i believe good taste is rooted in authenticity and mastering of self, if you have that both your choices aren't influenced by what is already popular and so you build and connect to whatever makes sense to you.
Thiss!!! So few people have good taste in fashion this days, idk why maybe it's the influence of social media that remove an individuals authentic self.
“Nobody is born with sauce, you have to acquire the sauce. If you don't got sauce then you lost, but you can also get lost in the sauce. Overdose of sauce, no meat, just sauce.” - Guwop A quote which stays true, even to this day.
Something feels wrong to me about the exploration of art and culture being a means of developing “good taste”. I’m hungry for art not because I have a desire for good taste but simply because I am. Whether that makes my taste “good” or not, I have no idea
as a person with what I like to think is good (definitely niche) taste, it always throws me for a loop when I like things that are well within the cultural zeitgeist . I have to justify the barbie movie to myself much harder than, say, some local delinquent ranting over 2 banjos and a washboard
i think when people are consuming fashion trends by looking at similar secondhand styles to see if they truly like it, that somewhat prevents overconsumption and influence from branding. not all fashion trends are meant to fit all skin types (warm/cool/neutral) or body types (tall/short) because the aim is to highlight or reduce the look of certain features. everything has to look somewhat intentional from understanding what works for you, and then bending rules somewhat based on whether you want to fit in or stand out. i feel that’s why people are more critical of luxury brands these days-they don’t encompass the perfect one size fits all for every person. but developing an individual fashion style is more of a skill and clothes are just tools.
The RU-vid algorithm un-ironically has some unbelievable taste on niche music. I really recommend Casiopea for a mix of Japanese Jazz & Funk. The album with the red sportscar specifically is close to perfect
It’s crazy how what you described is exactly how I feel, almost like a path I’m on to true mastery but in regards to my passion in Graphic Design. The basic and broad elements of the discipline I learned either on my own or through formal/real life experiences and education. Although I’m still in the process of accumulating more skill and exp, I never let anything go overlooked. I love learning about new styles, eras, history, and culture via the lens of GD….. also side note that muscle building analogy was spot on haha. Keep up the amazing content like always, your channel is a true gem
Further to the muscle analogy, some 'exercises' are a lot more useful than others. Consuming hundreds of the same shoe and exclusively browsing pop-fashion news sites/accounts for info on streetwear drops is the taste equivalent of doing nothing but bicep curls every day for 5 years. Taking the time to learn about/master a particular area of interest means engaging with a variety of sources of information; high-brow and low-brow, mass-market and niche. That will continue to challenge you far better than consuming the same sort of content over and over. For me taste also comes into play with respect to authenticity. Having a developed taste (a high level of understanding/familiarity) in an area gives you the context to understand the origins and influences in things. Not just an appreciation of an aesthetic, but an undersanding of *why* things take the form they do. Your video about Heliot Emil makes me think about this; someone with a highly developed taste in fashion, who's familiar with the cultural influence of Helmut Lang etc., would be much more likely to view HE with scepticism as you do and not buy into the surface-level cool aesthetic. This also gives you a better-trained ability to perceive genuine originality and clothing worth wearing before others. Great video, and the objective aspect to taste is definitely something worth thinking about.
I think the objective art criticism lie is ruining art discourse. Art is not just better when you put a lot of time into it or because it is popular. This line of thinking just makes it easy for people to dismiss unconventional art.
@@okuzhori I agree, time/popularity doesn't automatically make something good, nor does taste necessarily translate into creation. You're right in that developing taste within an establishment (like art) must lead to some appreciating certain values/ideas over others and undervalue outsider art. This is exactly where breadth of experiences come into play - consciously engaging with both outsider art and 'establishment art' I'd argue would help you build great taste, even if some of them are considered low-brow, populist, or 'less artistic'.
I don't like that mainstream consumption is portrayed as untasteful it is the action of consuming a product mindlessly and without the intent of the creator in mind that leads to the absence of self-esteem that is ever so present in the people associated with "not having good taste". my argument is that if there is a reason that if a product is perceived as mainstream it managed to grab most of the public attention and that's rare most of the time there is something to appreciate whether its the usability that made it stand out or what the artist rendered it to be.
I don’t think "good taste" actually exists. I think it’s just a matter of reference and deciding which items/brands tie into your identity formation. When these references aren’t mainstream and give off a vibe of authenticity, we call it good taste.
