't like, I won't dispute his preferences."? (Of course, you could argue in a trivial sense that him even telling you he's a racist, etc. is an action. Granted, but other than telling you this, let's say he's not doing any other actions that would reveal racism, etc. Wouldn't you still judge his preferences here?)

You do not think individual rights is related to getting along together?? What about the concepts of disturbing the peace and verbal abuse? Going around making racial slurs in public would certainly count as that, IMO.

If I understand you correctly, i would say that I do judge someone by their beliefs (preferences?). So, for example, if they believe that blacks are inferior or sub-human, even if they don't act on it, then there is something wrong with them, IMO.

[anthony]

Dan,

Yeah, I went off on a tangent, there.

This taste thing often puzzles me too. Especially - always - when it comes to people I like, or admire.

What do you ascertain about such a person who has integrity and a good mind, and who has weird (to you) tastes in a range of things, the mundane, to the sublime?

My only way of dealing with this is to resist automatic disapproval, and to learn to view it as insignificant 'foreground' against the reality of genuine qualities they have.

To allow that they too possess a spectrum of "shades", perhaps?

If they become too much of a contradiction, best to walk away, I think.

The fact of the matter is, out of context, I don't really know.

Tony

[dan2100]

Actually, I don't think if someone makes such remarks that she or he should be forced to stop -- depending on, of course, whose property these remarks are made on. This has nothing to do, per se, with getting along or proximity, but is a simple issue of individual rights. In this case, such a person is free to make such remarks as long as there are no rights violations -- and, in most cases, there are none. It does not matter if others feel uncomfortable about this. Do you really believe in forbidding such -- and how do you mean? For instance, someone uses the N-word. What do you think should be done to that person? 30 days in prison? A fine? Do tell.

Back to tastes, my point in bringing this example up was not so much as an example of tastes, but merely to illustrate how one might judge someone via her or his preferences. And this would apply even in the case where someone said, "You know, you're right that I shouldn't make such remarks, but I am a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe, proud to be these, and prefer to remain one. But I'll keep it to myself from now on in the interest of social harmony." In that case, no one has grounds to say, "Well, he's making those comments again and this is annoying other people." Would you still say you would judge this person's preferences? Or would you say, "I can't judge his preferences here -- only his actions. Since he has agreed not to say words I don't like, I won't dispute his preferences."? (Of course, you could argue in a trivial sense that him even telling you he's a racist, etc. is an action. Granted, but other than telling you this, let's say he's not doing any other actions that would reveal racism, etc. Wouldn't you still judge his preferences here?)

You do not think individual rights is related to getting along together?? What about the concepts of disturbing the peace and verbal abuse? Going around making racial slurs in public would certainly count as that, IMO.

Individual rights are related, but not in the way you think. They establish, in my view, a domain inside which others may not interfere. E.g., if you have a right to your property, then you may place, if you want to and without me or anyone else interfering, a racist placard on it. That would not, of course, stop others from deciding to no longer have dealings with you -- say, your groundskeeper quits over this, your friends decide to no longer visit, and neighbors stop talking to you.

In this sense, individual rights, specifically property rights, do indeed help us to get along together -- but they do so not by muzzling people but rather by establishing clear boundaries -- or, more precisely, boundaries that can be clarified if a dispute arises. (On the latter, you might be a pretty freewheeling guy in your backyard. You and I get together an engage in shouting matches, hurling insults, and the like. But it still remains your yard. So, I decide one night to continue shouting well into the night, disturbing your sleep, you might tell me, "This is my property, please get off." or at least demand I shut up and eject me if I don't comply.)

If I understand you correctly, i would say that I do judge someone by their beliefs (preferences?).

I'm not sure what you mean here or where you got that from. It's obvious that people judge themselves and others. That's not a point of discussion. The point is whether such judgements, when it comes to tastes or preferences (though I wouldn't necessarily conflate the two), can be objective -- in the sense of appealing to an objective standard. I actually wanted to stick to the case of tastes in art rather than the example I brought merely to show that, more widely, it doesn't seem wrong to judge preferences.

So, for example, if they believe that blacks are inferior or sub-human, even if they don't act on it, then there is something wrong with them, IMO.

My point is not whether you'll judge that, but whether such a judgment is objective. I think it certainly can be -- at least in some cases. (And the same would apply in judging oneself, though I think that's usually not a hard case.) This doesn't mean, by the way, one can appeal to the objective standard here and use that to force anyone -- e.g., force them to stop being bigots. (Not that one could go inside their minds and change their views here. At best, one might try for compelled conformity, but even that is not, in my opinion, allowed. This is not, in my view, a case where force can be used.)

[dan2100]

Dan,

Yeah, I went off on a tangent, there.

This taste thing often puzzles me too. Especially - always - when it comes to people I like, or admire.

What do you ascertain about such a person who has integrity and a good mind, and who has weird (to you) tastes in a range of things, the mundane, to the sublime?

My only way of dealing with this is to resist automatic disapproval, and to learn to view it as insignificant 'foreground' against the reality of genuine qualities they have.

To allow that they too possess a spectrum of "shades", perhaps?

