Right... and since many of our aesthetic experiences are intentional, we do shape our own tastes.
There's a partnership of sorts involved, I'd say. But I also recognize that some of them are shaped by forces we don't control. I hate the taste of celery. Always have. Still do.
I fully agree.
Actually, that's nearly what I've been trying to convince Arthur of for this entire thread
I'll have to kick it around with him.
I used the word taste interchangeably with the word preference. In which case, only your first definition would apply. All taste is personal taste. As Arthur pointed out earlier in the thread - appreciation is not enjoyment.
If taste is relegated to the expression of personal enjoyment it becomes something less than it should. In fact, I'd argue that much of what we enjoy is sharpened and defined by an appreciation for things less subjectively desirable. Or, you may hate the study of our language, but its appreciation greatly impacts your enjoyment of Mark Twain or Elmore Leonard.
And the sounds of a traffic jam are quite a bit more complicated than the simple melody of "Mary Had a Little Lamb."
But none of that (complexity, construction, effort to produce) tells us which ought to be more pleasing to the ear.
Music isn't merely sound. It is the sum of effort, construction, complexity utilized in a medium of expression. And taste isn't merely what we prefer, but what is preferable within an understanding of those elements and the standards involved. So a person can prefer
Mary or
Happy Birthday to You subjectively, but they're still pale, trifling expressions set alongside of Mozart's
Ave Verum Corpus or
Blue in Green by Miles Davis. There's so much more than a simple, single melody on those plates. The degree of artistry in evidence is as clearly superior to the musician as Shakespeare is to Jackie Collins to the writer, regardless of which wins the popular derby, so to speak.
Ought to be pleasing is a bit off, to me. Rather, what we should or can understand to be the superior work is evident. How we feel about it depends on any number of factors. I tend to believe that the more we understand music, the more likely we are to appreciate the scale of those works within it.
How dare you insult the Painter of Light! :chuckle:
Serves him right for never working in those poker playing dogs so beloved by...people who also enjoy Elvis on crushed velvet? :think:
A mother may consider her child's painting hanging on her refrigerator to be of an infinitely greater value than anything hanging in the Louvre.
She will treasure the fact that the work on her refrigerator springs from the hand of her beloved, but no mother who is rational will compare her child's playing of Twinkle, Twinkle with Andsnes playing a Beethoven concerto. And even that mother would recognize the growth of her young prodigy over time and understand the superiority produced by the growth of his or her skills, valuing it beyond the sentimental association. And she will understand that likened and superior (in construction) works are appearing on refrigerators across the world, while Monets are not.
It's why we don't teach our children to play a sport however they feel like playing it. If they're serious, we teach them fundamentals and drill them over and over, understanding as any artist does, that they are a foundation upon which something greater can be achieved.
Anyway - who's right? This issue of value is entirely subjective.
There are two things being considered, the greatness of a thing and our response to it. The latter is partially innate and partially informed by the former.
Case in point - Have you been to the MOMA?
Amazing place set up to explore both greatness and diversity within the arts.
And yet... do you think most people would more readily live without Mozart or their favorite Lite FM station?
We can live without great literature and confine ourselves to the Sunday comics. It doesn't suggest the greatness of either.
