It makes no sense to say taste is dead. Taste is fundamental to deep consciousness. It is subjective and can't be regarded objectively except in metaphor, perhaps even for the person whose taste is being regarded. But it is the stream of thought that goes on all the time in our experiences involving beliefs, desires, and our private histories. We are always engaged in a constant flow of liking, disliking, wanting, avoiding, and imagining those feelings as if they were represented by images, objects, words, etc.
WC Taste is one of the hard questions and takes us into the mind-brain problem. --- Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 11, 2008, at 10:55 AM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I think the idea of taste re art is dead. Quite > dead. > > I rather doubt that. Taste is no more dead than > classical realism was > in Bobbio in the eighth century, struggling, lost, > forgotten, but not > dead. > > And inasmuch as children must (at least > figuratively) kill their > elders to get their chance to make their own world, > today's irony--or > whatever--will yield to other interests. > > Taste, as such, won't die, either, because people > will still choose > one man or woman over the others, and expect that > their spouse or > partner will reciprocally choose them to the > exclusion of others, too. > Those choices are rarely made solely upon pragmatic > grounds (good > breadwinner, good mother, travels extensively, > etc.), but upon the > preferences of living that are based on experience, > informed by > nexuses (nexii?) of cultural values, and susceptible > to training and > refinement. That's taste, it's an appetite, not an > emotion, and it > starts in bed and proceeds to the kitchen, and > thence to galleries, > show-rooms, and theaters. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