A great folktronica album that not many know about is “Re.sort by Sora” some people also consider the artist Rei Harakami as folktronica. Anything from these two artists are life changing. I suggest listening to them early in the morning at the break of dawn
fuck yea man like lets fucking go man. lets get it dude. this grind never stops man. they cant handle us man!. god did man, god split the sea, god did god did juice wrld did god did. they aint believe in us, but we the best, yeah? we the best yea. this bread is about to get bought man, we gonna get this bread we gonna grind this flour, we gonna start this sourdough lets go man. man we got this, its game time, we got this in the bag man its game day man. game day man, we in the big leauges now man, we up here man, we made it, we out of the gutters, we grinded and got that bread, its all over man, we did it all, man I love you man, like I want to make love with you man, like I wanna kiss you on the lips and wake up with you in the morning bc we the best man. i love you man
Art is like science, in many ways. It strives for invention and innovation. When I see something that I consider 'tasteful' I think I always unconciously judge it simply by whether or not me or other people could come up with this as well as skillfully exectute their idea, and if you judge art/fashion/music in such a way you really need to pay attention to the details. There could be two different guys dressed in the same outfit next to me and one will make me wanna run away and the second one will draw my eyes, because of the way they fit their clothes into their personality, their overall appearance, the occasssion, it's all of these minute details that help you figure out whether that person is actually a good inventor, or they just copy and paste. It's similar with for example, 'modern art'. A red block of plastic in a white room is usually quite poor and cheap way to make money off of pretentious millionares, but I also saw a lot of minimalist, modern art that actually impressed me because it actually managed to portray a complex, intense feeling or situation into a very simple, but strong image. At certain level of skill, the devil will always sit in the details that allow you to verify real creativity.
Interesting. The "art is science" thing really put me off of going to art school which is what i thought I would do ever since I was a kid. It wasnt always this way, they started using words like "experimentation" "development" "synthesize" "transcription" actually fairly recently. But what current art schools dont realize is some art seems like it couldve been made by a child or an insane person, and it didnt go through the so called essential stages of "development" or "synthesizing" that my art teachers have carped on about and yet this same art finds it's way on gallery walls which we wannabe art kids sketch and study as if somehow through the act of doing so we could absorb some of its ingenuinity. But people have taste for it, like Pollock or a Francis Bacon painting might be considered tasteful but they lack what in art we call the enitrety of "the formal elements". Bacon actually really struggled with forms. Its a lot like Andy Warhol who's been criticized for this exact reason, Anyone could quite easily replicate his famous soup painting, but if you somehow owned one of his pieces nobody would call you tasteless. my point is I'm not really convinced that art is much like science, even they both share from one another when it comes to studying, as it's hard to justify what is "tasteful", as some things you might find horrible and pretentious as you said but another person might find impressive and beautiful. I think design might be able to be judged in a more scientific way, through the "formal elements" but even a piece which mathematically honors the principles of design (line, shadow, colour etc) may not be considered tasteful by some. Because and it might upset you, but that platitude (that I wont say) is partly true. Art is not science, it is art, unfortunately. And it's all real. It's just perhaps you and me just dont like it, but that doesnt make it any less real.
@@tcrijwanachoudhury To be fair I have no idea what you mean. But you seem to know your stuff. I never studied art, I am an artist, I would say when it comes to purely skill, I'm quite advanced. But I love science too, studying to become a doctor one day. And I think this is definately a point we can discuss over. From my understanding, you're saying that art and science differ because of the fact that art is hard to put into boxes, categories, there's no recipe, no way to describe what you're seeing quite often. As in science it is all about understanding and categories. And yes, art is naturally intuitive, emotional, and subconscious, as science is logical and conscious, in both, you learn the rules to break through them, with the awareness that we broke through them. We learn the basics within, to then know when we create something new. Both are about invention. In my opinion. And inventive art, just like inventive science is where it's purpose truly fulfills. Even if it's just reusing already made pieces and putting them together a bit differently, but in a new way that works.
I think you'd enjoy the book "David Hicks on Living-with taste". Hicks was a super extravagant English interior designer from the 20th century, he echo's a lot of the sentiments you touch on and his taste, whilst a little kitsch for me, is super cool and interesting, similiar to his fashion philosophy.
This is true, or was true for me, when I had taste. Then when I got depressed and gained weight I lost my taste. Not saying you can’t have taste and be overweight at all, just saying I didn’t because I was used to things that looked good on my previous body. Plus that y2k trend was going on same time, and it’s really best for ultra slim bodies. I really have gotten lost in the constant display of totally different trends at all times, all at once. Even though I’ve lost some of the weight i don’t know exactly where to go now. But what you have described was how I originally naturally achieved taste once. I was very much into fashion and did study it, I enjoyed it, and spent good money on it. Now I don’t want to spend as much, it feels like I have bigger needs. So idk how I’m gonna find my taste again, but this is a great place to start
I USED TO LISTEN TO BRASILIAN SKIES BUT THEN FORGOT THE NAME OF THE ALBUM AND COULDN'T LISTEN TO IT AGAIN UNTIL NOW THAT YOU MENTIONED IT THANK YOU !!!!!!
