How would you characterize your taste and preferences in regards to art, music, films, and literature? What do you think it says about you?
I do think tastes are a mixture of class, nature, and nurture as are a lot of things in involved with personality development. But in particularly aesthetics are heavily influenced by class. Good taste is often associated with symmetry, pristineness, minimal color, elegance but never gaudy or "too much." It is associated with the masculine, reason, and order - the Apollonic (though I'd rather use Athena in terms of greek gods since ironically she fits more nicely into the yang part of the duality than even Apollo). On the other hand, bad taste is associated with gaudiness, the profane, a lot of color, the feminine, emotions (by way of passion overtaking the person), and chaos - the Dionysian. There are two things that are happening here:
1) The upper class, particularly before the internet, had access to a multitude of different types of cultural capital especially in regards to the classics - in literature, music, films, fashion, and philosophy. They had the time and resources to consume media that were more complex and required more of an education. On the other hand, the poor and working class mainly had access to the lowest common denominator of culture - the most profane, superficial, and fleeting parts of mass culture as they neither had the time and resources to consume the more refined aspects of culture. There's a homogenization that goes on in both cases. With the upper class, there's definitely a defined standard as to what is considered good taste. There are certain types of cultural capital that one must consume in order to be classified as having good taste. The range can be very limited. While for the poor, gross commercialism is what they're mainly exposed and have access to.
2) Marginalized groups also recreate their own subcultures. They have codes and signifiers that are entirely their own or in contradistinction from the commercialism and upper class tastes they've been exposed to and pitted against. Or they subvert the values of both systems. So in some ways the upper class is a lot more uniformly homogenized than the lower class/marginalized.
Especially with the advent of the internet, most people share a mix of these qualities now that we have unlimited access to all sorts of things.
As for my tastes, I definitely lean towards the refine and obscure since that's where my natural inclinations lie. I was raised mostly upper middle class, so I had access to different types of cultural capital. However both of my parents (mom and stepdad at the time) are fairly conventional in their tastes so neither of them really had an influence on my tastes. I'm not opposed to mainstream media on principle; there are a lot of mainstream things I do enjoy. But most of it I can't relate to. I find it boring, uninteresting, and plebeian....until you really analyze it. Of course when you analyze anything, it starts to become deeper and more interesting than initially thought. All in all, I like stuff that stimulates me- intellectually, emotionally, and viscerally. The piece of art doesn't necessarily have to be 'good' as long as it awakens something in me.
I live in a predominately working class blue-collar town, so there's a certain of mentality that's present which includes the type of media they consume. While I appreciate working class grit and resourcefulness, there's a type of straightforward simplicity I can't relate to. The what you see is what you get types, and their taste in media and the way they consume media is an expression of that. Most importantly, they consume media in order to escape the drudgery and hopelessness of their existence, while I consume media to enhance certain aspects of my existence.
I do think tastes are a mixture of class, nature, and nurture as are a lot of things in involved with personality development. But in particularly aesthetics are heavily influenced by class. Good taste is often associated with symmetry, pristineness, minimal color, elegance but never gaudy or "too much." It is associated with the masculine, reason, and order - the Apollonic (though I'd rather use Athena in terms of greek gods since ironically she fits more nicely into the yang part of the duality than even Apollo). On the other hand, bad taste is associated with gaudiness, the profane, a lot of color, the feminine, emotions (by way of passion overtaking the person), and chaos - the Dionysian. There are two things that are happening here:
1) The upper class, particularly before the internet, had access to a multitude of different types of cultural capital especially in regards to the classics - in literature, music, films, fashion, and philosophy. They had the time and resources to consume media that were more complex and required more of an education. On the other hand, the poor and working class mainly had access to the lowest common denominator of culture - the most profane, superficial, and fleeting parts of mass culture as they neither had the time and resources to consume the more refined aspects of culture. There's a homogenization that goes on in both cases. With the upper class, there's definitely a defined standard as to what is considered good taste. There are certain types of cultural capital that one must consume in order to be classified as having good taste. The range can be very limited. While for the poor, gross commercialism is what they're mainly exposed and have access to.
2) Marginalized groups also recreate their own subcultures. They have codes and signifiers that are entirely their own or in contradistinction from the commercialism and upper class tastes they've been exposed to and pitted against. Or they subvert the values of both systems. So in some ways the upper class is a lot more uniformly homogenized than the lower class/marginalized.
Especially with the advent of the internet, most people share a mix of these qualities now that we have unlimited access to all sorts of things.
As for my tastes, I definitely lean towards the refine and obscure since that's where my natural inclinations lie. I was raised mostly upper middle class, so I had access to different types of cultural capital. However both of my parents (mom and stepdad at the time) are fairly conventional in their tastes so neither of them really had an influence on my tastes. I'm not opposed to mainstream media on principle; there are a lot of mainstream things I do enjoy. But most of it I can't relate to. I find it boring, uninteresting, and plebeian....until you really analyze it. Of course when you analyze anything, it starts to become deeper and more interesting than initially thought. All in all, I like stuff that stimulates me- intellectually, emotionally, and viscerally. The piece of art doesn't necessarily have to be 'good' as long as it awakens something in me.
I live in a predominately working class blue-collar town, so there's a certain of mentality that's present which includes the type of media they consume. While I appreciate working class grit and resourcefulness, there's a type of straightforward simplicity I can't relate to. The what you see is what you get types, and their taste in media and the way they consume media is an expression of that. Most importantly, they consume media in order to escape the drudgery and hopelessness of their existence, while I consume media to enhance certain aspects of my existence.
).
Comment