Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is there such a thing as good taste?

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 479 posts

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#91

Post by andi999 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #49

Go to guy on this is Bourdieu. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu#Theory_of_capi... PG may say that his father pushed him in a different direction. But I suspect - like me - PG grew up with the cultural direction of the BBC and its mission to "inform, educate, and entertain." So if you were a bright curious kid your parents wouldn't necessarily be the ultimate authorities on culture and taste. There were o…

Next thing you want to tell me is that wine doesn't really taste good? (the high quality wine of course)

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#92

Post by dfxm12 »

lr4444lr wrote: post #68
dagw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

might validly prefer some abstract dot on a white canvas No one prefers a random dot on a random piece of canvas. They prefer a very particular dot on a very particular canvas made by a very particular person at a very particular point in history. Remove any one one those and it loses all meaning and value. And even the most ardent fan of that work would never argue that that artist was a greater painter or even arti…

But it doesn't hold up the other way when you remove one piece. I'd wager most people would select a Michaelangelo replica even if they were directly told it was a replica than the dot on the canvas if told it was a replica of whatever artist made it.

If this is true, I would bet it has more to do with metadata of the art rather than the art itself. Taste might not even enter the equation. The Michelangelo piece has many things going for it before you even get to the art itself: Painter's name value, importance to a Catholics (and probably other Christians, too), the original is a larger part of pop culture, the original is hung in a more iconic building, the importance of who commissioned it, people are more likely to have seen the Michelangelo in person and are likely to have a personal connection to it, etc.

Ask someone, you can have a replica of a piece you've seen, maybe even in person, that has cultural importance to their religion and it is by {famous artist} or you can have a replica of a piece by {some other artist}. I'd guess they'd go with what they know, sight unseen.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#93

Post by watwut »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #49

Go to guy on this is Bourdieu. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu#Theory_of_capi... PG may say that his father pushed him in a different direction. But I suspect - like me - PG grew up with the cultural direction of the BBC and its mission to "inform, educate, and entertain." So if you were a bright curious kid your parents wouldn't necessarily be the ultimate authorities on culture and taste. There were o…

> I was genuinely shocked a few years ago when I realised how much my cultural interests had been shaped by that kind of social programming. I still enjoy art and music, but I'm little more circumspect about them now.

I had similar realization, but it did not made me more circumspect about art, music etc. It made me to be more willing to try stuff I assumed I wont like. More likely to look at the context at which something odd to me appeared and then more likely to understand/like it.

> cultural taste is an aspirational social marker.

I agree. It is also identity. It also explains why aesthetic culture wars appears. It is not so much about what it is or liking or disliking it. It is about who is assumed to like the thing and performative acceptance/rejection.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#94

Post by ritchiea »

pydry wrote: post #78
Brian_K_White wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like is the wrong word. I think the closest appropriate idea is "appreciate". You probably should not "like" some of the best art at all, because it should have made you uncomfortable and think things you would rather not. Of course I say "some", because art has all kinds of different purposes or intents, and that is only the purpose of some art, not all art. So I think recognize, acknowledge, or appreciate are the k…

Ironically, the "white dot" type of art was popularized by CIA who poured money into cultural promotion following remarks by the USSR that the US was a culturally barren wasteland: https://daily.jstor.org/was-modern-art-really-a-cia-psy-op/

The CIA backed American abstract expressionists, which is a different, more visually complex style of abstract painting that is distinct from minimalist abstract painting.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#96

Post by klik99 »

codeulike wrote: post #7

This ignores the sociological aspects - having 'good taste' in something (art, sneakers, car modifications, tattoos) is a way of signalling membership of a group or distinction within that group. Even being interested in [classical] 'art' in the first place is a signifier of being in a certain strata of society. The way this essay is written seems anchored in one very particular social strata and the signifiers that…

I generally agree with you but signaling membership is far from the sole reason people like art - for example: the existence of hidden "guilty pleasures" indicates purely aesthetic enjoyment! I personally like fountain pens and riding a one wheel despite really hating the cultures around both of them

But the key point you're making - that good art only exists in a specific context - I totally agree with. Good taste/art exist only in relation to a specific culture, and depends on what that culture values (technique, creativity, bold ideas, traditional ideas (for example: pre-romantic period, good composers were seen as empty vessels "pure music" divinely flowed through rather than as geniuses with bold new ideas)). Shostakovich wouldn't have had a chance 100 years prior.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#97

Post by unethical_ban »

brigandish wrote: post #26

The evening of that talk had another speech that led to events of more import. On the side of Paul Graham (at least in the debate) Andrew Graham-Dixon gave a speech[1] that was against fascism, against racism, and against anti-semitism and yet Cambridge Union put him on a list of speakers that will not be invited back because of their racism and anti-semitism. Why? Because he did a satirical impression of Hitler. I k…

I'm always leery of posts from right-leaning outlets regarding "cancel culture", but after reading more about this, it is as bad as it sounds.

