How is artistic taste determined?
What is "artistic taste" and how is it defined? The question was born out of a conversation with a friend: when she found out that I liked the paintings of Kuindzhi, Levitan, Shishkin, Peredvizhniki, Vrubel, Vereshchagin, Monet, Degas, van Gogh, Rockwell and many other artists, mostly impressionists or realists, she accused me of "blinkering", "backwardness", "boomerism" and "lack of taste" (despite the fact that I just told her what I liked, and did not start yelling in the spirit of "This is art, and what is it not now"). In response to my puzzled question "What's wrong?" I was given a lecture on the fact that a person with good taste should love Malevich, Chagall, Warhol, Picasso, Banksy and what is included in the concept of "modern art". Is this really the case? I'll note that I'm not saying that modern art is bad, I don't understand it, and so on. I fully recognize it and understand it, but mostly I like something else. So what is "taste" and "tasteless"?
A person with good taste doesn't owe anyone anything. Especially someone, or something to love. Artistic taste is a lot of looking, the ability to perceive and feel, plus an understanding of what I'm looking at and how it works. We often confuse the concepts of “like/dislike” and “understand/don't understand”. It seems to me that a person with a developed taste is able to understand these subtleties of their feelings. For example, I know that Picasso is a genius, and I understand why and how his works work. But I don't like them personally. At the same time, I can even admire his methods and depth of meaning. Artistic taste, in the modern world, is a very individual thing, it is not guarded by the holy inquisition, deciding what is worthy of being called high art and what is not. And statements in the spirit of: “a person with good taste should” – some kind of youthful maximalism
I have been in similar situations, and first of all, of course, we are talking about the point of view, and personal choice, due to the individuality of each. It is necessary to respect the choice of each person, and not to set your own values as fundamental. It's even about culture, I think. Very good previous answers. And I feel your lack of understanding in this situation. And the question reveals the conflict of identification, attitude and perception of art. I have heard that Russia was stuck in the 17th-18th century on “Zelenka”, Shishkin, etc. and in the West, almost every schoolchild understands composition much better and wider. A more precise answer will be given by an art critic due to his competence, but from my point of view, “separation of tastes” is related to individual perception. For example, “banks” and “square” are more a concept, the picture behind which breaks more words than fine art. Go deeper into the details and features-divide by category, and it will be clear that the fashion will pass, but the classics will remain. Taste doesn't chase after fashion, if you have a craving for classics, that's great.
Hm… The most difficult thing to write about is the obvious things. Well, I'll try.
Taste – that's what it tastes like, to “taste and color …”. But how to determine whether it is there or not (right/wrong, good/bad) definitions I have not yet seen. So I came up with it myself. So:
you have good taste, if it is yours and for you
you have bad taste if you impose it on others.
That is, a good artistic taste somehow calmly selects what “falls on the soul”, and a bad one requires forced distribution. Your question shows this very clearly.
I note that the second part of my definition works much more often than the first…