The Social Constitution of Taste

[Gruto]

You can buy clothes but you cannot buy taste. Taste is a personal capacity. Some say that you are born with that capacity. I think that is true, partly. You acquire taste as well. Let me just point to three social forces that distort the pure taste:

1) Life, personal and public life, structures your senses disposing you for liking certain types of music, food, women, behaviors, and (dressing) styles. You learn to like. Think of brussels sprouts.

2) There's a human quest for identity. It distorts the idea about pure taste as well. Conciously or unconciously, you strive become someone or to live a lifestyle through applying taste.

3) There's positioning too. Instinctly, you position your taste as opposed to someone else's taste. For instance, you prefer style to fashion, Wagner to hip hop, soft tailoring to hard tailoring, Brummelian restriction to Windsor fun, brown captoes to black captoes etc.

Now, I don't think that a sociological approach can de-mystify taste. But I cannot see, how you can get closer to the mystery of style, if you do not apply it.

[Costi]

Gruto, I believe all that you say is true about STYLE, rather than taste. And you state it, too, in 1) - but then you go back to writing about taste.
Style is, indeed, influenced by social factors, by the cultural environment, because it is the way we CHOOSE to dress, to eat, to listen to music, to live our lives. But taste (or lack thereof) is inherrent in all of these activities, it is a natural inclination (or a type of intelligence, as Bruce Boyer very well defined it) that makes us "instinctively" appreciate one thing and not another. But liking Wagner and disliking hip hop in such broad terms is not taste - it may be snobbery, if anything. A man of taste will recognize a well-inspired passage in a hip hop tune and aknowledge it, just as he will not be shy to say certain pieces of Wagner are exaggerations lacking in harmony.
I think the relationship between taste and social life (or the quest for identity) works the other way round, in that taste (if it is there) will naturally lead one towards certain styles. If one manages to keep one's "taste sensors" fresh and not let them get calcified by cultural overstructures, one may be able to discover and enjoy other styles throughout one's lifetime. There is always a tasteful way of giving in to fashion, to hip hop, to hard tailoring ( ) or black captoes. And that is what makes it personal and individual - it will be YOUR way of doing these things.
As for the Windsor fun, it is itself a manifestation of ever green taste - you see him now in Brummelian restraint and now in peacock colourful splendor. He never cared about rules and conventions, but about what seemed tasteful to him. And I believe he was right 90% of the time. And when he was not right, it never blunted either his taste or his sense of humour.
Taste is an internal compass: it doesn't know about left and right, the right way or the wrong way; it keeps pointing to the north, no matter where you are. You may travel by car, by train, by airplane or on foot. You may be heading north, east or all the way south - it will keep pointing to the north, if you will listen to it. It doesn't matter if you get lost at some point or another, as long as you still have your compass; if you don't, or if you stop listening to it and try to be rational about finding your way, you are doomed to go about in circles forever.

[Gruto]

taste (or lack thereof) is inherrent in all of these activities, it is a natural inclination (or a type of intelligence, as Bruce Boyer very well defined it) that makes us "instinctively" appreciate one thing and not another.

Costi,

I don't doubt that we as human beings have an inclination to taste the world making judgements about it. What I wonder is how freely we do it. The undisturbed or disinterested judgment of taste is there to strive for, but quite difficult to apply. Our life experience, quest for identity and need of positioning our selves in relation to other people are mighty gravitational forces.

liking Wagner and disliking hip hop in such broad terms is not taste - it may be snobbery, if anything. A man of taste will recognize a well-inspired passage in a hip hop tune and aknowledge it, just as he will not be shy to say certain pieces of Wagner are exaggerations lacking in harmony ... If one manages to keep one's "taste sensors" fresh and not let them get calcified by cultural overstructures, one may be able to discover and enjoy other styles throughout one's lifetime. There is always a tasteful way of giving in to fashion, to hip hop, to hard tailoring ( ) or black captoes. And that is what makes it personal and individual - it will be YOUR way of doing these things.

I agree that that is what characterize people who come close to excercise pure judgement of taste.

As for the Windsor fun, it is itself a manifestation of ever green taste - you see him now in Brummelian restraint and now in peacock colourful splendor. He never cared about rules and conventions, but about what seemed tasteful to him. And I believe he was right 90% of the time. And when he was not right, it never blunted either his taste or his sense of humour.
Taste is an internal compass: it doesn't know about left and right, the right way or the wrong way; it keeps pointing to the north, no matter where you are. You may travel by car, by train, by airplane or on foot. You may be heading north, east or all the way south - it will keep pointing to the north, if you will listen to it. It doesn't matter if you get lost at some point or another, as long as you still have your compass; if you don't, or if you stop listening to it and try to be rational about finding your way, you are doomed to go about in circles forever.

