4 ms·

Taste is subjective and fleeting. The once lauded tastes of the 90s are now regarded as oh so dreadfully pedestrian by enlightened contemporary minds. The cru

Taste is subjective and fleeting. The once lauded tastes of the 90s are now regarded as oh so dreadfully pedestrian by enlightened contemporary minds. The crux of taste is rooted in celebrity worship and group think. Taste is a roll of the die and a hope that your vision resonates with those around you. It's no coincidence that every great artist is eventually regarded as jumping the shark; their tastes evolve or remain static, but time tends to displace the alignment between one's taste and the world around them (hence the need to "stay on top" of the latest trends). Taste is almost negligible.

stcredzero 14y ago
Taste is subjective and fleeting. The once lauded tastes of the 90s are now regarded as oh so dreadfully pedestrian by enlightened contemporary minds. You seem to have specific examples in mind. I have no idea what they are on this side of your skull. More specific language would be appreciated. The crux of taste is rooted in celebrity worship and group think. Taste is a roll of the die and a hope that your vision resonates with those around you. A lot of what is called "taste" is group think. Not all of it is, however. In addition to "taste" there is also Taste. A number of the hallmarks of Taste in instrumental music, like the ability to use slight modulation of rhythm to convey the visceral feeling of specific dance steps, are demonstrably cross cultural and enduring across generations. Many of the hallmarks of Taste in visual design (rule of thirds) have endured over hundreds of years. Note that these examples are rooted in the function of the human sensorium -- that's not coincidence. This isn't to say that absolutely everything Louis Armstrong's contemporaries did still resonates today. It also isn't to say that absolutely everything the old masters painted resonates with 21st century viewers. But note how much of what Louis Armstrong and Michaelangelo did which still resonates and which contemporary artists still include in their practice. We now know from science that people are not "blank slates." This notion was just an ideological fiction. Our senses and perceptions mostly work in a particular way, and this is bound to give rise to Taste. That said, you are mostly right, and our functioning as social animals with the ability to maintain ideologies as a group bonding mechanism also gives rise to "taste." Taste is almost negligible. If by this, you mean that the ratio of Taste/"taste" is frustratingly close to zero, I'd say you're right. Groupthink is agonizingly powerful, but that's only most of what there is, not all of it. (Sturgeon's Law)
- vectorpush 14y ago
  You seem to have specific examples in mind. I have no idea what they are on this side of your skull. More specific language would be appreciated. That was a bit tongue-in-cheek, my point is that tastes are in a state of perpetual change and instances that are regarded as representations of "good taste" are generally reflections of today's zeitgeist. Taste (as in gustation) is a good analog for social taste; people have a general idea of what tastes good to other people, but they almost always know what they like to eat and they also know that everyone is different and preferences in taste vary over time and by location. A good chef (someone that might be regarded as having good taste), certainly has his own preferences, but his skill is the capacity to engineer a dish that meets the requirements of any taste (because "good" depends on the taster) A number of the hallmarks of Taste in instrumental music, like the ability to use slight modulation of rhythm to convey the visceral feeling of specific dance steps, are demonstrably cross cultural and enduring across generations. What you describe are skills. Someone who "has taste" simply has preferences that align with those around them; catering to taste is just marketing. This is not to say that works of intrinsic merit don't exist, but those who can appreciate the finer details of a given work (in any domain) are rare, thus we rely on the social taste as a heuristic for determining which things are good. Those who pay little attention to the trends around them and simply serve their own preferences/apathy are regarded as tasteless. Even those cheesy Star Wars transitions were hip at one time.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    What you describe are skills. They are not just skills. The things I am referring to are tied to >awareness<. I say this as a musician of 23 years. Just because you have the neuromuscular resource to replicate a certain rhythm doesn't mean you know when and why to do so. (And if one has an incomplete understanding of exactly how you're trying to tweak the sensorium, one might also mess up the "how," yielding something that falls into an uncanny valley.) There is a certain knowledge of how and when and why which has to do with focused awareness of the moment and how the human sensorium works. This is tied to deep concentration, which seems to be the kind of deep concentration that meditation enthusiasts talk about. ("Being in the moment" is a part of this, but I don't think that's the totality of it.) This is why so many musicians emphasize >listening<. This is not to say that works of intrinsic merit don't exist, but those who can appreciate the finer details of a given work (in any domain) are rare, thus we rely on the social taste as a heuristic for determining which things are good. The former is Taste, the latter is "taste." The latter is like the people who only know they should become enthusiastic when opera singers hit the high note. Those who pay little attention to the trends around them and simply serve their own preferences/apathy are regarded as tasteless. This depends. Those who serve their own "taste" and fail to keep up with trends are eventually regarded as "tasteless" because they are using an outdated set of expectations. However, those with Taste, while they might be temporarily disregarded by those with "taste," eventually withstand the test of time. Often, when we are lucky, those with Taste set the trends. Even those cheesy Star Wars transitions were hip at one time. Yes, but when it comes to Taste, what matters is how well those transitions work in the context of the work they're in. Certain paints, techniques, themes can go in and out of "style" but what really matters is: did it work? (At a deeper level than mere expectations.)
meric 14y ago
Steve Jobs had taste, I doubt he was subject to groupthink, though.
- vectorpush 14y ago
  Steve Jobs had a vision and the skills to manifest that vision into a real product that could be mass produced and sold for a profit. He may have had taste, but that's nothing special, every celebrity has taste as far as their legions of fans are concerned. I'm not entirely convinced that taste is really all that relevant when considering the success of iOS. Apple engineered a very tiny computer that completely eclipsed all other phones on the market in terms of feature set (large touch screen, gps, edge, wifi, IM, e-mail, mp3 player, visual voicemail, motion controls, modern browser, integration with iTunes ecosystem etc). Details like icon spacing, bezel width, and font kerning really didn't matter at the end of the day. Finally, if Steve Jobs had any taste, it certainly wasn't appreciated by the masses who pay extra to obscure the iPhone's design with a phone case that favors their personal taste.

