> If there's no such thing as good taste, then there's no such thing as good art. Because if there is such a thing as good art, it's easy to tell which of two p

> If there's no such thing as good taste, then there's no such thing as good art. Because if there is such a thing as good art, it's easy to tell which of two people has better taste. Show them a lot of works by artists they've never seen before and ask them to choose the best, and whoever chooses the better art has better taste. Who are these two people? Art historians or layman? Are they looking at the work of established artists or newcomers? Are they given context for the work that's displayed, or not? Who's deciding which of the 'art' is better? I think all we're saying here is that good taste is a consensus preference.