Community Stories

Aristocracy of Taste v/s Democracy of Acquisitions (Reflections)

Tony C.
Posts
7,643
Likes
26,498
bradurani bradurani
The key word is "taste", a loaded term if there ever was one. It's a term pregnant with the power to divide on nearly every sociological fault line in the human experience. Let's discuss "aristocracy" first though. An aristocracy is something you can't be part of unless you're born into it, or close enough to it that you can discover its inner workings and earn your entree through effort and flattery. "Aristocracy of Taste", then, means you can't have taste unless you're born into taste, or close to it. Like aristocracy, taste isn't learned, it's instilled in you from the previous generation, or earned through close association with and careful study of those who were so lucky.

In the watch world, taste isn't quite so inaccessible, but it does take time to cultivate, understand and collect, and you'll never acquire it unless you fraternize with those who already have it (OF is a good place to undertake this task)

Thanks for the thoughtful post. One quibble though. Some people, in fact, are born with good taste. To use but one, high-profile example, Herbert and Dorothy Vogel worked as civil servants (he was a postman, she a librarian) in New York City for more than a half-century, while amassing one of the most important contemporary art collections in the world. Herb never finished High School.

Early in their marriage they took painting classes together, but abandoned it for collecting. They had no outside source of income, and a one bedroom, rent-controlled apartment in NYC. They used Dorothy's income to cover their living expenses and, instead of eating in restaurants or travelling, used Herb's income for art. They didn't buy for investment purposes, choosing only pieces they personally liked and could carry home on the subway or in a taxi. They bought directly from the artists, often paying in installments.

Herb's salary never exceeded $23,000, and the couple's collection, now housed in major galleries, ended up being worth hundreds of millions.

That's just one example, of course, but I would argue that while good aesthetic taste can, at least to a certain extent, be acquired, many are likely either born with it, or without it.
Edited:
 
Archer
Posts
27,359
Likes
69,758
Tony C. Tony C.
Herb's salary never exceeded $23,000, and the couple's collection, now housed in major galleries, ended up being worth hundreds of millions.

So having good taste is determined by the future market value of your purchases?

Is this a widely accepted measure of what “good taste” is?
 
krogerfoot
Posts
1,068
Likes
3,703
Archer Archer
So having good taste is determined by the future market value of your purchases?
That didn't seem to be the point of the story to me. Do you really think anyone really believes this, or would admit to believing it?

I thought the story of the Vogels was about validation. They bought things they liked, and years later the collective opinion of the art world is that they had an otherworldly discernment for recognizing brilliance. Is the market value of the collection the only way to assess it?

I do in fact feel a sense of validation when something I admire and feel is underappreciated later becomes recognized by others whose judgments I consider sound. If you buy a watch that you happen to like in 1985 and in the intervening years multiple collectors wish to offer you 2000% the price you paid for it, does that say anything about your taste or aesthetic discernment or whatever we should call it? Or just that you were lucky?
 
Tony C.
Posts
7,643
Likes
26,498
Archer Archer
So having good taste is determined by the future market value of your purchases?

Is this a widely accepted measure of what “good taste” is?

When it comes to mature markets such as the Fine Art market, and especially in this context, it absolutely is a clear indicator. These untrained people typically collected the works of younger and/or less well known artists whose work had not yet been "discovered" by wider audiences. They didn't get lucky – they accumulated thousands of works, across a broad spectrum of mediums and styles, a high percentage of which that were ultimately considered worthy of places in various galleries. There isn't the slightest doubt that they had superb taste, and especially given that they were never collecting with future values in mind.

