De gustibus non est disputandum

[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

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

"[H]e often discovers" this? Not in my experience. I'd say he occasionally discovers something like this.

The canon of "great works" that has come down to us from previous generations is basically the result of a gradually formed consensus of seasoned and less seasoned users of literature, music, sculpture, etc. It's far from a foregone conclusion that everything in the canon is of high aesthetic quality, but on average, the works that make it into the canon and stay there do conform to a certain minimum level of aesthetic excellence. Very few of them are what "highbrow aesthetes claim are 'obviously mediocre or inferior works.'"

JR

[dan2100]

Art represents an abstraction of reality

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

I believe it's more accurate to say Rand thought that art concretized abstractions -- in a sense, making concepts available at the perceptual level. (Of course, represents almost catches the flavor of concretizes.) She illustrates this with many examples in the essays in her The Romantic Manifesto.

Now, since you harp on perception being a form of abstraction, you might look at it this way:

Reality > perception > conceptual awareness of something important about reality

Art > perception > conceptual awareness of something important about reality

(Note that the work of art is, of course, part of perceptual reality -- i.e., it's directly perceived. Of course, one might quibble in the case of literature. One reads or hears a literary work and these are a bit different than seeing a painting or a dance or listening to music. But to me it seems these just add some more steps in the process rather than signify a radical break -- though I think Hegel would've disagreed here.)

[dan2100]

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

"[H]e often discovers" this? Not in my experience. I'd say he occasionally discovers something like this.

The canon of "great works" that has come down to us from previous generations is basically the result of a gradually formed consensus of seasoned and less seasoned users of literature, music, sculpture, etc. It's far from a foregone conclusion that everything in the canon is of high aesthetic quality, but on average, the works that make it into the canon and stay there do conform to a certain minimum level of aesthetic excellence. Very few of them are what "highbrow aesthetes claim are 'obviously mediocre or inferior works.'"

JR

I think Harold Bloom discussed the test of time in his The Westen Canon. Much of his discussion in that book seemed overly abstract to me, but the test of time he offered actually seemed to make sense to me. I believe the particular form he gave it was a work's canonicity should not be taken seriously until the work in question was two or three generations old. Of course, this isn't foolproof, but I imagine it'd weed out many pretenders.

[Christopher]

Reality > perception > conceptual awareness of something important about reality

Art > perception > conceptual awareness of something important about reality

Then there is the fact that people view art with different ways of judgment. Art is like wine, or perhaps wine like art - Quality of wine (personal preference) is determined by the following:

To novices with little or no wine knowledge: wine quality is subjective with focus on sensory response (flavor, smoothness)

To medium-knowledge individuals: quality is a mix of subjective and objective properties

To wine experts: quality is objective with a focus on cognitive response (educated dimensions, structure, complexity of taste)

Art is probably the same. Some people look at a picture and feel good probably because it has pretty colors, shapes that are associated with pleasure, warm or titillating situations, etc. Others look at a picture and really abstract meaning from the art, then derive an opinion from their cognitive evaluation.

[9thdoctor]

I think this hinges on the definition of taste, Merriam Webster lists two that are relevant: Noun 6. individual preference; 7. critical judgement, discernment, or appreciation. 6 seems to be the more appropriate one here, though 7 is better if you want to speak of someone having well developed tastes in something. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taste

Let’s apply it to a context. Food preference is a context where there shouldn’t be much dispute, if you don’t like Indian food or hoppy beer, what can anyone say to you about it? You may develop a taste for it someday, that’s about it. Are there contexts where tastes are more debatable? Or could it be that to the extent it is debatable, it’s no longer a matter of taste?

Here’s a musical illustration. I’m going to assume you generally like the Beethoven 5th Symphony, if not bear with me, I’m trying to hold as many factors constant as I can.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAm4e45Z25k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAm4e45Z25k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAm4e45Z25k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhcR1ZS2hVo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhcR1ZS2hVo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhcR1ZS2hVo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I don’t think one could make a definitive case that one’s better than the other. Both were equally competent in execution. But Bernstein uses a notably slower tempo, and gets a very different result, heavier, maybe less tense. If you prefer it, I’d say that’s a matter of taste (I like HvK’s better), but in the definition 6 sense.