It's a disgrace that they reprimanded him. The moderator was laughing along that night, then shortly after put out a notice of groveling apology and finger-wagging. I wonder what horrid administrator or donor was offended by someone making fun of a fascist.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#98

Post by ff317 »

mojuba wrote: post #69
codeulike wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social signals aren't real-time light-beams that someone has to be there to witness; they make up our likes and interests and who we are. Let's say you are in a museum alone, some of the works presented can resonate and excite you more than the others, but you can't share your excitement with anyone. Where is the social signaling element gone then? Lets say: Two months later I'll be at a dinner party and over a bowl…

Yes but your momentary reaction to what you see, how much of it is "social"?

It could be the case that a lot of the momentary, solo reaction is driven by your brain's anticipation of those future social situations.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#99

Post by watwut »

mojuba wrote: post #48
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that definition the worst movies should be more novel. There are definitely movies that exist in which the reaction of everyone is that how can anyone produce movie this bad. If you think there is no such thing as universally bad, search for worst song in youtube. Also theoretically a random static is the most novel thing that could be present.

Can you bring some examples of films that are considered bad, rated say below IMDB 5, but are novel in some way? I don't know of any. There are some edge cases "so bad it's good" like The Room, but I personally don't get the appeal of it. And then it's an edge case anyway.

I find this odd assumption. Of course it is possible to have novel ideas and still have horrible dialog and shots. And no, I am not in habit of watching IMDB under 5.

Like, the reason people dont know imdb under 5 that satisfy your condition is that people avoid watching movies with low score. They dont recommend them to others either.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#100

Post by beaconstudios »

etrautmann wrote: post #85
beaconstudios wrote: post #74

nice to see the comment section is criticising PG for an extremely amateur take on sociology, aesthetics and art. I don't know why, but there's a fairly strong association between being in STEM and thinking that the humanities are easy and obvious and people study them just because they don't understand STEM. Thus we get blog posts like this, about how a reductio ad absurdum thought experiment is enough to resolve a…

This is overly dismissive - why not attack the ideas directly? I find these ideas overly reductive since the essay presupposes that art should be judged in a vacuum outside of it's societal context, as if that's somehow more objective. The emotional impact of the art (PG's stated objective function to maximize) cannot be pulled out of its context. Said differently, the emotional impact of a piece of art often leans h…

Yes, I am dismissing his contribution - because it's amateurish. I also don't encourage the local nursery to contribute their kids' paintings to the Met. Ironically, his article contributes to his argument that there is such a thing as objective taste if you root it primarily in the skill of the artist.

I'm no art critic or aesthetician, but here's some random issues that I noticed while reading:

- he has failed to separate skill from aesthetic taste. He describes taste as obviously real because some artists are better than others when this is a description of skill not taste; nobody denies the existence of painterly skill.

- his entire argument rests on comparing a child's drawing to a work by Da Vinci. Taste comes into play when you compare artists of comparable skill. Is it Good Taste to prefer Da Vinci to Lichtenstein? To Vermeer, or Van Gogh, or Picasso or whoever? The main arguments you can lean on here are from authority (such-and-such is popular with the galleries/critics, exhibits traits I was taught to look for in class) or from personal analysis/appreciation. He touches on the argument from authority but just hand-waves it away.

- He hints at the critique of art appreciation as being dominated by the celebrity of the artist and its connotations of class signalling but makes no reference to the fact that there's a ton of academic work on both of these factors. Thus he can only really skim the surface of this perspective.

- His whole argument about properties of objects being real or constructed is day-1 metaphysics. Ditto for his description of properties having a dimension of objectivity to subjectivity; he's just trotting out logical positivism like it's a truism, like many rationalist-types do. Logical positivism does not apply to a purely social field like art. Intersubjectivity isn't related to objectivity.

All this would be fine if it was just him thinking about art - it's perfectly reasonable to consider positions out loud without any meaningful expertise. But he makes a claim to truth, in front of a large audience that often accepts his ideas pretty uncritically, and it's an audience that already has disdain for the humanities. That's deserving of derision.

Post reply on HN