Of course the relationship of the two (value and taste) is not always taut, as there is plenty of room to argue about the beauty of individual works, or the style of certain artists. There are plenty of very valuable works of art, and watches, that I wouldn't want anything to do with, and can't easily imagine why others would. But when experts in a particular market virtually all agree on the importance (which is connected to value in mature markets) of a body of works, then it would be hard to argue that the taste of those who collected them, and before most were even aware of the artists, wasn't very good indeed.
Edited:
 
Scooterino36
Posts
887
Likes
2,756
Quite simply, I view my watch collecting as hedonist behavior. I buy watches that make me happy (often irrationally), and I like to geek out about watches with the rest of you nuts. My collection preferences fall in line with my personality/style, but whether that is considered tasteful I leave for others to decide. Said differently, perhaps I don't take my collection strategy as seriously as others might.
 
Archer
Posts
27,359
Likes
69,758
krogerfoot krogerfoot
That didn't seem to be the point of the story to me. Do you really think anyone really believes this, or would admit to believing it?

It seemed to be a major argument made in the determination of taste, along with the same people who highly values these paintings considering them "important."

I asked if this was a common manner of determining taste, because I don't know who believes it, or who would admit to it.

krogerfoot krogerfoot
I thought the story of the Vogels was about validation. They bought things they liked, and years later the collective opinion of the art world is that they had an otherworldly discernment for recognizing brilliance.

Yes, validated by the same people who highly value the paintings as well. I don't believe you can separate the value of the paintings from the group of people who are making this determination.

I see this as being almost "circular" logic...

To me this is a story about not following what is "in good taste" and following your likes and desires, rather than being an example of "born with good taste" whatever that actually means. AFAIK there has not been a gene identified for "good taste" or "bad taste" yet, so "taste" is a function of societal norms, rather than anything genetic.

krogerfoot krogerfoot
If you buy a watch that you happen to like in 1985 and in the intervening years multiple collectors wish to offer you 2000% the price you paid for it, does that say anything about your taste or aesthetic discernment or whatever we should call it? Or just that you were lucky?

Unless you can claim to knowing the future, it's just luck. No one knows what the market is going to determine to be in good taste years down the road. As someone has already pointed out, the PN Daytona was not a good seller originally, so did the people who liked it and bought it know that in the future it would be worth what it is now? Of course not...they just got lucky (if they didn't sell it prematurely).

Tastes change all the time...do you still wear 80's clothing? What everyone then thought was good taste, certainly isn't considered to be now...
 
Archer
Posts
27,359
Likes
69,758
Tony C. Tony C.
But when experts in a particular market virtually all agree on the importance (which is connected to value in mature markets) of a body of works, then it would be hard to argue that the taste of those who collected them, and before most were even aware of the artists, wasn't very good indeed.

I would argue this confirms that the tastes of those who collected these works, and those who now value then highly are common (meaning in agreement). The market agrees that these paintings have merit, but the question I have is more fundamental - is this really what good taste is?

Not sure I can make this leap based on your example...
 
JwRosenthal
Posts
16,246
Likes
44,716
I think taste, like humor is very much cultural as well. What we in western culture may deem as good taste or humorous doesn't translate to other cultures, or even within sub-cultures of our own culture. I think there are those who inheriently understand taste (and humor) better than others, wether that is innate or learned behavior (nature versus nurture) is something that has been debated since the beginning of modern culture.
Although I may not understand why something may be considered "in good taste" or understand why financial value has been placed upon an item, I try not to mitigate the value it may have to others- it's not for me to determine anyone else's taste- that's what we have social media infuencers for 🙄
 
Tony C.
Posts
7,643
Likes
26,498
Archer Archer
The market agrees that these paintings have merit, but the question I have is more fundamental - is this really what good taste is?

Ah, well, my above example is admittedly a narrow one. I was in no way implying that the Vogels had good taste in all things. In fact, most would probably find the contrast of their art collection, and how they dressed and decorated their home (beyond the art works), to be quite sharp.

They were, however, somehow able to discern "good" art, and well before the broader establishment had done so. I posit that they simply had natural gifts for identifying such art. Good, or exceptionally good "eyes", one might say. But to your question, is a demonstrably good eye for something fairly specific the same as having "good taste"? No, perhaps not.

I would say that in the broader sense, some people do appear to have good aesthetic taste across a broad spectrum. They dress well, decorate well, collect well, etc. Sure, there is some subjectivity involved, but I'm thinking on the basis of what would likely be consensus agreement. And while it would, for obvious reasons, be an advantage, I don't think that having a lot of money is an essential advantage. Having some? Yes, essential, but not a lot.

So, some people appear to me to have gifted eyes for specific things, while others show "good taste" across the board. Perhaps the latter is more typically acquired?
 
Archer
Posts
27,359
Likes
69,758
Tony C. Tony C.
They were, however, somehow able to discern "good" art, and well before the broader establishment had done so.

This is where my doubt lies though. If the market had not later come to the same place, for whatever reason, then these would just be a collection of paintings that would get sold at a yard sale for a few bucks.

The validation arguments being made seem to have some sense of inevitability to them that I'm not sure really exists. Yes, it certainly happened the way it happened, but I guess I'm not convinced this was the way it could always, or should always have happened. I suppose this is a bit like the victors being able to write the history...

Tony C. Tony C.
I would say that in the broader sense, some people do appear to have good aesthetic taste across a broad spectrum. They dress well, decorate well, collect well, etc. Sure, there is some subjectivity involved, but I'm thinking on the basis of what would likely be consensus agreement.

The "consensus agreement" is the part I am unsure of mostly.

In the case of the paintings, it's a consensus of art collectors and dealers, but are they the true arbiters of taste? Are there true arbiters of taste? Does the fact that a majority of people consider something good, mean that it is actually good?

I think what JwRosenthal mentioned has some merit. This is all very cultural, and not necessarily in a broad sense. I don't believe people are "born" with a good eye (other than measurable eyesight of course). I believe this is all learned in some way...

In any case, interesting discussion.
 
Peemacgee
Posts
5,460
Likes
8,495
As I tried to explain earlier, you can't be born with or acquire 'good taste', as there is no such thing.

The Vogels bought what they liked and were ahead of the game in appreciating what others later became to appreciate and value.
Aesthetic appreciation is frequently transitory, some aesthetic ideals have longer periods in favour than others but there is no guarantee that any standard for 'good taste' will last.

Rosy faced children in country gardens and highland cattle in Scottish gloamings were the height of 'good taste' in Victorian times.
There are a myriad of country homes that have had their facades ripped off only to be replaced (sometimes multiple times) with the latest style.

There is a theory that beauty is in mathematical proportions (e.g. the golden section) but nobody can really say what attracts someone to a painting, or building, or watch because it is entirely subjective.

One man's meat is another man's poison is an apt saying here.
If you like something that the fashionistas tell you isn't in good taste, it doesn't make them right - just ask the Vogels.......
 
krogerfoot
Posts
1,068
Likes
3,703
Archer Archer
Yes, validated by the same people who highly value the paintings as well. I don't believe you can separate the value of the paintings from the group of people who are making this determination.

I see this as being almost "circular" logic...
You seem to be arguing that there's no such thing as aesthetic value, just a certain number of people who agree with one another. Not that I necessarily disagree with you there, but your logic is kind of circular as well. Certainly the people who value the paintings now agree with the couple who valued them before anyone else. That's just the definition of validation, not an argument for or against anything.

Archer Archer
Unless you can claim to knowing the future, it's just luck. No one knows what the market is going to determine to be in good taste years down the road. As someone has already pointed out, the PN Daytona was not a good seller originally, so did the people who liked it and bought it know that in the future it would be worth what it is now? Of course not...they just got lucky (if they didn't sell it prematurely).

Tastes change all the time...do you still wear 80's clothing? What everyone then thought was good taste, certainly isn't considered to be now...
OK, but I at least am not making an argument that liking something is some kind of prediction of the future. I'm only saying I—and maybe I was wrong before, and I'm the only one who feels this way—tend to feel satisfaction when people come around to thinking and expressing a value judgment that I had made when that judgment wasn't so prevalent. I had value judgments in the 1980s that I no longer assess the same way, and if pundits suddenly decide that shoes that look like flotation devices and parachute pants are in fact wondrously beautiful, I won't feel vindicated—I'll think they've lost their minds.

Whatever that says about taste—I don't know. The Rolex PN Daytona watch has no appeal for me. If I had no idea of its market value, I wouldn't particularly want one. Since I don't own one and don't plan to acquire one, I don't think that says anything about how lucky I am, but it does seem to point to something about my taste in watches.
 
Lucasssssss
Posts
622
Likes
996
krogerfoot krogerfoot
I had value judgments in the 1980s that I no longer assess the same way, and if pundits suddenly decide that shoes that look like flotation devices and parachute pants are in fact wondrously beautiful, I won't feel vindicated—I'll think they've lost their minds

Have you not heard Parachute Pants are definitely back in!

https://www.yesstyle.com/blog/2015-04-29/whats-hot-how-to-wear-your-harem-pants-like-a-pro/

Reminds me of the Sneeches (worth a quick watch if you haven't heard/read it). A comment on taste, aristocracy and democratisation in itself.

 
Tony C.
Posts
7,643
Likes
26,498
Archer Archer
This is where my doubt lies though. If the market had not later come to the same place, for whatever reason, then these would just be a collection of paintings that would get sold at a yard sale for a few bucks.

I don't buy that argument in this instance. We're talking about a wide variety of mediums, styles and artists, and after 60+ years, their importance in the art world will never be disputed. It could not have been luck.

Of course subjective tastes change, but that isn't the same thing. I dislike, to use one of many examples, Cy Twombly's work, but can still recognize that he was an important artist, and that his work has value even if one is not attracted to the aesthetics.

Archer Archer
The "consensus agreement" is the part I am unsure of mostly.

In the case of the paintings, it's a consensus of art collectors and dealers, but are they the true arbiters of taste? Are there true arbiters of taste? Does the fact that a majority of people consider something good, mean that it is actually good?

Obviously the market is shaped by the opinions of professionals who take part in it, as well as collectors, and it would be sheer anarchy otherwise. That consensus is not limited to collectors and dealers, though, but also museum curators and other professionals within the industry. If there is very broad, or near-unanimous consensus among those groups, then yes, they are the arbiters of which artists and works are broadly considered to be important.

If you are personally repulsed by Monet's work, that has no bearing on his standing as an artist, nor the value of his work.

If there is only partial agreement amongst the professionals, then the future standing of the artist/work would be less certain, and more subject to change.
 
Archer
Posts
27,359
Likes
69,758
krogerfoot krogerfoot
You seem to be arguing that there's no such thing as aesthetic value, just a certain number of people who agree with one another.

Well, there's an old saying - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm certainly not proposing anything overly radical here, as I don't think it's unusual for people to say that taste is very personal. And yes I'm not convinced that there is anything that determines agreed upon aesthetic value, other than consensus.

krogerfoot krogerfoot
Not that I necessarily disagree with you there, but your logic is kind of circular as well.

Sorry, you will have to explain how that is "kind of circular", because I don't see it.

krogerfoot krogerfoot
Certainly the people who value the paintings now agree with the couple who valued them before anyone else. That's just the definition of validation, not an argument for or against anything.

I agree, and it says nothing about aesthetics. Just validation by the same people who place a high value on the works.

krogerfoot krogerfoot
OK, but I at least am not making an argument that liking something is some kind of prediction of the future.

Just to be clear, I'm not either. I was just answering the question you asked.

krogerfoot krogerfoot
I'm only saying I—and maybe I was wrong before, and I'm the only one who feels this way—tend to feel satisfaction when people come around to thinking and expressing a value judgment that I had made when that judgment wasn't so prevalent. I had value judgments in the 1980s that I no longer assess the same way, and if pundits suddenly decide that shoes that look like flotation devices and parachute pants are in fact wondrously beautiful, I won't feel vindicated—I'll think they've lost their minds.

Not sure you are the only one that feels this way, and by no means am I saying it's wrong to feel that way. Just that feeling this way isn't necessarily because you have good "taste" just that you happened to like something that the market has come around to collectively seeing as good for whatever reason.
 
Tony C.
Posts
7,643
Likes
26,498
Peemacgee Peemacgee
The Vogels bought what they liked and were ahead of the game in appreciating what others later became to appreciate and value.
Aesthetic appreciation is frequently transitory, some aesthetic ideals have longer periods in favour than others but there is no guarantee that any standard for 'good taste' will last.

This is wrong. There is no possibility that the Vogels' choices won't stand the test of time. Art history may be fluid in some respects, but important artists and works are not re-assessed after 75 or 100 (or 500) years as having been unimportant.

Peemacgee Peemacgee
There is a theory that beauty is in mathematical proportions (e.g. the golden section) but nobody can really say what attracts someone to a painting, or building, or watch because it is entirely subjective.

One man's meat is another man's poison is an apt saying here.

You're confusing personal taste with a broader and deeper appreciation of something exceptional. Of course different styles of art and architecture, etc., go in and out of fashion over of time. But that which is considered exceptionally good and/or important by broad consensus, when placed into the context of (at least) hundreds of years of production, does not somehow lose its status because of transitory fashion.
 
Rman
Posts
2,430
Likes
9,801
Mob of Ideologues
Cadre of Collectors
Economy of Acquisitions

(won’t say which brands go where)
 
krogerfoot
Posts
1,068
Likes
3,703
Archer Archer
Sorry, you will have to explain how that is "kind of circular", because I don't see it.
I think the consensus on the Vogels' collection shows that they had a remarkable discernment for artistic talent. You (I think) say no, it's just that a bunch of people later happened to agree with their value judgments. But of course, people who agree with one another, then, do indeed agree with one another. "They only value the Vogels' tastes because they agree with them" is a circular argument, I think.
 
Archer
Posts
27,359
Likes
69,758
Tony C. Tony C.
I don't buy that argument in this instance. We're talking about a wide variety of mediums, styles and artists, and after 60+ years, their importance in the art world will never be disputed. It could not have been luck.

It's very clear you believe this, and are are invested in this idea being right. I have no idea if this is "right" or not, and my questions are more broad than you are seeing, so not sure we will come to any conclusion here.

Tony C. Tony C.
Obviously the market is shaped by the opinions of professionals who take part in it, as well as collectors, and it would be sheer anarchy otherwise. That consensus is not limited to collectors and dealers, though, but also museum curators and other professionals within the industry. If there is very broad, or near-unanimous consensus among those groups, then yes, they are the arbiters of which artists and works are broadly considered to be important.


Yes, I get that. But again I'm speaking in much more fundamental terms. These works are important because someone decided they were, and others have agreed with this, not because of some other truly intrinsic reason. If the consensus shifts, then these works will fall out of favour. I think if you get your head out of the specific art example it may allow you to see more of what I'm referring to...

I do like that you described the alternative as anarchy, surely those with money to lose would feel the same. I tend to think of it more as freedom...freedom from the tyranny of the experts and markets that they are a slave to...

This is why my advice to people for watches (back to what this thread is actually about) is and always will be, to buy what you like. If you are lucky (like the Vogel's) the market may come around to finding what you like to be the current aesthetic de jour...but if not, you have watches that you enjoyed along the way.

Cheers, Al
 
177 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

tyrantlizardrex

Affordable Space Art - A Couple of Acquisitions

tyrantlizardrex Open Discussion
SpeedyPhill
SpeedyPhill
Posts
50
Views
5K