The mistake he makes is to conflate the ability to recognize quality and the appreciation of quality. He elaborates further in this recommended read http://pau

The mistake he makes is to conflate the ability to recognize quality and the appreciation of quality. He elaborates further in this recommended read http://paulgraham.com/goodart.html http://paulgraham.com/goodart.html Goodness is always measured against a standard and although he proposes a reasonable standard, it's still arbitrary as all standards are. I agree that interrogating ones biases and susceptibility to trickery is worthwhile. Helping oneself and others see through trickery and illusions can be too. This idea can however be pursued ad absurdum as well. All fiction requires a suspension of disbelief and it is in itself a form of trickery. The implication of the existence of a good taste is that it's good to have this taste. Why are those who like good art better than those who appreciate quality but prefer worse art?