Now compare to a performance by a community orchestra, or even a good college orchestra, where you’ll likely be treated to bad intonation, sloppy ensemble, and indifferent phrasing. If you prefer that, and especially if you prefer it for it’s shortcomings, I’d say we can switch to definition 7 and speak on terms of improving your taste. I couldn’t quickly find a performance to serve as a proper illustration, but this one’ll do, plus it’s hilarious.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Now back to food, a colleague tried to introduce me to Vietnamese cuisine, so we went to lunch at a place and I ordered Phở, which is a beef stew. I didn’t like it at all, and he disapproved of whatever he ordered, sampled mine and told me definitively that it was not even a proper Phở. Now what if I had liked it, and then I tried good Phở, and hated that? The mind boggles. Rather like preferring the disco version of the Beethoven 5th.

You’ll find a great illustration of the wrong way to argue about musical taste here: http://www.solopassion.com/node/4585

[tjohnson]

I don't go in for visual art much - I'm more of a music person. I have played guitar for 40 years or so plus I play violin and piano a little. Sometimes i really appreciate classical music especially baroque music like Bach, Vivaldi, etc. Other time I'm really into James Taylor, Paul Simon, etc. I particularly like the interplay of words and music because it adds an extra dimension to the music. It's like having poetry put to music. Is there anything objectively "good" in my tastes? No, it's just me.

[BaalChatzaf]

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

Ignorance is ignorance. I have no access to any logical reason for liking one in preference to the other. The underlying neurological functioning is not visible to any introspection. So any hypothesis offered by introspection cannot really be objectively tested. In short there is no real theory that can be tested using current technology. Any supposition is psycho-babble drivel, rather than science.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

Ignorance is bliss, I'm sure.

JR

Ignorance is ignorance. I have no access to any logical reason for liking one in preference to the other. The underlying neurological functioning is not visible to any introspection. So any hypothesis offered by introspection cannot really be objectively tested. In short there is no real theory that can be tested using current technology. Any supposition is psycho-babble drivel, rather than science.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Do you believe the view Jeff Riggenbach has offered up on this topic are "psycho-babble drivel"? Also, what other views have you seriously considered that you later found to be "psycho-babble drivel,[sic] rather than science"? Just curious.

[Xray]

Ignorance is bliss, I'm sure.

Ignorance is ignorance. I have no access to any logical reason for liking one in preference to the other. The underlying neurological functioning is not visible to any introspection. So any hypothesis offered by introspection cannot really be objectively tested. In short there is no real theory that can be tested using current technology. Any supposition is psycho-babble drivel, rather than science.

Dan Ust: Do you believe the view Jeff Riggenbach has offered up on this topic are "psycho-babble drivel"? Also, what other views have you seriously considered that you later found to be "psycho-babble drivel,[sic] rather than science"? Just curious.

Ba'al is not the type of person who is easily impressed, and who asks his discussion partners to provide evidence supporting their claims.

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

And if Rand saw expressed in art 'values' which did not match her own, she dismissed e. g. Beethoven and Rembrandt as "essentially without merit" because their work was "malevolent", the entire Impressionist school as "murky and unfocused", and most works in the history of literature as "anti-Romantic and unstylized". (Source: B.Branden's book, p. 311)

Ignorance is bliss, I'm sure.

It would be interesting to read JR's comments on Rand's ignorance in that field.

It looks like Rand proceeded in art as she proceeded in her moral views: rigidly comnemning that which did not suit her personal preferences as having no "objective value".

Condemning art not fitting the reigning ideology is typical in totalitarian systems. The same goes for praising art to the sky which fits the reigning ideology.

JR: 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.

Makes me think of Rand preferring her 'tiddlywink' music over Beethoven.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Xray

[Newberry]

Dan:

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 think disputing taste is enjoyable, but I don't ever include what someone should like. After selling hundreds of works, I never know what someone, even a person I know very well, will love, like, admire, dislike or hate. And oddly, I don't have a negative feeling about people that don't like my work, but I do have a high regard for people who collect my work.

My guess as to why assuming that someone will like particular art works doesn't work is that the art equation is massively complex, dealing with huge range of thoughts, feelings, and sensory experience--any one of the millions of combinations could be the right ones to make one person love it, and another dislike it.

I think judgment is something other than taste, in which like or dislike doesn't have anything to do with it.

Michael

BTW Dan, I like you are bringing up these threads on art.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Newberry

[Xray]

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 have come to eliminate any "should" almost entirely from my vocabulary in my active communication. Imo it is totally ineffective and therefore unproductive to tell others what their tastes or values "should" or "ought to" be.

I speak about my tastes and values and why I have them, and can try, via arguments, to convince others to adopt mine, but I do not use any "should" or "ought to". Unless you can come up with arguments which convince the other person, forget it.

There exist no objective standards anyway for what a person "should" like.

