Taste, I have it. If you dont like what i like, you have no taste

(Edited by Cat 14/04/2002 19:38)

Ilike what I like, and I don't like what I don't like ... and if I like something you don't like and you like something I don't like then that's fine by me
...and I seem to like saying like alot

Hmmmm, seems a fairly simple question to answer.

Yes, all taste is subjective and an individual's taste will vary and change over a period of time about some things.

If everyone agreed on what was 'good' and 'bad' taste then life would be boring and TV/movie critics, amateur and professional, would be out of business.

(Edited by Whistler 14/04/2002 21:10)

---

by Whistler
Hmmmm, seems a fairly simple question to answer.

---

Indeed. I like what I like, I dislike what I don't like.

I want to say there is such a thing as objectively 'good' or 'bad', without knowing where to start in justifying such a claim.

However, I have always made a distinction between what I like and what I think is good. I think 'Being John Malcovich' (sp?) is a very good film; I also find it distasteful and not something I would watch for enjoyment's sake. Equally, I enjoy Blake's 7 very much, without seriously holding it up as some of the best television ever made.

I suppose I don't belive in objective 'good' or 'bad', but I do think there are certain questions that should be asked about any work of art, and in order to justify any claim for whether a piece is 'good' or 'bad' it should be able to answer some of those questions satisfactorily. Which in of itself is extremely subjective, but in my defense people have been arguing this unsatisfactorily for centuries.

And having said that I should probably attempt to state some of those questions, though I don't mean this list to be by any means comprehensive:

Does it use its medium to best advantage?
Does it display originality in concept/execution?
Does it move me?
Is it technically complex?
Does the work progress? (less applicable to static art, though even within the space on a canvas, for example, the eye can be drawn along a series of shapes etc.)
Is the work consistent in concept/execution?
Is it what it intends to be?

Also, it depends by what criteria you are judging a work of art. I don't think any work can meet all of the above criteria well and I doubt any artist would intend a work to. In addition, some of those questions can be deliberatly ignored to a certain effect.

I hope you can get the gist of what I'm trying to say, because the expression of it is very poor and unconvincing. I shall go away and think about this some more.

i don't think you can say this is better than that althoguh i poften do, so i'm sorta contradicting myself, but you can say i personally prefer or in my opinion this is better than that.

---

by Sweet-Sange
Ilike what I like, and I don't like what I don't like ... and if I like something you don't like and you like something I don't like then that's fine by me
...and I seem to like saying like alot

---

Wot she said

---

by Incandenza
is it legitimate to say Beethoven's Ode to Joy is inherently better than an S Club song, or that The Godfather is a better film than Mannequin?

---

Well on a more sensible answer than before with regards taste and great works, i think time is a great test.

I like SClub7 and all but will people still be listening to it in 100 years? I dont know but they still listen to Beethoven so he must have been doing something right.

And the godfsther hasnt been tested over 100's of years but it's still very popular so i'd say it will end up being remembered years from now.

Having said that, while i can watch the godfather, i dont really like it. it's a guy flick if you ask me. Same for Rageing Bull, good film, watchable but not my cup of tea.

And this doesnt mean i have poor taste 'cos i can appriceate them as good films. I just dont like to spent my free time being depressed. i'd rather watch a feel good flick.

Call me shallow but i cant help it.

Surely there are different 'types' of taste?
There is the classic good taste - something that will apppeal to a large number of people, of varying ages (can't think of an example though!) things such as a good piece of classical music (my children enjoy listening to classical music for relaxation, as much as I do), then there are very specific individualistic tastes - that appeal to certain sections of the populace, and a few individuals outside the main 'target' audience - e.g. Boy Bands! (and those mums who scream louder than their kids - no names mentioned )

Karen_celebrating_her_uniqueness (don't ask how tho!)

Demona, are you trying to outline your own subjective taste, or something less tangible?

There are some parts of your list I may agree with. There are others (especially about intention) that I couldn't disagree more with, but that's just my less than humble one. But that's the nature of a subjective point of view. Your points are valid - but only to your version of taste. Does anyone here really think that the various 'classics' would mean jot to other cultures? Certain forms of Puritanism would be horrified at such self-indulgence. Do you really think that aboriginal tribes people of the Amazon would react to Mozart the way that (most) of us do?

Someone eminently more respectable than me once said that push-penny is of equal worth as opera. If we're going to try and look at that statement objectively then there can be no other logical conclusion than to agree. But then I would argue that objective values are a fairy tale and do not exist, and all that we ever know is subjective...