stcredzero 14y ago

Taste is subjective and fleeting. The once lauded tastes of the 90s are now regarded as oh so dreadfully pedestrian by enlightened contemporary minds. You seem to have specific examples in mind. I have no idea what they are on this side of your skull. More specific language would be appreciated. The crux of taste is rooted in celebrity worship and group think. Taste is a roll of the die and a hope that your vision resonates with those around you. A lot of what is called "taste" is group think. Not all of it is, however. In addition to "taste" there is also Taste. A number of the hallmarks of Taste in instrumental music, like the ability to use slight modulation of rhythm to convey the visceral feeling of specific dance steps, are demonstrably cross cultural and enduring across generations. Many of the hallmarks of Taste in visual design (rule of thirds) have endured over hundreds of years. Note that these examples are rooted in the function of the human sensorium -- that's not coincidence. This isn't to say that absolutely everything Louis Armstrong's contemporaries did still resonates today. It also isn't to say that absolutely everything the old masters painted resonates with 21st century viewers. But note how much of what Louis Armstrong and Michaelangelo did which still resonates and which contemporary artists still include in their practice. We now know from science that people are not "blank slates." This notion was just an ideological fiction. Our senses and perceptions mostly work in a particular way, and this is bound to give rise to Taste. That said, you are mostly right, and our functioning as social animals with the ability to maintain ideologies as a group bonding mechanism also gives rise to "taste." Taste is almost negligible. If by this, you mean that the ratio of Taste/"taste" is frustratingly close to zero, I'd say you're right. Groupthink is agonizingly powerful, but that's only most of what there is, not all of it. (Sturgeon's Law)

vectorpush 14y ago
You seem to have specific examples in mind. I have no idea what they are on this side of your skull. More specific language would be appreciated. That was a bit tongue-in-cheek, my point is that tastes are in a state of perpetual change and instances that are regarded as representations of "good taste" are generally reflections of today's zeitgeist. Taste (as in gustation) is a good analog for social taste; people have a general idea of what tastes good to other people, but they almost always know what they like to eat and they also know that everyone is different and preferences in taste vary over time and by location. A good chef (someone that might be regarded as having good taste), certainly has his own preferences, but his skill is the capacity to engineer a dish that meets the requirements of any taste (because "good" depends on the taster) A number of the hallmarks of Taste in instrumental music, like the ability to use slight modulation of rhythm to convey the visceral feeling of specific dance steps, are demonstrably cross cultural and enduring across generations. What you describe are skills. Someone who "has taste" simply has preferences that align with those around them; catering to taste is just marketing. This is not to say that works of intrinsic merit don't exist, but those who can appreciate the finer details of a given work (in any domain) are rare, thus we rely on the social taste as a heuristic for determining which things are good. Those who pay little attention to the trends around them and simply serve their own preferences/apathy are regarded as tasteless. Even those cheesy Star Wars transitions were hip at one time.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  What you describe are skills. They are not just skills. The things I am referring to are tied to >awareness<. I say this as a musician of 23 years. Just because you have the neuromuscular resource to replicate a certain rhythm doesn't mean you know when and why to do so. (And if one has an incomplete understanding of exactly how you're trying to tweak the sensorium, one might also mess up the "how," yielding something that falls into an uncanny valley.) There is a certain knowledge of how and when and why which has to do with focused awareness of the moment and how the human sensorium works. This is tied to deep concentration, which seems to be the kind of deep concentration that meditation enthusiasts talk about. ("Being in the moment" is a part of this, but I don't think that's the totality of it.) This is why so many musicians emphasize >listening<. This is not to say that works of intrinsic merit don't exist, but those who can appreciate the finer details of a given work (in any domain) are rare, thus we rely on the social taste as a heuristic for determining which things are good. The former is Taste, the latter is "taste." The latter is like the people who only know they should become enthusiastic when opera singers hit the high note. Those who pay little attention to the trends around them and simply serve their own preferences/apathy are regarded as tasteless. This depends. Those who serve their own "taste" and fail to keep up with trends are eventually regarded as "tasteless" because they are using an outdated set of expectations. However, those with Taste, while they might be temporarily disregarded by those with "taste," eventually withstand the test of time. Often, when we are lucky, those with Taste set the trends. Even those cheesy Star Wars transitions were hip at one time. Yes, but when it comes to Taste, what matters is how well those transitions work in the context of the work they're in. Certain paints, techniques, themes can go in and out of "style" but what really matters is: did it work? (At a deeper level than mere expectations.)

meric 14y ago

Steve Jobs had taste, I doubt he was subject to groupthink, though.

vectorpush 14y ago
Steve Jobs had a vision and the skills to manifest that vision into a real product that could be mass produced and sold for a profit. He may have had taste, but that's nothing special, every celebrity has taste as far as their legions of fans are concerned. I'm not entirely convinced that taste is really all that relevant when considering the success of iOS. Apple engineered a very tiny computer that completely eclipsed all other phones on the market in terms of feature set (large touch screen, gps, edge, wifi, IM, e-mail, mp3 player, visual voicemail, motion controls, modern browser, integration with iTunes ecosystem etc). Details like icon spacing, bezel width, and font kerning really didn't matter at the end of the day. Finally, if Steve Jobs had any taste, it certainly wasn't appreciated by the masses who pay extra to obscure the iPhone's design with a phone case that favors their personal taste.