If they become too much of a contradiction, best to walk away, I think.

The fact of the matter is, out of context, I don't really know.

Tony, I'm only throwing this out for discussion. I don't have clear ideas on it, but I often do think, about some person, that her or his tastes are really bad. That doesn't mean she or he is a bad person... Also, regardless of whether tastes can be judge in this fashion, there is some benefits to both similarities and differences in tastes. With the former, it makes for harmony in relationships -- as people who like similar things are likely to get along better. With the latter, some differences make things interesting and also, if either or all parties are open to new things, allow for one or more parties to broaden their tastes. (I'm assuming, of course, such tastes are mutable.)

[George H. Smith]

Is it ever okay to dispute tastes especially in regards to saying things along the lines of, "You should like this" and judging something to be wrong if the person who should like that to be wrong about something?

I can think of various cases where it would be reasonable to say to someone, "You should like X, even if you don't like X right now." From this, however, it doesn't necessarily follow that I am wrong not to like X, unless by "wrong" we mean something like "You have misjudged X" or "You have not paid sufficient attention to the worthy features of X."

One thing I have prided myself on over the years is my willingness to listen to advice when it is given by people whom I respect. For example, in 1973, while I working on ATCAG, I lived in the same Hollywood apartment building as the late Roy Childs. We saw each other every day and typically engaged in long discussions about everything from philosophy to music to movies. Ray influenced me in a number of ways, and this influence often began by Roy's saying something like "Given that you like X, you should also like Y."

In some instances, I had already expressed my distaste for Y. This was the case, for example, with a good deal of Thomistic philosophy, which I had an aversion to owing to its theological emphasis. What Roy did was to refocus my attention, pointing out (what seems obvious to me now) that one needn't be sympathetic to Thomistic theology to find value in the more secular features of the Thomistic approach to epistemology and ethics. His argument was basically this: "Since you generally like Rand's approach to these subjects, you should also like (i.e., find value in) some things in Thomistic works on philosophy."

I have had similar experiences in areas that are more closely related to matters of personal taste. Consider my interest in jazz. Some of my impressions of specific musicians were formed during my high school years. There were certain jazz artists that I came to dislike during those formative years, sometimes for reasons that I cannot now recall.

I have reevaluated some of these tastes over the past few years, and this has often been the result of a fellow jazz buff saying to me, in effect, "Given that you like X, you should also like Y" -- where Y is a musician I had previously written off. Then, after being referred to specific tunes by the musician in question, I have sometimes grown to like that musician.

In such cases, the "should" can mean that a person has been focusing on the wrong things, or it can refer to an acquired taste, while recommending that a person devote more time to an artist, in order to appreciate what he or she has to offer.

Ghs

[dan2100]

I can think of various cases where it would be reasonable to say to someone, "You should like X, even if you don't like X right now." From this, however, it doesn't necessarily follow that I am wrong not to like X, unless by "wrong" we mean something like "You have misjudged X" or "You have not paid sufficient attention to the worthy features of X."

One thing I have prided myself on over the years is my willingness to listen to advice when it is given by people whom I respect. For example, in 1973, while I working on ATCAG, I lived in the same Hollywood apartment building as the late Roy Childs. We saw each other every day and typically engaged in long discussions about everything from philosophy to music to movies. Ray influenced me in a number of ways, and this influence often began by Roy's saying something like "Given that you like X, you should also like Y."

In some instances, I had already expressed my distaste for Y. This was the case, for example, with a good deal of Thomistic philosophy, which I had an aversion to owing to its theological emphasis. What Roy did was to refocus my attention, pointing out (what seems obvious to me now) that one needn't be sympathetic to Thomistic theology to find value in the more secular features of the Thomistic approach to epistemology and ethics. His argument was basically this: "Since you generally like Rand's approach to these subjects, you should also like (i.e., find value in) some things in Thomistic works on philosophy."

I have had similar experiences in areas that are more closely related to matters of personal taste. Consider my interest in jazz. Some of my impressions of specific musicians were formed during my high school years. There were certain jazz artists that I came to dislike during those formative years, sometimes for reasons that I cannot now recall.

I have reevaluated some of these tastes over the past few years, and this has often been the result of a fellow jazz buff saying to me, in effect, "Given that you like X, you should also like Y" -- where Y is a musician I had previously written off. Then, after being referred to specific tunes by the musician in question, I have sometimes grown to like that musician.

In such cases, the "should" can mean that a person has been focusing on the wrong things, or it can refer to an acquired taste, while recommending that a person devote more time to an artist, in order to appreciate what he or she has to offer.

I think part of this relates back to systematicity -- especially arguments of the form, "Given that you like X, you should also like Y." (Usually, systematicity is used when talking about beliefs or concepts -- as in "Given that you believe X, you will likely also believe Y." But the same sort of structure is apparent in your wording.)

And I've had similar experiences to yours. There are things I did initially disliked or liked that later changed, seemingly because my tastes became more informed in some way. My experience of the film Paris, Texas was this way. Initially seeing it, about ten years ago, I recall being, at turns, bored and confused. Watching it again a few months ago at a friend's urging, however, I actually liked the film. What changed? Well, I'd seen many foreign and art films in between and I think, overall, I'd become a more seasoned -- though, hopefully, not jaded -- viewer.

