3 ms·

> > 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

> > 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. How does one determine "better art"?

guerrilla 5y ago
Better is just a word that means "more good", so I've already answered this. One simply subjectively prefers some art over other art. What people prefer (i.e. think is better) does not correspond to production skill, as I already argued.
- robofanatic 5y ago
  without a 3rd person to judge or an already set criteria that dictates what is "good" and whats "not so good" art it's impossible to tell who chose the better art out of those 2 people.
  - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
    There's no 3rd person. It's first person judgement. The 3rd person and criteria must be judged too, so in the end it all boils down to first person judgement.
lhorie 5y ago
Better-ness IMHO is a function of expectations. Playing Dream Theater as ambient music in your restaurant is arguably in "bad taste", despite the art itself being technically on virtuoso level, and often being considered "good art" outside of that context. Liking pop music is often snobbishly seen as having "bad taste" in music, even in the face of it being wildly popular, and sometimes even actually interesting from a technical analysis perspective. Acquired tastes are another example that goes against the idea of better-ness as an universal quality: Natto[0] mixed w/ a raw egg on rice is either a repulsive slimy mess or a delicious delicacy depending on who you ask. IMHO, the argument that there is no "good taste" merely observes that "good" is not an absolute metric, or even on a linear scale. Yes, things can be objectively "better" than others (e.g. I'm sure Michelangelo is far more skilled at painting than PG), but it's a bit of leap to conflate that specific line of comparison with the fuzzy idea of "better-ness". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natt%C5%8D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natt%C5%8D
- JohnFen 5y ago
  Things are only better or worse than other things when comparing specific attributes. Something can be better looking, better functioning in some specific way, and so forth. "Better" and "worse" overall are necessarily subjective assessments. Is that piece of garbage car worse than a high-end one? By some measures, yes. But if your criteria include "being the least expensive", then no, it's not.
  - lhorie 5y ago
    Exactly. I find that using art of all things to make an argument about good taste is particularly ironic, given that historically, art has always been a vehicle for shaking the status quo. I mean, look at Andy Warhol or Banksy or Robert Rauschenberg or Bill Watterson or any of hundreds of examples that clearly fall way outside the "Renaissance = good" bubble.
- mynegation 5y ago
  My immediate thought when I read the essay was about Dream Theater and I almost jumped when I saw the reference from you. Dream Theater is my absolute favorite band for 25 years and counting, but I know people that think that they are poseurs. To me, liking Dream Theater is a good taste because it is a good signal of people and their qualities that I like. Pop music is neither good nor bad taste as this taste does not really signal anything useful to me. Driving a loud car with semi-disabled muffler on city streets is a bad taste because not only it is annoying, it perfectly signals qualities that I dislike in people.

guerrilla 5y ago

Better is just a word that means "more good", so I've already answered this. One simply subjectively prefers some art over other art. What people prefer (i.e. think is better) does not correspond to production skill, as I already argued.

robofanatic 5y ago
without a 3rd person to judge or an already set criteria that dictates what is "good" and whats "not so good" art it's impossible to tell who chose the better art out of those 2 people.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  There's no 3rd person. It's first person judgement. The 3rd person and criteria must be judged too, so in the end it all boils down to first person judgement.

lhorie 5y ago

Better-ness IMHO is a function of expectations. Playing Dream Theater as ambient music in your restaurant is arguably in "bad taste", despite the art itself being technically on virtuoso level, and often being considered "good art" outside of that context. Liking pop music is often snobbishly seen as having "bad taste" in music, even in the face of it being wildly popular, and sometimes even actually interesting from a technical analysis perspective. Acquired tastes are another example that goes against the idea of better-ness as an universal quality: Natto[0] mixed w/ a raw egg on rice is either a repulsive slimy mess or a delicious delicacy depending on who you ask. IMHO, the argument that there is no "good taste" merely observes that "good" is not an absolute metric, or even on a linear scale. Yes, things can be objectively "better" than others (e.g. I'm sure Michelangelo is far more skilled at painting than PG), but it's a bit of leap to conflate that specific line of comparison with the fuzzy idea of "better-ness". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natt%C5%8D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natt%C5%8D

JohnFen 5y ago
Things are only better or worse than other things when comparing specific attributes. Something can be better looking, better functioning in some specific way, and so forth. "Better" and "worse" overall are necessarily subjective assessments. Is that piece of garbage car worse than a high-end one? By some measures, yes. But if your criteria include "being the least expensive", then no, it's not.
- lhorie 5y ago
  Exactly. I find that using art of all things to make an argument about good taste is particularly ironic, given that historically, art has always been a vehicle for shaking the status quo. I mean, look at Andy Warhol or Banksy or Robert Rauschenberg or Bill Watterson or any of hundreds of examples that clearly fall way outside the "Renaissance = good" bubble.
mynegation 5y ago
My immediate thought when I read the essay was about Dream Theater and I almost jumped when I saw the reference from you. Dream Theater is my absolute favorite band for 25 years and counting, but I know people that think that they are poseurs. To me, liking Dream Theater is a good taste because it is a good signal of people and their qualities that I like. Pop music is neither good nor bad taste as this taste does not really signal anything useful to me. Driving a loud car with semi-disabled muffler on city streets is a bad taste because not only it is annoying, it perfectly signals qualities that I dislike in people.