'Taste' is such a broad, fuzzy word -- both in general usage, and as I would
apply it. It can apply to orange juice or great paintings -- it can be
whimsical or a serious judgment -- but it still captures more than the word
'art'
If I tell you that "there is some art in the next room" -- all you will know
about about that 'art' is that it fits into the room. Period. Anyone can call
anything 'art' for any reason.
But if I tell you that "there is something in the next room that meets my
taste" --- you know that some particular person likes it.
That's a very small piece of knowledge --- but the more you eventually know
about the thing and the person -- the more valuable that small piece of
knowledge can be.
Or not.
Some preferences are casual, momentary, and not really worth discussing.
I'm only interested in what someone has in mind when noticing that something
is so special that it's worth remembering, recommending, and maybe even
subsidizing and teaching others how to have.
Including --- skiing (as Cheerskep has suggested) -- if that's what someone
really feels is important. How much different is that from my fondness for Tai
Chi? -- whose value I could discuss at great length -
with all kinds of profound jargon -- but won't -- because I doubt anyone here
has had much experience with it.
And the same thing with skiing -- or most of the other special, positive,
intense experiences that people have.
But everyone here has read Shakespeare , listened to Mozart, and seen the
paintings of Monet, Picasso, Rembrandt etc. --- so that's the reason why
discussions of taste tend to focus on the arts.
And yes - I am interested what someone has in mind when using the word 'art'
-- but not the general someone -- the hypothetical faceless person who
represents common usage and common taste.
I am only interested in actual specific people -- whom ,after using the word
'art' -- can then be queried about it.
That's the kind of discussion that interests me -- one that's based on
specific experiences of taste -- even if it's a taste for some aesthetic
theory (as long as the taster is willing to actually defend it)
But what doesn't interest me is discussion as some kind of track meet -- a
competition to distinguish the great thinkers from the rest of us -- an
utterly tedious diversion -- because, unlike a real track meet - there's no
way to determine the winner -- so all we get is endless, bitter bickering at
the finish line - like the post copied below.
Whatever happened to the Cheer in Cheerskep ?
****************************************************************
Cheerskep wrote:
When I first skied, I decided this was an experience to remember, and I
decided to subsidize my kids' having it. Do you see my difficulty with your
stated position, Chris?
Chris writes:
"Cheerskep, I ignored 80% of your argument for why my notion of "taste" is
so
alien to what most people have in mind when they say "Ellen has taste"
because, in our discussions here, I don't care about the common usage of any
important word."
As I said -- and you didn't respond to -- this ensures you will not be
"understood" because whenever you use a word, what will come to people's
minds
is
their notion, not yours. So, in effect, you claim you don't care what comes
to
your audience's minds when you speak or write. (I don't believe you.)
You go on to say you don't even care what most people have in mind when they
say the word 'art'. "The contents of what most people have in mind is an
issue
for marketing experts - and it bores me."
Chris, this is an aesthetics forum. What most people have in mind here with
the word 'art' is not an issue for marketing experts. And if what
aestheticians
and artists have in mind with that word bores you, why are you on this forum?
Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy. Philosophy requires the ability to hold
focus on an argument. Those whose attention flags or begins to wander
half-way through a sentence or paragraph are not equipped to do this stuff.
The sentence you begin to quote above is actually this: "You ignored 80% of
my argument for why your notion of "taste" is so alien to what most people
have
in mind when they say "Ellen has taste" that it amounts to extinguishing the
word, executing it."
The paragraph went on:
"Granted, some words in our language deserve execution, but then it behooves
the executioner to come up with a different word -- or, rather, two different
words: one for his new "concept", and another to salvage the elements in the
old majority notion that need to be preserved."
I'm coming to believe you're not one of those who ignore arguments, they
simply escape you. You're not able to hang in there long enough. I pointed out
tha
t your concept of "taste" implies that my preference for Velcro and zippers
over buttons because of my arthritic thumb is a matter of "taste". You didn't
respond.
But then, you never do tie your notion of taste and its preferences to
anything aesthetic. I'm with you during that brief portion of your day when
you
evidently feel there is no fact-of-the-matter about which aesthetic
preferences
are "right" or "wrong" (at other portions you convey you do support
"good"
taste), but I'm not with you when your usage of 'taste' would apply to any
preference of any kind. William's tying his notion of "taste" to "a sense
of beauty"
is foreign to your stated idea. Which is probably what allows you to think
the
choice of which solvent to use in cleaning brushes is a matter of taste. When
your cardiologist tells you that for a man with your problem he prefers a
quintuple-bypass to stents, you just tell him, hey, that's a matter of taste.
I pointed out that your stated concept and usage of "taste" left out entirely
the element of judgment, and it puts you in the seemingly silly position of
asserting the teacher who inculcates what you'd call awful preferences is
nevertheless doing his job of "teaching taste". You didn't respond.
You then say, "I'm interested in what each contributor to the forum has in
mind when noticing that one experience is
so special that it's worth remembering, recommending, and maybe even
subsidizing and teaching others how to have."
All of us wish we had more stamina and acuity to focus on an idea long enough
to see all its implications and scope, but, Chris, you seem to lack it to the
point of disqualification from being taken seriously in forum debates. I have
to believe you never saw how unrestricted the scope of the "experience" is
there. When I first skied, I decided this was an experience to remember, and
I
decided to subsidize my kids' having it. Do you see my difficulty with your
stated position, Chris?
Philosophy can sometimes seem like a track meet for thinkers. But track has
no events for guys who can dash only about 20 yards.
_____________________________________________________________
A cleaner home is just a click away. Click now for great housekeeping