A typical sad experience is to like something -- perhaps, not actually love it -- and return to it later to find it no longer gives pleasure and actually is a source of annoyance. This is cases apart from where there's a sort of built-in "expiration" on something; on this, I'm thinking of a film like Memento, where it seems to me once you've seen it, subsequent viewings are not going to be rewarding. This is different, to me, from an actual change in tastes.

[BaalChatzaf]

Not exactly. I meant even in oneself. I just was wondering about objective standards of taste -- not in using these as weapons against other people (or even against oneself).

I cannot think of anything more subjective than taste. Which is why I do not concern myself with the taste of other folks. There is nothing I can do about the taste of other folks, so there is no point in expending energy to be concerned over it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jriggenbach]

The more different things you try and the more time you spend trying those different things, the more educated or "seasoned" (as Dan says somewhere above) your taste becomes. Over time, if one invests effort in educating one's taste, one gradually tends both to stop liking aesthetically inferior works and to better understand what it is about certain aesthetically inferior works that appeals to one in the first place.

What I mean when I say that someone has "bad taste" is that they tend to uncritically and enthusiastically like obviously mediocre or inferior works while denouncing as worthless far more deserving works that merely require more time and effort and better educated taste to appreciate.

JR

[dan2100]

Not exactly. I meant even in oneself. I just was wondering about objective standards of taste -- not in using these as weapons against other people (or even against oneself).

I cannot think of anything more subjective than taste. Which is why I do not concern myself with the taste of other folks. There is nothing I can do about the taste of other folks, so there is no point in expending energy to be concerned over it.

I'm not so sure one can do nothing about others' taste. One can, for instance, expose friends to different things and try to understand why they like or dislike something.

But let's leave aside others' tastes for the moment. What about your tastes. Do you ever wonder if they are more than subjective and if they might be judged according to some objective standard? Recall I mentioned the desert island test.

[Jonathan]

The more different things you try and the more time you spend trying those different things, the more educated or "seasoned" (as Dan says somewhere above) your taste becomes. Over time, if one invests effort in educating one's taste, one gradually tends both to stop liking aesthetically inferior works and to better understand what it is about certain aesthetically inferior works that appeals to one in the first place.

What I mean when I say that someone has "bad taste" is that they tend to uncritically and enthusiastically like obviously mediocre or inferior works while denouncing as worthless far more deserving works that merely require more time and effort and better educated taste to appreciate.

JR

Then there's the issue of the value of Naïve Art.

Once a person has experienced a lot of art, studied what makes it great, and refined his tastes, he often discovers that there's a refreshing spontaneity and authenticity to art which lacks the characteristics which he had determined were a part of what makes art great. He then finds himself adoring what other highbrow aesthetes claim are "obviously mediocre or inferior works," and he finds their favored "far more deserving works" to be cold, fake, formulaic or conformist. His superior "seasoning" leads him to agree with those who have "bad tastes."

J

[Christopher]

Just to reiterate Rand's position from what I recall:

Art represents an abstraction of reality

People like art because they share values with the reality that is represented by the art

Therefore: people's artistic tastes can be judged because it is an expression of their values

I think I've read other people posting that she also said artistic tastes can be arbitrary, so I don't really think she ever understood art completely.

[BaalChatzaf]

But let's leave aside others' tastes for the moment. What about your tastes. Do you ever wonder if they are more than subjective and if they might be judged according to some objective standard? Recall I mentioned the desert island test.

I like what I like and I dislike what I dislike. I am unaware of any logical process determining what I like or dislike. Which do you like better: vanilla or strawberry. What "reason" for liking one more than the other could be operative?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Art represents an abstraction of reality

LOL, , so are perceptions an abstraction of reality, IMO.

[jriggenbach]

I like what I like and I dislike what I dislike. I am unaware of any logical process determining what I like or dislike. Which do you like better: vanilla or strawberry. What "reason" for liking one more than the other could be operative?

Ignorance is bliss, I'm sure.

JR

[dan2100]

But let's leave aside others' tastes for the moment. What about your tastes. Do you ever wonder if they are more than subjective and if they might be judged according to some objective standard? Recall I mentioned the desert island test.

I like what I like and I dislike what I dislike. I am unaware of any logical process determining what I like or dislike. Which do you like better: vanilla or strawberry. What "reason" for liking one more than the other could be operative?

I'm not sure all tastes in everything can be reduced to the "vanilla or strawberry" kind.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by a "logical process." As tastes change -- at least, for some things -- there's obviously some kind of process going on there. I wouldn't say it's illogical, though it might be said to be subconscious or not directly open to conscious control -- as in no one chooses directly to start or stop liking Brahms. Both George and Jeff mentioned how exposure to different things might change -- perhaps even improve -- one's tastes.

[Jonathan]

Just to reiterate Rand's position from what I recall:

Art represents an abstraction of reality

People like art because they share values with the reality that is represented by the art

Therefore: people's artistic tastes can be judged because it is an expression of their values

The problem is that you'd have to know which values they see in the art.

J