121–130 of 201 posts
> The people succeeding with AI aren’t the ones who suddenly discovered taste. They’re the ones who already had it and simply adapted their standards to a new tool.
Which is just about the most blatant “it’s not about x it’s about y” tropes that AI writing is drowning in.
I do appreciate that they gave some concrete advice on how to curate taste…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would make a number of great artists of history "tasteless".
A would agree with that for a number of well known artists often called great.
As someone who works with a lot of creatives, I've noticed people tend to get really defensive and self-righteous anytime "taste" comes up, on both sides - the haute designer-types vs. the scrappy I-can-do-it types. So I won't be surprised if this post is controversial. But it's insightful. Having poor taste (or more charitably, having no taste) can be covered up or ignored by the ability to choose from a pre-curated…
Like it or not, tastes change. Both the personal and society's tastes. If you look back through the past, you can see some horrid design choices. Thus, some designs we think as awesome right now, will be seen as horrid to our descendants. So if that's true, what if taste is social? And if it's social, then... well, all people have is peer pressure taste. And your words show the truth in this, to a degree. Pre-curated…
As someone who works with a lot of creatives, I've noticed people tend to get really defensive and self-righteous anytime "taste" comes up, on both sides - the haute designer-types vs. the scrappy I-can-do-it types. So I won't be surprised if this post is controversial. But it's insightful. Having poor taste (or more charitably, having no taste) can be covered up or ignored by the ability to choose from a pre-curated…
Like it or not, tastes change. Both the personal and society's tastes. If you look back through the past, you can see some horrid design choices. Thus, some designs we think as awesome right now, will be seen as horrid to our descendants. So if that's true, what if taste is social? And if it's social, then... well, all people have is peer pressure taste. And your words show the truth in this, to a degree. Pre-curated…
> It's all peer pressure, all social status.
You nailed it here. having 'taste' is a completely subjective concept driven mostly by the 'market-makers' of whatever industry. Your 'taste' is determined by the judgment of others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI stuff is tasteless in a different sense: It's like food that has no flavor. It "lacks salt" in some non-literal sense. And I think that is not all that surprising, because much of what it was trained on was corporate-speak, which has the same problem.
I would argue the opposite, most of the AI slop I see is gaudy and overwrought, the result of too much flavour carelessly applied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Colorblind have more issues distinguishing shades including shades of grade. These are made by people who see colors too well.
Or people who turn the brightness up on their monitor to "make the sun look dim in comparison". My TV has its backlight set to '0' (OLED, and a non-real property to set as no 'backlight', but still a metric). If I set it to 100 my eyes bleed. My current monitor with a real backlight has it set to 5. Yes, 5 out of 100. I think grey on grey works, if the very walls behind you are being bleached by the intensity of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A would agree with that for a number of well known artists often called great.
If I were to bet on whether the critical consensus or some random person on HN had no taste, I would certainly bet on the latter. This post reeks of "Am I wrong? No! It is the artists, critics, collectors, and community who are wrong!"
wait - I though I was arguing for consensus here and everyone else was calling me wrong
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is there is a mindfuck dynamic the arena of taste brings. Popular taste can overwhelm all other taste. A society may not even know they’ve lost taste for a significant amount of time.
[flagged]
> You don't have to drag everyone to your level in the name of accessibility.
is gross.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that if you can't make a profit you have shown you are tasteless. If other people don't enjoy it enough to pay you, that says a lot about how out of step you are.
The "only thing that matters are money" ideology at its peak.
As someone who works with a lot of creatives, I've noticed people tend to get really defensive and self-righteous anytime "taste" comes up, on both sides - the haute designer-types vs. the scrappy I-can-do-it types. So I won't be surprised if this post is controversial. But it's insightful. Having poor taste (or more charitably, having no taste) can be covered up or ignored by the ability to choose from a pre-curated…
Like it or not, tastes change. Both the personal and society's tastes. If you look back through the past, you can see some horrid design choices. Thus, some designs we think as awesome right now, will be seen as horrid to our descendants. So if that's true, what if taste is social? And if it's social, then... well, all people have is peer pressure taste. And your words show the truth in this, to a degree. Pre-curated…
Elements of taste are subjective. Not all of it. You recognize this yourself in your own area of skill. Everyone has one area where suddenly they agree not every opinion has equal merit, and can articulate why.
But move out of that subject and into one of their blind spots, and we’re right back to “that’s just taste, taste is subjective, taste changes over time.”
Subjectivity is the refuge of the tasteless, who can afford to let others do our thinking for us. GP was right on point in that regard.