Hacker News Reader

Comment by codeulike | Hacker News Reader

This ignores the sociological aspects - having 'good taste' in something (art, sneakers, car modifications, tattoos) is a way of signalling membership of a group or distinction within that group. Even being interested in [classical] 'art' in the first place is a signifier of being in a certain strata of society. The way this essay is written seems anchored in one very particular social strata and the signifiers that characterise it. Replace 'art' with 'sneakers' and re-read, how does it seem different?

View on HN

I think sneaker aficionados would say that there really are designs that are better than others. That's even leaving aside functionality and just considering aesthetics. To those of us outside the sneaker-head community, sneaker fashion looks like a lot of noise and kind of silly. But I'd expect if one really got into sneaker fashion one could learn to appreciate the different colors or fabric patterns or whatever else drives their interest. And then one could say that some particular design really is better than another.

Same for tattoos or car modifications. Yes, there's a lot of signaling within your social strata, but if you're in that strata it's valid to say that some tattoos are better than others.

Also it's okay not be in the loop. Not everyone has to have an opinion on why Leonardo Da Vinci is a better artist than Botticelli.

While you can find taste within any field or art, choosing which subject to apply your taste to is also a matter of taste.

I generally agree with you but signaling membership is far from the sole reason people like art - for example: the existence of hidden "guilty pleasures" indicates purely aesthetic enjoyment! I personally like fountain pens and riding a one wheel despite really hating the cultures around both of them

But the key point you're making - that good art only exists in a specific context - I totally agree with. Good taste/art exist only in relation to a specific culture, and depends on what that culture values (technique, creativity, bold ideas, traditional ideas (for example: pre-romantic period, good composers were seen as empty vessels "pure music" divinely flowed through rather than as geniuses with bold new ideas)). Shostakovich wouldn't have had a chance 100 years prior.

Social signals exist, no doubt about it, but that doesn't explain a lot. Let's say you are in a museum alone, some of the works presented can resonate and excite you more than the others, but you can't share your excitement with anyone. Where is the social signaling element gone then?

Social signals aren't real-time light-beams that someone has to be there to witness; they make up our likes and interests and who we are.

Let's say you are in a museum alone, some of the works presented can resonate and excite you more than the others, but you can't share your excitement with anyone. Where is the social signaling element gone then?

Lets say: Two months later I'll be at a dinner party and over a bowl of Caldo Verde I'll recount an anecdote about the Paul Manship sculpture that I saw that time in the museum on my own, and how it was placed in relation to the other works.

Yes but your momentary reaction to what you see, how much of it is "social"?

It could be the case that a lot of the momentary, solo reaction is driven by your brain's anticipation of those future social situations.

I'm sure it's partly that. But then how do things become fashionable? Who defines the common taste for the rest of the society? Now we are back to the basics and I'll stick to my hypothesis (I explained elsewhere in the thread) that it's about appreciating novelty.

Being in a museum itself is a "social signal".

This is easily disproven by showing a child two paintings.

How? The kid will like the one painting targeted at kids and that is it.

Also, kids are exactly the demographics super susceptible to claim liking or disliking things based on what their friends say about them.

That doesn’t make sense.

Show a kid 2 paintings they’ve never seen before. Show it to them in isolation. Guess which one they pick?

How would that prove there is no sociological aspect? Or that people don't use taste as in-group signaling?

I'm almost positive most kids would pick a Lisa Frank piece over the Mona Lisa. Are you trying to make the point that bright colors, rainbows, and unicorns are the highest form of art?

To be fair, Mona Lisa as general go to example of bestest painting is on itself a proof that taste is socially constructed.

I agree with you, and view my comment as complementing yours by refuting the parent, rather than making a value judgement on Lisa Frank's work. Apologies if I missed the mark there!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com