My take is that taste is a complex selection of trade-offs. It is something we see a lot in software and (proper) engineering. I might have a taste on how to

My take is that taste is a complex selection of trade-offs. It is something we see a lot in software and (proper) engineering. I might have a taste on how to shard a database or pool connections, arrange workers off a queue. All of those come together to reflect a taste on how to build a complete system. My taste will differ from others - the more dimensions we measure the easier / harder it is to find commonality. (This might be a lesson in politics) The point being is that taste can be "wrong" - but only when looking at the desired goal. The goal for most art is self-expression. The goal for software systems might be monthly engagement. Its a lot easier to decide if engagement goes up and so judge taste in software design. This does lead to the interesting point that one can "teach" taste ... through following a metric and iterating. And this is often the advice - paint lots. But it does indicate that there is Good Taste. Its the taste that gets you to your goal. There may well have been painters like Pollock in Renaissance Italy, but they just starved to death before dripping much paint. And if there was only one "Good Taste" (what the Medici's liked) then there was a way to harness the greatest skill to that subset of Taste. Da Vinci may well have preferred abstract modernism, but he also preferred to eat. Now it is possible for more ways to align skill with different tastes. So we have more good tastes. More groupings of trade offs. And that is something i think we are seeing in software too. Open Source is one huge trade off that influences other things. Sort of like, Perspective.