Why do we associate expensive/rich with good taste? Why does a person liking Margiela Tabi’s connote that the person has ‘good taste’? Would we consider it ‘good taste’ if we saw someone not economically strong standing in front of an unfinished brick wall and a broken door instead of a creator wearing brands top to bottom?
Bad taste has long been the punchline of cultural criticism, something that degrades value because of it’s direct relation to clear classism and elitism.
Throughout history, critics, historians, sociologists have worked hard to give it a coherent meaning-- one that doesn’t offer a conceited & elitist outlook.
Art Critics like John Berger contemplated the idea that taste was influenced by power structures and historical context rather than a purely inherent quality.
For those with some cultural/historical context, this urinal is an iconic art piece. For those seeing this for the first time- it’s nothing more than a meaningless (& disgusting, of course) urinal.
This is a piece from the ‘Dadaist’ movement.
Also considered- the ‘Anti-Art’ movement. Its main purpose was to challenge artistic norms, present non-confirming pieces as ‘Art’ as a critique on the modern art world and the elitist aspect of it that included good/bad taste.
But, with whatever Marcel Duchamp (the artist) intended, decades later it’s used as an indicator of good taste, defeating the entire purpose of the piece and the movement.
That brings up the question, is it bad taste if it goes against artistic norms? or is it good taste if only a niche group is able to appreciate it?
Does the good taste actually speak of appreciation of art? or does it speak about the elitist mindset that appreciates only what ‘nobody else understands’ ? Does the bad taste actually speak about our inability to accept what’s new and different? or does it indicate low monetary value?
