Derek, what drives your opinion? Now I can't resist my taste to quote T.H. Huxley. "There is no greater mistake than the hasty conclusion that opinions are worthless because they are badly argued." B. Shoshensky
-- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No. But my statement that Bougueureau is not an artist has nothing to do with 'taste'. It is my opinion. DA ----- Original Message ----- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [???] Re: Taste Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:54:36 GMT > Then your statement that Bouguereau is not an artist is > dead?! Boris Shoshensky > > -- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the idea of > taste re art is dead. Quite dead. > > DA > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Taste > Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:05:23 GMT > > > '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