Dan Ust: 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.

And objective standards of taste linked to living the good life simply don't exist, given the fact that people's views on what constitutes the "good" life vary considerably.

This would instantly become apparent on a desert island, for your views on how to live the good life there may substantially differ from someone else's.

I for example would not like it at all if I had to hunt for survival there, whereas a more adventurous type might find this a challenging experience, suiting his/her taste.

I would not even like to be on such an island at all, even with comfort and luxury, and not even for a limited time, because city life is far more to my taste. With others, it may be just the opposite.

Dan Ust: 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?)

This touches the realm of ethical values, which reaches way beyond mere matters of taste.

Someone expressing racist/sexist views reveals an attitude disvaluing a group of fellow human beings. "Preference" here is not the same as preferring strawberry over vanilla ice cream.

Someone having a "taste" for bullfights reveals a lack of empathy for animals who have to suffer and die for the mere pleasure of individuals attending those fights.

Keeping their mouths shut in the interest of social harmony rarely works with people who are racists/sexists etc. For who they are will shine through in many other ways.

Christopher:

Then there is the fact that people view art with different ways of judgment. Art is like wine, or perhaps wine like art - Quality of wine (personal preference) is determined by the following:

To novices with little or no wine knowledge: wine quality is subjective with focus on sensory response (flavor, smoothness)

To medium-knowledge individuals: quality is a mix of subjective and objective properties

To wine experts: quality is objective with a focus on cognitive response (educated dimensions, structure, complexity of taste)

But what does that "objective" quality consist of?

Frankly, who would take a sip of that stuff at all if it did not contain a mood alterer (alcohol)?

The taste of wine is sour, the taste of beer is bitter; spirits have a burning taste.

Kids for example would spit it out. Would you say their taste response has no "objective" quality?

Edited April 9, 2010 by Xray

[dan2100]

Dan:

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 think disputing taste is enjoyable, but I don't ever include what someone should like. After selling hundreds of works, I never know what someone, even a person I know very well, will love, like, admire, dislike or hate. And oddly, I don't have a negative feeling about people that don't like my work, but I do have a high regard for people who collect my work.

Comparing tastes is often enjoyable for me; disputing them not so much, though it depends on with whom.

Regarding not being able to know, I think this links to the systematicity argument -- a big debate in cognitive science, if my memory's correct. This is basically the view that if you hold one idea, then you're likely to hold another if they're systematically related -- and this means in some nontrivial way. I think there are violations of this often enough, but violations might be a matter of degree rather than an outright refutation of systematicity. (And how does it relate here? Well, in the way that if you like X, you're more likely to like Y -- if X and Y are similar enough. E.g., if you like Bruckner you're more likely to like Mahler (and vice versa).)

My guess as to why assuming that someone will like particular art works doesn't work is that the art equation is massively complex, dealing with huge range of thoughts, feelings, and sensory experience--any one of the millions of combinations could be the right ones to make one person love it, and another dislike it.

That would be my default view on this too, but I don't know if this is so and I also don't know if it'd knock out the view that there are objective standards of taste.

I think judgment is something other than taste, in which like or dislike doesn't have anything to do with it.

I think so, but I'd like to explore the relationship between them. I do believe, as George and Jeff Riggenbach seemed to have pointed out, that people's tastes change usually because their ability to judge changes (presumably, becomes better).

BTW Dan, I like you are bringing up these threads on art.

Thanks.

[anonrobt]

I think this hinges on the definition of taste, Merriam Webster lists two that are relevant: Noun 6. individual preference; 7. critical judgement, discernment, or appreciation. 6 seems to be the more appropriate one here, though 7 is better if you want to speak of someone having well developed tastes in something. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taste

Let’s apply it to a context. Food preference is a context where there shouldn’t be much dispute, if you don’t like Indian food or hoppy beer, what can anyone say to you about it? You may develop a taste for it someday, that’s about it. Are there contexts where tastes are more debatable? Or could it be that to the extent it is debatable, it’s no longer a matter of taste?

Here’s a musical illustration. I’m going to assume you generally like the Beethoven 5th Symphony, if not bear with me, I’m trying to hold as many factors constant as I can.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAm4e45Z25k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAm4e45Z25k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAm4e45Z25k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhcR1ZS2hVo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhcR1ZS2hVo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhcR1ZS2hVo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I don’t think one could make a definitive case that one’s better than the other. Both were equally competent in execution. But Bernstein uses a notably slower tempo, and gets a very different result, heavier, maybe less tense. If you prefer it, I’d say that’s a matter of taste (I like HvK’s better), but in the definition 6 sense.

