I agree with Cheerskep that the word taste is too vague, at least in how it's being used here. Although I think Miller may be right in saying it's a subjective term and therefore has no transferable meaning. It may be contained in what the cognitive scientists call qualia, the subjective associations to our personal histories. In that sense symbols are public, like images and words. Qualia is associative, individual, not transferable except in metaphorical translation -- as in what it's like to feel one's response to symbols. And here is where taste may become social by means of metaphor that symbolizes --but can't directly convey -- qualia. Once socialized by means of metaphor qualia may be regarded as public taste (as in the widely expressed taste for virtuosic skill). Nevertheless, actual qualia remains personal, conscious but not transferable. So perhaps we can speak of a public, metaphorical "as if" qualia and a personal "as is" qualia.
Our disputes regarding, say, Hitler's taste may rest on whether we aim to examine it in its public form (as symbolized by the art he admired) or in a private way which was and remains inacessible. We have no choice but to examine it -- and judge it -- in its public form. But Miller wants to defend its private, unknowable (and impossible to judge form) as if it was the public form. We must, I think, separate public taste (symbolized qualia) from private taste ( actual qualia that is not transferable). We can't share experiences. We only share symbols of experience but even in doing that our personal qualia is entangled. Perhaps that's where Cheerskep's infernal "fuzziness" lies (pun intended). We are fated to be fuzzy. WC --- Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mando, I am speaking as a collector (even if I'm > only collecting images for > my websites) > > And as a collector - I consider the "essence or > symbolic meaning" to be my > personal reaction - the result of my personal > tastes. So I don't hesitate to > separate a piece from whatever "essence or symbolic" > meaning it may have had > back when it was made -- whether it was made for > Nazis, or Spanish > Inquisitors, or Chinese emperors, or Mayan kings. > > (and I'm doubting that "essence or symbolic > meaning" exists outside of some > person's personal taste -- so whatever the great art > patron, Adolph Hitler, > thought about the essence of a Kolbe statue, it's no > more right or wrong than > what I think about it) > > While, yes, Mando, you are speaking as an artist > --or more specifically, a > professional artist who is making things to fit the > taste of others (patrons > or art directors or editors or curators etc)-- and > that's why you need to have > a very clear idea of what "essence or symbolic > meaning" is required -- an idea > so clear that it seems to you to exist outside your > personal taste. > > > **************************************************** > > > > Chris, > I'm speaking as an artist creating something, not a > collector. > When the object is altered, as in doing many > sketches of a human, > the essence and It's symbolism remain intact. Taste > is like beauty, a > very personal thing with individuals or groups of > individuals. > mando > > > > mando wrote > "In art,Taste, though personal in style is when the > object is altered, > but It's essence or it's symbolic meaning remains > intact. > _____________________________________________________________ > Get your dream car or truck. Click here. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmy2b4ynxvkbuqdFzRV0ODne > s5NKkbjifQE5T90JlerFXbTm/
