> It was obvious that Leonardo and Bellini were much better at it than me. That gap between us was not imaginary. They were so good. And if they could be good,

> It was obvious that Leonardo and Bellini were much better at it than me. That gap between us was not imaginary. They were so good. And if they could be good, then art could be good, and there was such a thing as good taste after all. Is taste simply recognition of skill? If that's the case, I think "taste" is commonly used too narrowly. Is it "tasteful" to appreciate a heart surgeon's life-saving? Or a teacher's ability to help me learn? That sounds odd to me (though we should obviously appreciate it!). I've always thought of taste as an ability to identify intrinsic value, especially when others might miss it ("it's just a picture, dude"). If it's skill alone, why is taste typically applied to aesthetic pursuits?