Now compare to a performance by a community orchestra, or even a good college orchestra, where you’ll likely be treated to bad intonation, sloppy ensemble, and indifferent phrasing. If you prefer that, and especially if you prefer it for it’s shortcomings, I’d say we can switch to definition 7 and speak on terms of improving your taste. I couldn’t quickly find a performance to serve as a proper illustration, but this one’ll do, plus it’s hilarious.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Now back to food, a colleague tried to introduce me to Vietnamese cuisine, so we went to lunch at a place and I ordered Phở, which is a beef stew. I didn’t like it at all, and he disapproved of whatever he ordered, sampled mine and told me definitively that it was not even a proper Phở. Now what if I had liked it, and then I tried good Phở, and hated that? The mind boggles. Rather like preferring the disco version of the Beethoven 5th.

You’ll find a great illustration of the wrong way to argue about musical taste here: http://www.solopassion.com/node/4585

Tastes, perhaps - but there is also how one approaches music conducting... Bernstein was a romantic, and it shows [it flows more], just as Von K was Germanic and more like 'old school' in his approach [indeed, one could almost set a metronome to the pace - much as Beethoven himself indicated on the sheet], similar to Furtwrangler... there is also, as in this case, the issue of repeats - Bernstein used all of them as Beethoven had written, whereas Von K, like most others, omitted some, making getting thru it a faster seeming pace... a better set of illustrations would had been different recordings of, say, Toscanini, who varied a fair bit depending on the mood he was in at the time - and it very much shows, even as same guy, same music, same orchestra even...

As for Schickele - heh, that is a more glorified version of ol 'BeetleBaum' of Spike Jones' fame... both, btw, very funny and great to listen to...

[BaalChatzaf]

Do you believe the view Jeff Riggenbach has offered up on this topic are "psycho-babble drivel"? Also, what other views have you seriously considered that you later found to be "psycho-babble drivel,[sic] rather than science"? Just curious.

If it ain't physics, it is either stamp collecting or nonsense (slight exaggeration)..

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Reply to posting #30

Regarding which is the better performance of Beethoven's 5th, I ask you: Can you not hear the Death Premise in every chord of Beethoven's work? Can you not perceive his evil Sense of Life? Isn't it obvious?

(just kidding).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

Tastes, perhaps - but there is also how one approaches music conducting...

My point was that if you prefer one or the other, and someone tries to claim your taste needs improving, they’ll have a hard time making that case. I was trying to illustrate two meanings of taste.

As to setting a metronome to a Furtwangler performance, I must disagree, he varied tempi a great deal, and could be quite idiosyncratic. HvK much less so.

[dan2100]

Do you believe the view Jeff Riggenbach has offered up on this topic are "psycho-babble drivel"? Also, what other views have you seriously considered that you later found to be "psycho-babble drivel,[sic] rather than science"? Just curious.

If it ain't physics, it is either stamp collecting or nonsense (slight exaggeration)..

Ba'al Chatzaf

My word! Jeff was completely right about you.

[Newberry]

Dan:

(And how does it relate here? Well, in the way that if you like X, you're more likely to like Y -- if X and Y are similar enough. E.g., if you like Bruckner you're more likely to like Mahler (and vice versa).)

Hey Dan, there is a lot more on this thread that is interesting and to think about. A couple of examples of my personal experience with this issue is that I do not like jazz, but I love Ella Fitzgerald (I am close to having everything she recorded). I do not like the genre of detective novels, but Agatha Christie is in my top five favorite novelists. Mozart, 99 times out of 100 sounds petty to me, but I love everything by Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven, why not Mozart? Is it because his last name doesn't begin with a "B"? It seems that I go for an artist, if I love one of their works there are chances that I love everything they do.

M: My guess as to why assuming that someone will like particular art works doesn't work is that the art equation is massively complex, dealing with huge range of thoughts, feelings, and sensory experience--any one of the millions of combinations could be the right ones to make one person love it, and another dislike it.

Dan: That would be my default view on this too, but I don't know if this is so and I also don't know if it'd knock out the view that there are objective standards of taste.

