So what the premise of Tony's argument seems to be to me, is that while individual tastes are subjective, collective tastes are not - they are somehow transformed into being objectively good or bad based on how experts and the market see them. I simply do not agree with this idea, and believe that even when a collective of experts or laypeople find something aesthetically pleasing, it's still subjective.
One can, of course, think of art, or watches, or cars, etc., in different ways. It is possible to be attracted to something that few others might like, or that is not considered to be "important" by expert consensus. It is also possible to dislike something that is widely considered to be attractive, or does have importance within the genre.
A decorative work may be aesthetically pleasing to a very high percentage of those who view it, but simultaneously be technically unimpressive and unimportant.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that people should be free to enjoy whatever forms of artistic expression appeal to them, and not be pressured into limited choices by "experts". But while our disagreements are likely related, at least in part, to semantics, I would say that collective tastes
do often have deep meanings. Take rap music as an example, a genre that a fairly large percentage of the populations
despises. It's not my cup of tea, either, but I nevertheless understand that it is an
extremely important form of artistic expression, and that its popularity is far more about a shared expression of grievances, rather than than creating and enjoying "attractive" art.
Because of your expertise, you are able to explain why a particular movement is extraordinary, and what separates it from other, similar movements. Fine Art experts can, of course, do the same thing. My previous Pollock example would serve well.
Now, you may object on the basis that you can explain, and measure in technical terms why a particular escapement (or whatever) is superior. But the difference, in this context, between art (and perhaps especially music) and machines, is actually quite fine. Experts in art and music can often explain in great detail what made the work of certain artists and musicians so extraordinary, and why they are, or should be considered historically important.
Take some of the greatest artists and musicians: Leonardo da Vinci, Rembrandt, Mozart, and Beethoven. Do you imagine that the virtual unanimous agreement about their greatness, over hundreds of years and countless generations of viewers, listeners and experts, should somehow be treated with suspicion because there is necessarily some subjectivity involved? Should the opinions of those in the minority, who may prefer listen to heavy metal music, and think that classical music "sucks", carry equal weight, or erode anyone's confidence in the
status quo understanding of Mozart?
Are you are willing to accept that there are, in fact, objectively great artists, such as those mentioned above? And if so, then at what point, to your mind, do such designations become suspect?
