All You Need to Know About Aesthetic Taste (Pt. 1): The Hierarchy of Taste
The evaluation of taste and aesthetic judgment has always been a crucial part of our lives. Probably even more so in this over-commodified society that we live in. In this short series of articles, I wanted to review the nature, origin, development, philosophical frameworks, and evolution of aesthetic taste. While exploring previous theories and some of the most recent empirical surveys I will try to answer several questions I had that led me to the thinking and writing of this series. In the first chapter of this series, I'll discuss the hierarchy of taste, its social and cultural construct, as well as the shift and development of such hierarchical structure.
Kant, Universal Validity, and the Judgment of Taste
The term "judgment of taste" emerged in the Enlightenment period and particularly in Kant's systematic theorization and discussion of aesthetic judgment in 1790 in his infamous 'Critique of Judgment'. The term "judgment of taste" was mentioned several times throughout the essay, but it's worth noting that what Kant refers to by "the judgment of taste" is different from what is commonly understood today. The judgment of taste was used to specifically refer to the aesthetic judgment of whether something is beautiful or not, rather than a judgment of someone's individual taste or aesthetic preference. Though Kant did not explicitly talk about the hierarchy of taste, his concept of the "universal validity" of taste implies that judgments of taste made by individuals with more refined aesthetic sensibilities carry more weight or authority than those made by individuals with less refined or cultivated tastes, hence suggesting the existence of "higher taste" or a hierarchy of taste, which was later solidified, developed, and criticized by many other Enlightenment-era thinkers. The hierarchical conception of taste was further reinforced by the emergence of cultural institutions in the 18th/19th centuries. The association of higher taste with higher social class gradually takes shape around the same period, which is part of the discourse and cultural norms shaped by the dominant class at the time to further solidify their social status. It wasn't until Pierre Bourdieu's 'Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste,' published in the late 20th century, that we saw a comprehensive analysis of the power dynamics involved in the shaping of taste, acquisition of social and cultural capital, and solidification of status. Though Diderot did critique the cultural elitism and express skepticism towards the association between higher class and higher taste earlier than Bourdieu, he did not delve into the details of such a hierarchical structure of aesthetic taste shaped by the aristocracy and academic institutions of that time.
Bourdieu, Social Conditioning, and the Hierarchy of Taste
Taste is a social construct. When people refer to taste, be it their "unique taste", the "public's taste", the "elitist's taste", or the "prevailing taste", they are referring to the social positions, the identities, or cultural capital implied by or associated with such taste. Though the evolutionary and neurobiological perspective suggests another reading for the formation of taste, which will be discussed in the following chapters, here we focus on the social and cultural construct of taste. Taste is not innate or universal but a set of internalized social and cultural norms, values, and preferences. Individuals' tastes are influenced by their social class, education, upbringing, and exposure to different cultural practices and institutions, which in turn further stratified the cultural hierarchy and social inequalities. Through the observation of the preferences of institutions, spanning the industry of art, design, cinema, music, or fashion, one can quickly grasp the idea of how taste and aesthetic preference, coined by Bourdieu as "cultural capital", have been used to assert some individuals or social groups' cultural superiority and privileged status. No judgment of taste is pure, or disinterested, in this case. To Bourdieu, taste is never just individual preferences and is never purely subjective. Rather, it is internalized social relationship that reflects all kinds of social conditioning and power relations.
Brooks, Cultural Contradictions, and the Blending of High and Low Taste
When Bourdieu wrote The Distinction in 1984, he probably didn't foresee how the capitalist society could evolve with digital technologies and social media. The contemporary cultural landscape has shifted due to the hyperconnectedness, the aesthetic overload, and the blurred boundaries between mainstream and non-mainstream that happened in the last few decades. Although the hierarchy of taste and the influence of the dominant class still exist, we see more homogenization of taste and a gradually blurring line between what's considered good taste and bad taste. As David Brooks pointed out in "Bobos in Paradise", it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish the bohemian counterculture — which stands for the rejection of mainstream societal norms, values, and tastes — from the bourgeois capitalists — which represents the dominant class, the rule makers, and the norm/taste creators/adherers. He coined the term "Bohemian Bourgeois" to describe the mix-up of high and low culture/status/taste after the demographic shifts of the 1950s that shaped the self-contradictory nature of our post-modern society.
"…the bohemian and the bourgeois were all mixed up. It was now impossible to tell an espresso-sipping artist from a cappuccino gulping banker."
"the sort of desperate mixing of high and low that Bobo intellectuals strain achieve in their effort to persuade people that they are not elitist or boring." — David Brooks 'Bobos in Paradise'
The rebellion against the high status, the bourgeoisie, and bourgeois tastes was no longer necessary, valid, or possible due to the blurring boundary between what is mainstream and what is not. The seemingly rebellious elements in counterculture, such as art, music, or lifestyle, have been commodified and marketed on mass media. What used to be marginalized and overlooked has been included and become part of the capitalist societal norms. Such a pattern is especially prevalent in the contemporary art field, where the boundary of art and non-art has been blurred, and the individual artworks have become self-contradictory "paradox-objects", as Boris Groys called it. There is no distinction between high art and low art in the contemporary art sphere. The once marginalized and overlooked art have all been included in institutions, the art market, and mainstream discourses, just like the destiny of all other bohemian counterculture elements. Under this context, we see a return of subjective aesthetic judgment that favors personal taste and self-expression, which, interestingly enough, has already been anticipated by Thierry de Duve back in 1998 when he talks about 'Kant after Duchamp.'
In the following chapters we will look into the subjective nature of taste and what decides the formation and development of taste beyond social and cultural conditioning, as well as what sensory aesthetic experience might have to do with the evolution of taste.