Windsor's internal compass was created by long letters from Queen Victoria and his father on how to dress. They made him extremely aware of how he presented himself. Along the way he internalized the social pressure and became a master of judgment of taste (in aesthetic matters). Windsor is an example on how you create a genius of style

[Costi]

The undisturbed or disinterested judgment of taste is there to strive for, but quite difficult to apply.

Gruto, I think it's not at all difficult to apply - in fact it is so easy, that we tend to regard it with the reluctance of one who says: "It can't be that simple!". It is, if we let it. But we have to rationalize everything...

Windsor's internal compass was created by long letters from Queen Victoria and his father on how to dress.

I know people who never had Windsor's parents or advisors, never had his (or others') education or exposure, and still have an unfailing sense of what is tasteful. Perhaps it is like having absolute pitch: you don't need a point of reference (in matters of taste - cultural, social etc.) and you are born with it; you may study all your life and become an accomplished musician, but you will never develop perfect pitch. It is there from the outset or not at all.

I wholeheartedly agree that STYLE is something we develop, according to the social and cultural environment in which we live, and that our choices are heavily influenced by what we learn, our search for an identity and our positioning with respect to others.

[Gruto]

Gruto, I think it's not at all difficult to apply - in fact it is so easy, that we tend to regard it the reluctance of one who says: "It can't be that simple!". It is, if we let it. But we have to rationalize everything...

Judgement of taste should be unforced to be true judgement of taste. I should be simple. I agree. But sometimes it's difficult to do simple things. "He makes it look easy," we say. Of course, he's been practising 30 years to internalize what he does.

I know people who never had Windsor's parents or advisors, never had his (or others') education or exposure, and still have an unfailing sense of what is tasteful. Perhaps it is like having absolute pitch: you don't need a point of reference (in matters of taste - cultural, social etc.) and you are born with it; you may study all your life and become an accomplished musician, but you will never develop perfect pitch. It is there from the outset or not at all.

I don't think that everything is determined by your social life path. What catches you is important too, that is, you have a personal life path as well that develops your taste. I do think that some people are born more talented than others. But how important is it to understand style? If you ask Andras Schiff or any other musiciasn, or chess champion Magnus Carlsen, they will all say that 95 percent of their succes is hard work and attention to detail. Ease, naturalness, unforced judgment might is often based on a mountain of suffering

[alden]

Let’s go back one step, I have borrowed the word “style” and use it here as a general substitute to describe a phenomenon that would normally be described by many adjectives: attractive, sexy, magnetic, charming, witty, chic, captivating, engaging….words that describe the presence that some people are born with like others are born with perfect pitch. This is the phenomenon that so interested Balzac, who called it elegance.

I think the word elegant as it is normally used today has the sense of words like refined, sophisticated, educated, well dressed or worldly. And this is in my mind another subject. It is possible to embody any of these characteristics and not have magnetism or charm. And most often, these words actually coincide in our minds with words that are not so happy, like studied, self conscious, narcissistic, or precious.

I wonder what it is that the lucky stylish few actually possess, how it manifests itself and what we can learn from it. I am almost entirely sure that “style” is not learned, but that it is lost in the process of our learning.

Early pictures and films of Fred Astaire demonstrate that he naturally knew how to move, that he was “born to dance.” He may have studied dance,taught his teachers and raised the standard of performance to an unknown level. But he did not become Astaire by going to charm school. He was born with charm, as well as, talent.

We can readily accept as a society that genius or virtuosity in music or mathematics is born. Mozart is an example. He was born with millions of Julliards diplomas in his head. But we cannot accept that some people are born with other attributes at birth, such as innate style, or maybe it is with hopeful thinking that we choose to assign these gifts to the lot of attributes that are merely learned or conditioned by society.

There is another potential explanation. It could also be that we all possess the energy of style at birth. But that some people are able to maintain a contact with their primordial selves, what Blake called “innocence” and that the rest of us shroud our natural style in the fearful process known as “experience.”

I find this explanation likely. The real threat to spontaneous style is the study we engage ourselves in to find it.... in society, in others, in mores, customs, traditions and fashions. It isn’t there and the farther we journey along this path the deeper the darkness.

So, it could be that people who have kept the password, those who are in harmony with their true natures, their souls, those who trust their instincts, are more attractive and learned in the magical power we call style.

Remember Archie Leach's own words, "every man wants to be Cary Grant, I want to be Cary Grant too!"

