Taste as I see it is a means or standard for one to judge an
object. In order to have good taste, one must have multiple experiences with
similar objects. ‘Good’ in this case can also mean refined. If one experiences
an object for the first time and thinks that it is particularly good,
beautiful, etc. and then one experiences a similar object and thinks that it is
better than the first, then one starts to establish a standard of taste. As one
builds on the experiences of similar objects, one creates more points of
reference in determining the quality of an object.
Taste of course can be broken down into smaller segments.
For instance, I may like action films more than any other kind of movie. This
does not mean, however, that action films are the best type of movie. What is
required of an action movie in order to make it a good action movie is
different than the standard with which we judge other genres of movies or even
films qua films like cinematography, music, acting, etc. We can judge objects
both as a representative type of object like a movie, but also in smaller
categories like an action movie. Arguing about taste, therefore, needs
restriction and focus in order for it to be worthy of debate.
In the Critique of
Judgment, Kant argues that there are four moments to an aesthetic judgment:
disinterested pleasure, purposiveness without purpose, subjective universality,
and necessity. When discussing the subjective universality, Kant argues that
the beautiful comes from a subjective standpoint because it is in the realm of
feeling. Despite the fact that it is subjective, the claim seems to necessitate
agreement from others. When we make a claim about the beautiful we have a
feeling that everyone should agree with us, almost as if we are appealing to a
rule or law. This state, Kant supposes, is universalizable because we are
appealing to a form that exists in objects. If perhaps we were able to obtain
this universal state from which we could all judge the same object, then maybe
we could come to a universal determination about taste.
Arguably, however, taste cannot become universal in the
sense that it will forever stay the same. As we have seen over the centuries,
what each culture decides fits the standard of good taste differs tremendously.
This does not mean that there is no such thing as taste, but rather that taste
changes based on the subjective culture of the time. Not only has the taste of
each culture changed, but also each culture remains biased to some degree. It
would be wrong to try and rank cultures and say that one culture’s standard of
taste is better than another, and it would also be wrong to argue that we know
what culture looks like from a non-masculine-dominated perspective. As we have
learned so far from the course, males, white males in particular, have
dominated much of aesthetic history. An overwhelming majority of ‘good’ artists
were white males, and not only that, but white males predominated the positions
with which to judge art as well.
It is hard to know exactly if we are able to reach the
unbiased judgment that Kant argues for. So much of what has been defined as
‘good’ comes from biased sources. For instance, wealth plays an important role
in determining taste. People will often select the more expensive item and call
it good because they know that they are supposed to because it is more
expensive. I do not think this means that there is no way to distinguish
between better objects of the same kind, but it certainly becomes harder when
things like wealth, status, race, and gender have so greatly influenced the
terms we use to distinguish between good and bad objects.
When discussing Hume’s understanding of taste in class we
asked the question, “why might there be a standard of taste?” The answer was
that Homer has lasted over the centuries, but many other poets have fallen by
the waste side. Certainly there are elements of Homer that make his work stand
out, but that does not mean that the influences of his culture and every
subsequent culture make it so that we understand Homeric poetry as ‘good’
poetry. There may have been several poets that wrote great poetry but we do not
know it because women wrote it or because the people at the time did not find
it to be of any worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment