About Taste and Discomfort
There is almost nothing that triggers emotional outbursts more than form and aesthetics. Just think of the reception of the new Munch Museum in Oslo, or the time when Bislet Stadium changed the style of the facade. Our thoughts go to a local politician from Sørlandet who was once interviewed on Dagsrevyen. It was an at-home report where the politician stopped by a picture on the living room wall. The picture was a simple composition that showed sea, sky, sailboat and a warm yellow sun. This, he said, is a very good picture because I understand what it represents, and I like it.
Just taste, perhaps, but also a good example of how social and cultural attitudes are exposed. By pointing to this picture, the politician also said something significant about himself. Here there was no room for abstract ideas and further interpretation. His perception of quality was that form had to be subordinated to figurative clarity.
Taste is individual. It is both a mirror that reflects the culture you are a part of, and it is a window with an insight into the experiences of others. But, it is also a ruthless traitor of all that you in your innermost being had to think, feel and perceive. Maybe that's why the perceptions of music, images, architecture and design are filled with the same strength as a Yes and No.
For the designer, this means knowing their target audience and whom they are designing for. Having a certain sociological insight and cultural understanding is highly necessary when planning the brand strategy. In the book "Popular Culture and High Culture" (1974), the American sociologist Herbert J. Gans asks the question of whether an NYPD Blue drama has less artistic value than a Shakespeare drama. Who judges this, and according to what criteria? In the book, he describes different cultural levels and what characterises them. There is a big difference between the USA and Norway, but the book still gives some clues that are also relevant to us. It is maybe not completely foolproof, but definitely fun.
High culture is characterised by an interest in symbolism and creative processes. It shows a sense of experimentation, thoughtful assessments rather than quick action and an understanding of the many levels of meaning. It is also open to philosophical, psychological and social issues.The upper-middle-class culture is characterised by less literary and verbal culture. It prefers figurative art where the narrative is clear, especially if it illustrates an individual achievement and movement upwards in the social hierarchy. It appreciates 19th-century art and opera, but not contemporary art. The lower-middle-class, by that form, must express a meaning. It is not open to new interpretations, but needs to conclude. It is more interested in actors and celebrities than directors and writers. And it is influenced by "word of mouth" stories. The low culture is characterised by the fact that it is entirely without interest in abstract ideas, and that form must be subordinated to content. It is preoccupied with celebrities, actors and star worship and thinks that ornaments and other decorations are attractive.
High and low are not an expression of what is good or bad, but only a method of separating the levels. Everyone has the right to their own taste, and the idea of good taste is nothing more than an attempt at self-assertion. The local politician in Sørlandet is in his full right to like his picture, at the same time as the audience at the concert hall enjoys their regular visits. And so we live, side by side, with each other where your taste can be my worst nightmare and vice versa.
And that's really quite ok.