I have no confidence that there are "objective standards of taste." My understanding of that comment is that it is a decree of what others should like. It does not help that "taste" can be used both as preference and as a judgment, I use it as preference. Though I think one can make objective judgments within a clearly defined context. One could make the point that El Greco figures have a slight distorted quality compared with his contemporaries, and Munch in The Scream has an even a more distorted quality compared to El Greco but not to Pollock. The idea of art judgment is to load the observable facts in your favor and making a simple and clear connections with them. Lol, but I think you need an audience on the same page.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Newberry

[dan2100]

Dan:

(And how does it relate here? Well, in the way that if you like X, you're more likely to like Y -- if X and Y are similar enough. E.g., if you like Bruckner you're more likely to like Mahler (and vice versa).)

Hey Dan, there is a lot more on this thread that is interesting and to think about. A couple of examples of my personal experience with this issue is that I do not like jazz, but I love Ella Fitzgerald (I am close to having everything she recorded). I do not like the genre of detective novels, but Agatha Christie is in my top five favorite novelists. Mozart, 99 times out of 100 sounds petty to me, but I love everything by Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven, why not Mozart? Is it because his last name doesn't begin with a "B"? It seems that I go for an artist, if I love one of their works there are chances that I love everything they do.

M: My guess as to why assuming that someone will like particular art works doesn't work is that the art equation is massively complex, dealing with huge range of thoughts, feelings, and sensory experience--any one of the millions of combinations could be the right ones to make one person love it, and another dislike it.

Dan: That would be my default view on this too, but I don't know if this is so and I also don't know if it'd knock out the view that there are objective standards of taste.

I have no confidence that there are "objective standards of taste." My understanding of that comment is that it is a decree of what others should like. It does not help that "taste" can be used both as preference and as a judgment, I use it as preference. Though I think one can make objective judgments within a clearly defined context. One could make the point that El Greco figures have a slight distorted quality compared with his contemporaries, and Munch in The Scream has an even a more distorted quality compared to El Greco but not to Pollock. The idea of art judgment is to load the observable facts in your favor and making a simple and clear connections with them. Lol, but I think you need an audience on the same page.

Just a quick comment here. Your statement that your "understanding of that comment [on the possibility of objective standards of taste] is that it is a decree of what others should like" perhaps cuts to the heart of why this is difficult to discuss this topic. Perhaps people are assuming that once such standards are found, their favorites will fall by the way side. For instance, maybe you and I (I'm no Mozart fan either) will find Mozart is higher on an objective standard of taste than Brahms (whom I love too) and be relegated to admitting we have poor taste and being laughed at.

But I don't think this is the case. I think it might work the other way round: that if one really loves something and it stands the test of ever greater experience of art, then it might fall into the category of good taste. (This goes along with my understanding of An Experiment in Criticism by C. S. Lewis: strong or great works of literature should be able to stand a close reading. The same might be applied to all art forms and all works in general, no? I know this doesn't separate out taste, but the same logic might apply, no?) But even if it doesn't, I imagine this wouldn't be a diktat -- any more than any other objective judgment would be. And, in this vein, were such to be found, it wouldn't be a matter of saying, "Oh, stop liking Brahms and start liking Mozart!" but of finding a path for each person to follow to improve her or his tastes -- assuming they wanted to improve. (This is no different than being healthier. There seem to be certain things that are unhealthy -- even if there might not be one single healthy lifestyle. But there is or should not be a external compulsion to be healthy.)

[Newberry]

Dan:

Just a quick comment here. Your statement that your "understanding of that comment [on the possibility of objective standards of taste] is that it is a decree of what others should like" perhaps cuts to the heart of why this is difficult to discuss this topic. Perhaps people are assuming that once such standards are found, their favorites will fall by the way side. For instance, maybe you and I (I'm no Mozart fan either) will find Mozart is higher on an objective standard of taste than Brahms (whom I love too) and be relegated to admitting we have poor taste and being laughed at.

But I don't think this is the case. I think it might work the other way round: that if one really loves something and it stands the test of ever greater experience of art, then it might fall into the category of good taste. (This goes along with my understanding of An Experiment in Criticism by C. S. Lewis: strong or great works of literature should be able to stand a close reading. The same might be applied to all art forms and all works in general, no? I know this doesn't separate out taste, but the same logic might apply, no?) But even if it doesn't, I imagine this wouldn't be a diktat -- any more than any other objective judgment would be. And, in this vein, were such to be found, it wouldn't be a matter of saying, "Oh, stop liking Brahms and start liking Mozart!" but of finding a path for each person to follow to improve her or his tastes -- assuming they wanted to improve. (This is no different than being healthier. There seem to be certain things that are unhealthy -- even if there might not be one single healthy lifestyle. But there is or should not be a external compulsion to be healthy.)

You are far too reasonable.

[dan2100]

You are far too reasonable.

And I feared I was not reasonable enough.