---

by Incandenza
is it legitimate to say Beethoven's Ode to Joy is inherently better than an S Club song, or that The Godfather is a better film than Mannequin?

---

Surely you've got both of those statements the wrong way round!

---

by Incandenza

Is all taste subjective?

---

I think taste is usually subjective, but nontheless, that which is considered "good taste" is usually consistant within any given societal group. In fact it may even be that such groupings are decided in part by some shared "taste".

As Jayjay said, what is considered "good taste" in one society or culture may mean nothing to another culture.

---

by Incandenza
Is it possible to objectively evaluate a piece of art, a film or novel or a song?

---

Yes it's quite possible to objectively evaluate most works within any artform/medium, however universal acceptance of that evaluation cannot be guaranteed. Although evaluating it "objectively" doesn't really say that it's of good/poor taste does it?

Is all taste subjective.
BIG YES!
Taste is partly based on upbringing (culture, common values etc) and its also has an individual element. Everyone has his / her own specific likes and dislikes and can be "stimulated" in different ways.

For example some people go "ooh pretty" when is purple...... where others go uhmm ok purple.... but yay its round

The degree in which someone has taste can't be discussed only the total lack of taste within the boundries of the currently valid norm can be actaully agreed upon.

Taste has no system and no proofs and taste is the feminine of genius

Also if you think about what good taste is...... Good taste is something that is generally accepted as tasteful. To get a generalization like that you will have to go by all the common elements. This means that you only have a tiny little bit of the whole "taste" range that is actually good taste. And there for is mostly boring to people with lots of taste

Good taste is the first refuge of the non creative. It is the last ditch stand of the artist.

He's a man of great common sense and good taste meaning thereby a man without originality or moral courage

To possess taste, one must have some soul.

And maybe a last thought:
If 22 billion flies eat dogsdroppings.... does that make it tasty?


(Edited by Chambler 16/04/2002 09:22)

---

by Jayjay
Demona, are you trying to outline your own subjective taste, or something less tangible?

---

I was trying to outline questions which should be asked by everyone of any work of art, but in some instances the answer will be that the piece wasn't trying to address that question. Which is where intent comes in...

I hadn't thought about the views taken by different cultures, but I can't see that the questions would be different - only the standards by which they are answered. The emphasis on the importance of some questions might also vary, as it does from person to person, but then it becomes a matter of taste, rather than value.

Which particular questions did you feel to be invalid?

---

There are some parts of your list I may agree with. There are others (especially about intention) that I couldn't disagree more with, but that's just my less than humble one.

---

Hmm, I had wondered about that one, which is why it's the last one on the list. However, I shall try to defend it.

There are two parts to the question. Firstly, that it seems unfair to penalise SClub7 for not being Beethoven when they're clearly not trying to be. It's easier to explain through examples. The lack of characterisation is a frequent complaint about LotR. If you believe that to be true, does that mean LotR is a 'bad' set of books? No, because the main point of the books is not to depict character. If it was, you might have a case.

The second part perhaps leads to something being 'bad', in that if something ends up being other than what it was intended to be, it's more likely to be flawed. An easy example of this is something being unintentionally funny. It being funny rather than dramatic is telling of flaws elsewhere in the piece. Or a very dirty minded viewer...

The difficulty is, of course, the judging of intent based solely on what emerged.

Demona, I wasn't suggesting your questions were invalid in isolation but were invalid for me.

Firstly intention. My sub-culture (Existentialist) has no interest in intention as it is considered unknowable. I would even argue that a lot of artists are not even fully cognizant of their own intention. What I am interested in is how the item affects me. If my interpretation is not the same as the artist's I do not find that relevant. That doesn't make my position superior/inferior to your's, just different.

Basically, about the only question that you asked that I find applicable to my tastes is 'Does it move me?' None of the others concern me.

That was the point I wished to make.

---

by Jayjay
Basically, about the only question that you asked that I find applicable to my tastes is 'Does it move me?' None of the others concern me.

---

Move you how?

I took this question to be concerned purely with the emotional response to the piece?

To elicite a response. Either emotionally or intellectually, or better yet both. If the item cannot do this then it has no value for me. This does not preclude it having an effect on someone else.

Surely the nature of experience is such that encountering any piece of art cannot fail to elicit a response?

Not all art engages people emotionally but in the process of absorbing it you must think something?

Taste is definitely subjective...

But that's a subjective point of view