Maybe the one thing we need to learn is the way to best unlearn.

Cheers

Michael

[Costi]

I do think that some people are born more talented than others.

That's the key, I think. In my understanding, taste is a talent. A gene.

But how important is it to understand style?

Very important. And it can be done with or WITHOUT having native taste. We can learn to dress well, as Michael wrote in a recent post.

"He makes it look easy," we say. Of course, he's been practising 30 years to internalize what he does.

If you ask Andras Schiff or any other musiciasn, or chess champion Magnus Carlsen, they will all say that 95 percent of their succes is hard work and attention to detail. Ease, naturalness, unforced judgment might is often based on a mountain of suffering

I agree with you that having taste does not mean you will easily realize things others have to work for. Not at all. Taste is a favourable premise.
Last night I attended an organ recital of Thierry Escaich, professor of music at the Paris Conservatory and the best organ improviser around. As you may know, the capacity to improvise beautifully is a rare quality - among others, Mozart and Beethoven were known as great improvisers. Few piano cadenzas were written down by Mozart for his concerts, because players were expected to write their own or, better, improvise acording to the inspiration of the moment. Not many can do this well. Of course a good improviser is also a good performer, one who has studied and worked a lot. Mr. Escaich gave a few excellent examples last night, that raised the audience to their feet with enthusiasm. No amount of hard work can account for this ability, but talent and... taste.

[Costi]

Michael and I must have been posting at the same time. I used the word "style" with a different meaning from Michael's, to differentiate what is acquired and chosen from "taste", or that which is inborn. It may be a language thing. I understand what Michael means by "style" and agree with it. Perhaps someone could suggest a different word for what I meant by "style" in this thread. I may have created some confusion with words...

[Gruto]

Some people are more gifted than others, in matters of taste, style, and visual expression as well. But not even the genius will become a genius without education, will, passion and the right social conditions. Cary Grant worked extremely hard to achieve supreme ease and charm. Mozart was taught by his father, a composer and musician, from a very early age. Picasso's story shows the same pattern. His father was a painter, and he taught his son as well. And there was a prince ... a very stylish prince ... he was taught by his father, mom, grandfather and great grandmother about style and behaviour.

Now, if you take away all the passion, education and hard work, isn't there something left, a core, a gift? I think there is, I just don't know what to do with it.

[alden]

Now, if you take away all the passion, education and hard work, isn't there something left, a core, a gift? I think there is, I just don't know what to do with it.

Lets try another set of analogies. Have you ever seen a woman who has all the physical attributes of beauty but is not attractive? On the other hand, have you ever seen a woman who has few physical attributes but is extremely attractive? In French there is actually an expression for this kind of attraction,avoir du chien, a woman has chien Maybe the source of the attraction is passion, education, hard work or parents but somehow I doubt it. So what is the source of the attraction? Hard to say...it can be many things. Studying those things may bring us nearer to improving our own presence, our own attractiveness and seductive potential.

Hmmm now that would be nifty, non?

Cheers

Michael

[Costi]

I hope you won't find it presumptuos of me to quote myself, but my thoughts on this found a good expression in the post below, taken from this thread: http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... ted#p43370

The more I think of it, the closer I come to the notion that elegance is a talent, as Balzac defines it: “a cultivated inclination”. If the seed is not there when we first open our eyes upon the world, any amount of education will be useless: we will be informed, perhaps able to recognize elegance when we see it, but never elegant ourselves. If the seed is there but it is not cultivated, it will sprout a couple of leaves and maybe a bud, but it will never grow into a fully blossomed rose.
The innate component is a predisposition, a certain keenness of the senses backed by good intuition and imagination: a good eye for colours and shapes, a good ear for harmonious sounds, a sensitive palate and nose, but also the intelligence needed to discern and make connections between these things. I have yet to meet an elegant man who is not moved by beautiful music or doesn’t care what he eats. All these often come as a “package”, there is a quality and fineness to the senses that manifests itself in all of them, even if not necessarily in equal measure. The educational component regards the superior forms in which these basic principles are put with intelligence to produce outstanding results, the study of how they work and how they work together. The study of elegance is, therefore, a matter of resonance: if one’s inner strings are propitiously calibrated, they will pick the vibes from the outer world and make them into their own music.
What we admire in others' dress is the expression of this quality of the spirit and of the senses. To be truly inspired by them, and not just copy a style, we should seek to understand the person – intuitively, first of all, and through study, whenever possible. We need to accord our spirit with theirs - once again, “resonate” - and pick those particular vibes. It is through empathy that it is possible to dress “a la Cary Grant” or “a la Fred Astaire” without immitating. It is the difference between memorizing Shakespeare’s sonnets to mechanically reproduce them when an opportunity presents itself, and writing sonnet CLV as if by Shakespeare himself.
But inspiration is just a stepping stone, a phase towards decanting one’s own style. Inspiration strikes our strings, but some will produce pleasant chords while others will be in dissonance or simply not react at all. We pick what we like, what we understand, what makes an impression with us. Day by day, with each new inspiration we keep tuning our cords, which will begin to sound differently with time even to the same stimuli. That is how we remain authentic, original and dynamic.

