There is definitely such a thing as "popular" taste (and indeed, there are many variations of it, since the populace is large and varied - this alone starts to

There is definitely such a thing as "popular" taste (and indeed, there are many variations of it, since the populace is large and varied - this alone starts to make a sole idea of "good taste" difficult to accept), and there is definitely such a thing as skill at producing works that those with a popular taste appreciates. The presented "proof" doesn't go any further than that, though. It mentions that it changes a lot over time, but instead of engaging with that as an indicator that taste is always a moment-by-moment subjective thing, then IMO goes off the rails a bit with weird analogies. It ends up circular. Good art is that which causes the desired reaction in those with good taste? The best counter-argument to this skill/practice-based argument is that you can put a lot of skill and practice into something that people end up rejecting. Literature, film, and music shows plenty of examples of this. Even software shows this - you can spend a lot of effort to make a very intricate piece of software, that someone with "taste" may sneer at because of how fragile it is, even if they couldn't create it themselves. And then you are left just with that circular "your effort and practice and skill doesn't matter if it doesn't focus on the right things that hit your audience the right way, so the important skill is that of hitting your audience the right way, so a lot of it is up to the audience, so good taste is defined by ... itself and its audience"?