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

361–370 of 479 posts

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#361

Post by JohnFen »

lhorie wrote: post #252
robofanatic wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > If there's no such thing as good taste, then there's no such thing as good art. Because if there is such a thing as good art, it's easy to tell which of two people has better taste. Show them a lot of works by artists they've never seen before and ask them to choose the best, and whoever chooses the better art has better taste. How does one determine "better art"?

Better-ness IMHO is a function of expectations. Playing Dream Theater as ambient music in your restaurant is arguably in "bad taste", despite the art itself being technically on virtuoso level, and often being considered "good art" outside of that context. Liking pop music is often snobbishly seen as having "bad taste" in music, even in the face of it being wildly popular, and sometimes even actually interesting from…

Things are only better or worse than other things when comparing specific attributes. Something can be better looking, better functioning in some specific way, and so forth.

"Better" and "worse" overall are necessarily subjective assessments. Is that piece of garbage car worse than a high-end one? By some measures, yes. But if your criteria include "being the least expensive", then no, it's not.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#362

Post by robofanatic »

guerrilla wrote: post #193
robofanatic wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > If there's no such thing as good taste, then there's no such thing as good art. Because if there is such a thing as good art, it's easy to tell which of two people has better taste. Show them a lot of works by artists they've never seen before and ask them to choose the best, and whoever chooses the better art has better taste. How does one determine "better art"?

Better is just a word that means "more good", so I've already answered this. One simply subjectively prefers some art over other art. What people prefer (i.e. think is better) does not correspond to production skill, as I already argued.

without a 3rd person to judge or an already set criteria that dictates what is "good" and whats "not so good" art it's impossible to tell who chose the better art out of those 2 people.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#363

Post by derbOac »

retube wrote: post #8

I don't agree with his argument. I'd argue that it's perfectly possible for something that took huge skill and execution brilliance to create to be ugly / tasteless / vulgar, indeed completely tasteless.

I have no idea what the right answers are in this area, if there are any. But for me, I don't know that it's so much about skill as it is something that results in the bettering of experience. That might require skill in the sense of technique, but it also reflect lots of thought or insight, or something else.

Where it gets tricky I think is that "bettering" can be with reference to many different criteria — morality, empathy, insight into ourselves, insight into others, bearing witness, emotional peace, and so forth — that it becomes very complex very quickly. I also think that it necessarily depends on where someone, or some group of people are, at some point in time, so it will shift (this also arguably speaks to how taste is a function of the creator, creation, and the beholder simultaneously).

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#364

Post by cgrealy »

slibhb wrote: post #118

I had the opposite conversation with my father. I claimed "there's no accounting for taste" and my father said "that's not true, you can claim Shakespeare isn't good but you're wrong". For judgements of taste, no one is better than Kant. I recommend this essay: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment/ In Kantian aesthetics, judgements of taste are subjective (because they differ between people) but are…

>my father said "that's not true, you can claim Shakespeare isn't good but you're wrong".

Could not disagree more.

Your father can claim Shakespeare is good, but that doesn't make him right. I think Shakespeare is good, but that's a subjective opinion and holds no more weight than someone who thinks Dan Brown is a better writer /shudder.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#365

Post by newbamboo »

cwmoore wrote: post #315
newbamboo wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point, that some art is better, is exactly the point Paul was making. A point I agree with. So I’m not sure what you find crass? Is it non-artists forming their own independent judgements about art? I’m sincerely interested in what your disagreement is.

Summarizing my comments with the conclusion that "some art is better" and you, Paul, or anyone else can reliably judge which it is, does not come anywhere close to my meaning. I have to conclude that we are not in disagreement, because we are not even communicating.

Sorry if I didn’t grasp your point. I am trying to.

Maybe a simple set of questions would help: You don’t feel some art is better or special? Or you don’t feel a person can discern between art that is better or worse, even in the most extreme cases? Or is it something else?

