My area of interest: Taste discussion

The main text in this body of texts themed around 'Taste' is called 'The Aesthetic Imperative' by Virginia Postrel. It tells us that today design is not just about functionality, but also emotion. We are much more aware of the design of things. Becky mentioned an Ikea example; In England after the shop opened its doors everyone was getting designerly things for a quite cheap price, everything got more tasteful and modernist.

The way we relate to shops and design shops has also changed. We visit them and despite not needing anything, we feel driven to get a piece of that lifestyle. To spend an extra few pounds for something beautiful; A designed pair of scissors or garbage can, to replace the perfectly functional utilitarian pair of scissors or bin we already have. The author also says that the 'thing, the product' must work but the main reason that brings us to the cashier is the aesthetic value and the way the object of desire looks.

Nowadays the way we make decisions on buying a computer, a cell phone or a magazine has as much to do with its aesthetic value and the shop we buy it at, as the function it performs.

The text isn't just about retail but also style. We want everything to be special, our houses, our clothes, the market we shop at...everything means something and says something about ourselves, our lifestyle and our taste. Delighting the senses is enough: "I like that" rather than "This is good design".
The text also mentions that our age is characterized by more variety and not less. We are seeking more and more to differentiate ourselves from one another, to be cool but also to be unique. Today, buzz cuts and ponytails coexist, without a social consensus and mostly without conflict - in my opinion that is a good thing about diversity. On the other hand what once was an ethnic based subcultural style, is now just a style with no depth or political position. As a result, ethnic styles do not stay in their literal or metaphorical ghettos, nor do they remain pristine and traditional.

Why does this happen?
The text says that some of these aesthetic adapters are influential designers or trendsetting celebrities.
And globalisation must have helped the wide spread of these subcultural styles. Exchanging huge amounts of information over the internet has also changed things. The way fashion editors and shop owners agree on next season's "must-have", based on advertising sales. More magazines, directed to different readers. iMacs and iPhones for everyone, but millions of different applications, colours and different carrying cases. "Mass production offered millions to everybody". "Mass customisation offers millions of different models to one guy."


Luxury for everyone
Everyone wants something by a famous designer. To attend to the custumers wishes and make profit out of them, the most famous fashion-houses have lines of products for everyone. The £4000 coat as well as the little £30 coin-wallet. Perfumes are the same, what in the past was a extremely burguoise product is today in most people's bathrooms, in many different aromas and labels. It is the thing that we buy, the brand and what it represents that makes us feel one way or another. The "It's not who you are but what you've got" way of thinking has spread into modern society, specially in big cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Paris, London and Tokyo.

Rubbish Theory: Antique x Second Hand
People are prepared to spend more money on something considered to the antique or vintage than second hand.

Contemporary Art
The same way of thinking is apparent in contemporary art. When Marcel Duchamp started to question what he thought was wrong with art he was reinventing the way we criticised and saw it. His thinking was new, creative and stated a new definition of the artist and his relationship to the world and society. Duchamp's ideas have been used as an excuse for poor contemporary art. The art world has become a marketing circus inhabited by a few very well-known artists. Tracey Emin once being questioned about her work in the London's 'Sensations' exhibition, said that her piece (a messy bed, covered in cigarettes, condoms, food and garbage all round it) was art, because she said it was. I wonder if Duchamp would have agreed.