[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Of course there are real variations in taste. I acknowledge that personal tastes vary from person to person. Such extreme identicality can only exist in theory, that is, in one's personal fancy; not in reality.

But you are saying that some tastes are "wrong" whereas others are "right". This necessarily implies an ideal (albeit a theoretical one) in which all tastes are identical. For me, the theoretical conclusion belies the unsatisfactory nature of the reasoning that leads to it.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Surely you can acknowledge something as good art while not liking it particularly well.

I would put it rather that I can acknowledge that many others consider it to be "good art" without regarding it as such myself.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I do not mean to speak for The Saucepan Man, and I hope he'll forgive me for jumping in here. But I think that the view of art which is in question here, one which I almost agree with, could be clarified succinctly with regard to this point: it is not a matter of saying "this is bad art; those people in the past who liked it were wrong". It is rather saying "it is meaningless to say simply that a work of art is good or bad; we can only say 'I like it' or 'I dislike it'".

Yes. That's more or less it in a nutshell. Although one cannot ignore the fact of a work of art having an enduring and widespread appeal. As I said above, I may not like the works of Dickens myself, but I have to acknowledge the fact that they are generally viewed within society as being "good art". But that is not the same as saying that they have an inherent and objective "goodness".