If you yourself are an artist, or own art, then surely you find some works better than others? Museums make these decisions about what to own. Do you believe one can judge some museums better or worse?

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#366

Post by etrautmann »

beaconstudios wrote: post #100
etrautmann wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

All of these are great arguments when fully articulated! I wasn't disagreeing with you earlier :)

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#367

Post by dfdz »

> Because if there is such a thing as good art, it's easy to tell which of two people has better taste. Show them a lot of works by artists they've never seen before and ask them to choose the best, and whoever chooses the better art has better taste.

This step of the argument assumes the conclusion. If both people answer n true false questions randomly, then with high probability (probability at least 1- 1/sqrt(n) ) one person will have answered more questions correctly.

This does not imply that either person is better than random.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#368

Post by CyberRabbi »

abernard1 wrote: post #301
CyberRabbi wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you claim to oppose the postmodern idea that there is no truth, you’ve ceded the premise to the postmodernists by framing truth in their terms of objectivity and subjectivity. The success of the postmodernists was precisely to discredit all “subjective” truths by way of distinguishing them from “objective” truths, which no common person can deny. A stronger position is one that does not require the truth to be…

> While you claim to oppose the postmodern idea that there is no truth, you’ve ceded the premise to the postmodernists by framing truth in their terms of objectivity and subjectivity I do not. What I am saying is that knowledge—if such a thing exists at all and is worthy of defense by humans—can be addressed in a rational, objective way. Lots of things are approximations, but we do not deny the existence of categorie…

> They would not categorically discard visceral human experiences that lead to say "thirst" or "hunger" or "anger"

Of course they wouldn’t. It would be too difficult for the average person to buy and they don’t need to especially since it isn’t really their goal to dismantle truth completely, their goal is to dismantle the values we hold as a society so that in the vacuum they may impose new values upon us. They do that under the guise of questioning truth. This is why I said that when you embrace their objective/subjective categories you are helping their cause. Once those categories are established and accepted by society it is simply their job to argue that the values they do not like are subjective and arbitrary, then people who have accepted the subjective/objective dichotomy will do the rest.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#369

Post by b0rsuk »

I disagree - there's no such thing as UNIVERSAL good taste. My current simple definition of art is something that evokes emotions just be "being there" and not directly or indirectly doing something to someone. No amount of education in classical art will make a person appreciate Obfuscated C Contest. But a programmer will usually appreciate it, just like he would likely appreciate the Javascript WAT video. Programmer humor is still humor, and it can be well done. But it will be niche. Someone else is an expert on trucks and loves the movie Sorcerer (1977). I enjoyed the movie "Tampopo" a lot, but judging by online comments people who can cook well have reasons to really admire it. I dislike rap and hiphop music, and think it's bad, but I still believe there's better and worse rap. Just like there's better and worse anime - but in my opinion the good ones are the exceptions and not the rule. A broken mechanical clock still shows the correct hour twice a day.

So, to wrap it up, I think to claim "good taste" you first need to establish some criteria, define an audience. Because no art works for all people and THAT IS FINE. I think memes are a form of art too. Nyan cat looks crude, but coming up with a similar thing that takes the word by storm - or just a new joke - is not easy. We have different skills, experiences, sensibilities.

In my language, "art" extends beyond aesthetics and feelings. When something is masterfully done, and even goes beyond, it's inspired - we say it's art. But just because opera singing takes skill and is hard doesn't mean you have to enjoy it.

Re: Is there such a thing as good taste?

#370

Post by majormajor »

motohagiography wrote: post #103

Wrote professionally about taste in a previous life. It is related more closely than we expect to techne or competence from physical knowledge. When we think of poor taste, we tend to think of symbols that are separated from their function and meaning, where instead of representing that, "I do this thing," something gaudy says, "I have this thing!" That's what crassness is, and it comes down to our relative apprehens…

This seems much more about what is "tasteful" to display rather than the link's claim about "good taste" that objectively appreciates "good" art over "bad" art.
Post reply on HN