Delve into the intriguing complexities of artistic taste, where personal appreciation clashes with critical perceptions that label certain art as kitsch. Explore the arbitrary rules of fashion that dictate societal acceptance, questioning their origins and the embarrassment they can instill. Discover the subjective nature of taste, likening it to fashion and cultural influences while uncovering the frustrating power dynamics that dictate what is deemed 'tasteful.' At the heart of the conversation is the question of what it means to judge someone's artistic choices.
The divide between popular and critic-approved art illustrates how artistic taste is shaped by subjective criteria rather than objective standards.
The evolution of artistic taste over time underscores its dependence on cultural trends and social dynamics rather than timeless aesthetic values.
Deep dives
The Mystery of Artistic Taste
Artistic taste can often appear puzzling, as there is a significant divide between what the general public finds beautiful and what art critics deem as superior. Many critics argue that certain art forms appreciated by uneducated individuals are kitsch, while more profound works are overlooked, leading to complex discussions on aesthetic value. This situation raises questions about the objective nature of taste since critics often rely on subjective criteria that can seem arbitrary to the average viewer. The tension lies in the disconnect between universal principles of beauty, such as symmetry, and the diverse personal preferences that shape individual taste.
Taste as a Social Construct
The concept of taste can be likened to a priesthood, where sophisticated artists create and uphold complex rules that may not resonate with the wider public. Just as Hindu priests enforce ritual purity laws that may confuse uninitiated followers, artists develop a sense of cringe around violations of taste rules, fostering an environment where conformity is valued over understanding. Critics of this model suggest that much of artistic taste is more about social dynamics and shared culture than any intrinsic quality of the art itself. This argument posits that sophisticated judgments can often appear arbitrary to those outside this 'priesthood', leading to calls for a relaxation of these ritualistic parameters.
The Fluidity of Taste
Artistic taste notably shifts over time, challenging the notion that it is grounded in universal truths. Trends in architecture exemplify this, as styles once celebrated can become scorned within just two decades, highlighting the capricious nature of social preferences. Additionally, disagreements among critics further undermine the idea of a stable aesthetic standard, resembling fashion cycles where what is considered 'in' or 'out' constantly changes. This volatility suggests that rather than reflecting timeless values, taste is influenced by cultural tides and power dynamics within artistic communities.
This is a bit mysterious. Many (most?) uneducated people like certain art which seems “obviously” pretty. But a small group of people who have studied the issue in depth say that in some deep sense, that art is actually bad (“kitsch”), and other art which normal people don’t appreciate is better. They can usually point to criteria which the “sophisticated” art follows and the “kitsch” art doesn’t, but to normal people these just seem like lists of pointless rules.
But most of the critics aren’t Platonists - they don’t believe that aesthetics are an objective good determined by God. So what does it mean to say that someone else is wrong?
Most of the comments discussion devolved into analogies - some friendly to the idea of “superior taste”, others hostile. Here are some that I find especially helpful: