Reading Criterion.com’s Trash and Treasure at the Razies, I came across the following quote, which I liked:
People “distinguish themselves by the distinctions they make,” writes sociologist Pierre Bourdieu in Distinction: “between the beautiful and the ugly, the distinguished and the vulgar”—between art and trash. “Art and cultural consumption are predisposed, consciously and deliberately or not, to fulfill a social function of legitimating social differences.” We reveal ourselves through our preferences; like a space telescope photographing faraway light from the beginning of the universe, our esteem for a particular film is a lens that sees backward in time, to the economic class, educational history, and subcultural sensibility in which such preferences are forged. You are what you like—and, crucially, you aren’t what you don’t. To prefer this to that is to align yourself with these people instead of those, an assertion of in-group belonging through a common agreement about what tastes are unpalatable. Per Bourdieu, “all determination is negation; and tastes are perhaps first and foremost distastes, disgust provoked by horror or visceral intolerance.”
As a reaction to the quote, I want to explore some of the following questions in this thread:
- What is taste (art, etc.)?
- What is good taste?
- Is having good taste important?
Off the top of my head, here are some responses to the questions.
Q: What is taste?
A: Taste refers to one’s preferences and predilections for made-man “objects” that have an aesthetic component–i.e., art, music, dance, novels, movies, TV shows, poetry, etc.
Q: What is good taste?
A: Good taste refers to a preference for aesthetic objects that are profound, true, sophisticated, (emotionally) moving, beautiful–or has some of these attributes. A part of having good taste includes an aversion or dislike for aesthetic objects that don’t have these qualities–or is characterized by the opposite.
The last question–is having good taste important–is a bit trickier–and I’ll try to answer that later.
(Edit)
Q: Is having good taste important?
A: I think there are different answers to this. The quote above mentions a social function–specifically, “legitimating social differences.” If, by this, the author means we can legitimize social hierarchy, leading to better treatment and status to those on the top (and poorer treatment to those on the bottom), I would agree this can result from having good taste, but I personally don’t value good taste for this effect.
Instead of elevating one’s social status, I value good taste because it signifies a greater sensitivity and appreciation for the creative, sophisticated, and powerful expressions of what is profound and true about human beings and human existence. So, a person with good taste can a) grasp profound truths about humanity, and b) appreciate aesthetically successful expressions. Both make good taste valuable to me.
While the value of grasping profound truths may be self-evident, understanding the value of appreciating skillful and powerful aesthetic expressions may be less clear. To explain the value of this, I would point to appreciating beauty and power one experiences in nature (e.g., a sunset). Suppose someone never really experience a sense of wonder or beauty in nature, Or suppose one’s experience of this was very shallow, with little or not impact upon the individual. I suspect one could see the loss in such situations, and in contrast appreciate the value of feeling a sense of awe from the beauty and power of nature. If so, than one may have an easier time understanding the value of appreciating good artistic expressions. (I suspect that a greater sensitivity and appreciation for aesthetic expressions will lead to a greater appreciating for nature, and vice-versa.)
To be continued…
(Question for a future post: Does having good taste necessarily lead to a distaste to bad works of art? Also: discuss the role of organization in aesthetic expressions.)