I think a consideration that would lend more nuance to this discussion of 'good taste', both objective and subjective as you describe, is the idea of the effectiveness of one's outfits and wardrobe. By effectiveness, I am thinking from an art critique sort of lens. Whether or not I think something is good or bad, or if I liked it is wholly irrelevant. Was a work (or outfit) successful in achieving what it sought out? If so, what elements can we point to (color, proportions, fit, style, 'cohesion', etc.). Obviously, if you like some, that's important, but when evaluating one's own taste (or someone else's), I believe thinking beyond opinion is of use.
my music journey is exactly like yours lol. and yeah RU-vid algorithm have an very gud taste. I would also like to recommend some of the other stuff that I enjoyed: Vanilla - Into The Dreams Nala Sinephro - Space 1.8 Skinshape - Life & Love L'Impératrice - Tako Tsubo LemKuuja - CHEESECAKE+ (not on youtube i think. edit: it is on RU-vid) Mid-Air Thief - Crumbling (Mentioned in the video) Alina Baraz & Galimatias - Urban Flora EP Gabor Szabo - Dreams (Galatea's Guitar is my favorite) Sam Wills - Breath well that's it folks. I hope that you will find something that you will enjoy and let me know if you do ; )
I would have never imagined to find inti llimani in one of your videos, its always nice to see some recognition. As a Chilean myself I would love to recommend you "mira niñita" by los jaibas or "la partida" by Victor Jara. Nice video!
@@okuzhori calling art subjective is a cop out, you can try to understand why an outfit is good like: silhouette, proportion, color theory, visual interest & other stuff. It’s good to wear something that you like but it’s also okay for it to be objectively bad, just look at Y2K people lol Also let’s be honest, bliss is an absolute goat in fashion theory and overall knowledge but not in outfit building
@@memelord3348 what’s supposed to make a silhouette objectively bad? The answer most people give is that a lot of people dont like it, and the thing this video is trying to say is that something is objectively bad when people who spend a lot of time reflecting on clothes say its bad. Both are obviously wrong. People not liking something doesnt make that thing objectively bad. Just means that thats a subjective opinion held by most / „knowledgeable“ people. Also, this knowledge thing is also so dumb. People like Bliss can know everything there is to know but he is not accepted into the good taste club because he has a unique style. This objectivity in art / good taste thing was always just a mechanism to exclude the people we dont like (people with niche tastes that challenge the status quo and in the most extreme cases minorities like the jews in the third reich)
I´m relativly new to fashion but have a clear picture of what style I want to acquire. I just don´t know what it is called or how I can find the things to build such style. Do you guys have any tips on how to build the vocabulary to express what I´m looking for? Thx
Massimo Vignelli said: ‘if you can design, one thing, you can design anything.’ i don’t agree. but i do agree with you when it comes to taste. good taste in one thing doesn’t necessarily translate into good taste in another thing.
Sounds like you landed on a lot of the same conclusions that philosopher David Hume did about critiquing art 👌 A piece of art/fashion may have merit on its own, but the more exposure you have to other pieces in the same medium, the stronger your basis of understanding is to judge whether or not a piece is "good". In other words, if you say Storage Wars is the best TV show ever made, but you've never watched anything else but Storage Wars, your opinion doesn't have much merit. Great video! EDIT: Hume had more criteria to what makes good taste, like delicate sense and lots of practice in critique, but exposure to other pieces of art was a key part of it
like someone else in the comments said already - saying art is subjective is a cop out; but i would also add on top of that that there absolutely IS a subjective layer to art when it comes to its interpretation and being inspired to it. but its not 100% subjective, someone with knowledge of art and media history will, for example, interprete an artwork in a way more complex and throughout way than a random bystander without this knowledge. and a trained painter isnt gonna copy an artwork itself - theyre gonna take the artworks nuances and use it to their own advantage, while an untrained artist will likely either copy it or try to emulate its elements in a context that wont be lifted / expressed more efficiently with the technique. so, i would sum it up - for good taste, knowledge, patience and studying is the common denominator, but the unique personality of the individual is what makes people of good taste look different / enjoy different art.
@@60oh the thing is that you are missing the point by a bit. Someone with experience will interpret it differently but not just inherently „better“. People have different perspectives on things and just saying one is better than the other just serves the dominant groups in society to repress perspectives of minority groups. If you are interested in the „art is 100% subjective“ standpoint you could watch the videos on objectivity in art by Patricia Taxxon or jack saint and the video „who is afraid of modern art“ by Jacob Geller talks about how fascists use the objectivity in art perspective to further their political interests.
hey @fashionlover4, you mentioned a website in one of your recent vids where it’s a long list of designers and pictures of the runway. what’s the name of it?