[alden]

That is how we remain authentic, original and dynamic.

Costi

Now we are playing the game, one that may be productive. You have singled out three key words and they do correspond intrinsically to what we have chosen to postulate as style.

I think authentic is an underrated virtue..it is very attractive. Men are consumed with artifice of all kinds. Most of us and especially the ladies, or any lady we would wish to seduce, can see through these constructs with xray eyes. Strength is one of the over riding and fundamental ingredients of style and authentic is one embodiment of strength.

Sinatra, one of the most stylish and seductive of men, gives a great example of authentic in his rule 11: "Don’t hide your scars. They make you who you are." This is almost exactly the spirit of wabi sabi, perfection through imperfection. It requires moral strength and character to accept who you are, so associated with this concept will also be pride, a positive validation of one's value. A Sicilian, Sinatra was a proud man.

Original is another key component of style that men overlook in their desire to look like everyone else and in doing so render themselves invisible to the fair sex who wants nothing more than to experience them. In nature, males who are fit to mate have found ways to be seen by selective females. But our young men of today, practically do the opposite. Go figure. Will fashion have a detrimental effect on natural selection?

Vigor and dynamism are also fundamental to style.

I am less concerned about classic studies of elegance here, though your exposition on the subject is first rate. I am curious to learn what it is that makes ladies weak in the knees and grown men cower.

Carry on...we have a good bit of work to do here...there are many more key words to learn from.

Cheers

Michael

[Gruto]

Have you ever seen a woman who has all the physical attributes of beauty but is not attractive? On the other have you ever seen a woman who has few physical attributes but is extremely attractive?

That's a persuasive analogy - it's very true

I hope you won't find it presumptuos of me to quote myself, but my thoughts on this found a good expression in the post below, taken from this thread: http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... ted#p43370

The more I think of it, the closer I come to the notion that elegance is a talent, as Balzac defines it: “a cultivated inclination”. If the seed is not there when we first open our eyes upon the world, any amount of education will be useless: we will be informed, perhaps able to recognize elegance when we see it, but never elegant ourselves. If the seed is there but it is not cultivated, it will sprout a couple of leaves and maybe a bud, but it will never grow into a fully blossomed rose.

Cultivated inclination is indeed a wonderful concept. I think I would stress "cultivated"

[Costi]

I think I would stress "cultivated"

Most talented men and women are unaware of their talents, so few get to cultivate them. But if the talent is not there to cultivate...

[alden]

Cultivated is a two edged sword.

If in cultivation one keeps to the analogy of springing forth from the seed, the essential DNA in tact, then we are describing internal awareness, recognition and acceptance of one’s self, a a sine qua non of true style. That is what I mean when I say that all men are born with style, because they all have a seed. But some make better use of it than others.

If on the other hand we are talking about grafting extraneous growth and ornament sought in the world that bears no relation to the seed, and is therefore incompatible, and this is the most commonly accepted and practiced idea of cultivation, it’s a dead end. Balzac was not talking about this kind of gardening.

Shopping is more fun and certainly easier than coming to terms with one’s imperfections. Of course, there is a human need to externalize and idealize the other, until the seed dries up a withers away.

That's a persuasive analogy - it's very true

There was a good deal of push back when I tried to discuss “chic” a few years ago. It was even asserted that the concept did not exist in reality and was merely a woman’s fashion term. I was having a drink with an LL member the other day and told him about a book I was reading on the very subject, and mentioned I was going to rename “chic” with “style” to calm the spirits and give another go at describing it. I was reassured when this member started to quote my article on chic and said he kept a copy of it to refer to.

In this discussion I am less interested in taste per se, except to the degree that the taste creates a compelling and attractive image. I have seen many a tasteful man with the seductive quotient of a cadaver. Since we have been over the concepts of classical elegance over and over again on the LL, I thought it might be amusing to discuss what makes one man or one woman, attractive or “stylish” as opposed to another.

If we could learn some of the secrets, it would not be a bad thing.
My father used to say of Sinatra, "Frank had them all!" How did he do it?

Cheers

Michael